Civil litigation is sometimes preferred to International Arbitration due to a quite often erroneous belief that an arbitration award is not as enforceable as a judgment obtained in the defendant's home jurisdiction. Should this be the chosen path, absolutely nothing can substitute for actual litigation experience.
Although basic civil procedures are codified through both state and federal statutes, similar or sometimes identical facts can sometimes lead to drastically different results. It takes an experienced jurist who knows the legal arena to best advise the client as to strategies and anticipated oppositions.
When contemplating litigation against an individual or entity in a different country, jurisdiction should be the first issue to be visited. One must ask, who has (exclusive) jurisdiction over this individual or entity? What venue has the authority to hale this individual or entity in to defend this lawsuit?
Quite often, most jurisdictions require the venue to be a place where the defendant resides, or is the principal place of business. In the modern era, most Multi National Enterprises can be considered as "doing business" within the relevant context of having satisfied minimum contact through the most rudimentary use of mass communication such as the internet. Subject matter and personal jurisdiction remain the two key elements which must be satisfied in order for litigation to begin.
Forum Non Conveniens is a popular topic almost always raised by a foreign defendant. It is a doctrine which argues that the venue in question is not the most convenient. A host of factors such as the location of the underlying cause of action, availability of witnesses and evidence, hardship to defendants for having to litigate in said venue are but a few of the numerous arguments one may present to protest the venue.