A country with loose rule of law – for example an absolute monarchy with no independent judiciary – may arbitrarily choose to assert jurisdiction over a case without citing any particular justification.
Such assertion can cause problems, such as encouraging other countries to take arbitrary actions over foreign citizens and property, or even provoking skirmishes or armed conflict.
Executive prosecutorial authority and foreign policy also play a role in scope and practical impact of jurisdiction choices.
Some countries (like China) prefer to prosecute their own citizens for crimes committed abroad rather than extradite them.
In the United States, the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a court must both comply with Constitutional limitations, and be authorized by a statute.
[4][citation needed] The intersection of American federalism and the rules and theories of jurisdiction inherited from the common law of England has resulted in a highly complex body of law respecting personal jurisdiction in the United States.
Three fundamentals of personal jurisdiction constrain the ability of courts in the United States to bind individuals or property to its decisions: consent, power, and notice.
Generally, the action is initiated in the jurisdiction where the event occurred, where the defendant can be served or where the parties have agreed to have the case located.
The doctrine of consent is also extended to defendants who attend and litigate actions without challenging the court's personal jurisdiction.
[7] The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution preserve the right of the individual to due process.
Due process requires that notice be given in a manner "reasonably calculated" to inform a party of the action affecting him.
Originally, "Notice" (and the power of the State) was often exercised more forcefully, the defendant in a civil case sometimes being seized and brought before the court under a writ of capias ad respondendum.
Nowadays, when exercising power over an individual without consent, notice is usually given by formal delivery of suitable papers to the defendant (service of process).
Since an actual tract of land could not literally be brought into a courtroom as a person could, this was effected by giving notice upon the real property itself.
Once a valid judgment was obtained against an individual, however, the plaintiff could pursue recovery against the assets of the defendant regardless of their location, as other states were obligated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to recognize such a judgment (i.e. had ceded their power to refuse comity to fellow states of the Union).
Following Pennoyer, extreme applications of territorial jurisdiction revealed imperfections in the doctrine, and societal changes began to present new problems as the United States' national economy became more integrated by increasingly efficient multi-state transportation technology and business practices.
While determining the physical location of an individual for the purposes of in personam jurisdiction was easy enough, applying the same principle to non-physical entities became difficult.
Bearing in mind that territorial jurisdiction existed in a pre-industrial society where transportation across the country was difficult, long, and potentially treacherous, and consider the hypothetical wherein Alice owes Bob money, and Bob owes Carmel, a resident of New York, money.
The US Supreme Court largely abolished the exercise of jurisdiction on the basis of quasi in rem in Shaffer v. Heitner,[12] except in exceptional circumstances, which sometimes would arise while dealing with real property such as land, and when the owner of the land cannot be found.
In the modern era, the reach of personal jurisdiction has been expanded by judicial re-interpretation and legislative enactments.
[15] What constitutes sufficient "minimum contacts" has been delineated in numerous cases which followed the International Shoe decision.
For example, in Hanson v. Denckla, the Court proclaimed the "unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.
"[16] The additional requirement of "'purposeful availment' ensures that a defendant will not be hauled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random,' 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' contacts, or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person".
[19] In the 2011 case of Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, Justice Ginsburg held that for the exercise of general jurisdiction in personam, the defendant must be "essentially at home."