關於國際裁判管轄或國際管轄權之判斷方法，有類推適用說，二重 機能說，管轄分配說，也有逆推知說。何以會有這麼多見解？而各說究 竟有何不同，又以何說較為合理？本文試就德國、日本之狀況進行比較 檢討。結論上認為，就我國法之解釋，應採取二重機能說。日本之管轄 分配說，主要係建立在對逆推知說之不正確理解，以及對於日本立法討 論之不充分理解之上。且誤認立法者全未考慮到國際管轄問題，且其不 先以類推適用之方式推論國際管轄，直接訴諸法理之不合理作法，與日 本當時特殊之法律背景有關。實際上，立法者已經有考慮到國際管轄之 問題，而與土地管轄規定在一起，則管轄分配說前提有誤，我國不應加 以繼受。我國民事訴訟法之管轄規定中，例如民事訴訟法第 1 條第 2 項、第 2 條第 3 項或第 3 條等，實際上即是有國際管轄意涵之土地 管轄規定。法院應直接適用這些條文，來判斷我國法院之國際裁判管 轄。其他未必設想到國際管轄問題之土地管轄規定，亦可被類推適用來 判斷國際管轄。無論直接適用或類推適用，均可考慮時代背景之差異， 於個案妥為修正或限縮解釋，以追求事件之妥善解決。

Regarding the International Adjudicative Jurisdiction, there are many approaches taken in Formosa (Taiwan), such as the Revert Theory, the Allocation Theory, the Double Function Theory, and the Analogy Approach. The different theories are mainly imported from Germany and Japan, and the main stream of the doctrine follows the Japanese Allocation Theory. This article examines the differences and similarities among those theories, and tries to identify the one that is most reasonable for the construction of Formosan Civil Procedure Law. It argues that, on the contrary to the prevailing opinion in Formosa, the Japanese Allocation Theory has flaws and should not be followed. It also argues that, having traced the root of some provisions in Japanese Civil Procedure, it should be admitted that there already exist some provisions for international adjudicative jurisdiction in Formosan Civil Procedure Law.