綜觀我國實務見解，可知在我國國際財產權訴訟管轄權議題上仍有以 下議題待進一步研究：第一，我國民事訴訟法第 1 條以下有關土地管轄之 規定是否及如何能發揮作用於定國際民事訴訟管轄權？第二，我國法院得 否援用不便利法庭原則拒絕國際管轄權？第三，以原就被應否作為解釋國 際管轄權分配的基本原則？本文主張在我國亦應類如德國、奧地利、法國 法肯定土地管轄規範的二重機能性，並基於國際管轄法安定性等理由拒絕 普通法上不便利法庭原則或日本法上特別情事理論的繼受。在國際財產權 訴訟上，特別審判籍應以其制度意義與目的能正當化被告離開其住所地法 院之應訴責任的程度進行解釋。在此意義上，應討論向來在國際上被指摘 為過剩管轄的財產所在地審判籍，亦即我國民訴法第 3 條第 1 項之規 定，應如何透過正確的解釋以實現管轄實質正義的要求。就此，本文參考 德國法及我國系爭條文文義，認為財產所在地審判籍應以原告強制執行之 利益為目的，並以此妥適劃定其射程範圍。

Having a overview of the jurisprudence in our country, the following questions come up, which deserve some further considerations: firstly it’s to determine whether and to which extent paragraph 1 and the following of Civil Procedural Rule could be applicable to the reparation of international jurisdiction. Secondly it is to ask whether the courts could apply the principle of forum non conveniens to deny the existing jurisdiction. Thirdly it’s the principle of actor sequitur forum rei to be re-evaluated. This article argues that the double functionality of local jurisdictional regulations should be accepted, as the German, Austrian and French law demonstrate, whereas the principle of forum non conveniens in common law or the special situation theory in Japan are to be rejected, since the legal certainty has a higher ranking especially in light of international context. In order to legitimate the burden of being suited at foreign forum of the defendant other than at local ones, we should carefully take account of the meaning and purpose of each rule of special venue by drawing their reach. As an example this article deals with the so-called exorbitant jurisdiction of assets, which is internationally notorious. The paragraph 3 of Civil Procedural Rule belongs to this kind of exorbitant jurisdiction. But through a correct interpretation it should be concluded that this special venue serves the interest of enforcement of the plaintiff and realize the material justice of jurisdiction law. This thesis corresponds just to the legal text of that paragraph and is also inspired from German law. Keywords: