與涉外財產訴訟事件不同的是，我國最高法院對於涉外婚姻事件，尤其是涉外離婚訴訟著有判決若干，其中對於國際戰判管轄之問題亦多所著墨，提供學術理論研究檢討之材料甚豐。本文先就最高法院關於涉外離婚之判決三則進行整理與分析，歸納出本文之問題意識 (貳)，並就國際民事訴訟法上的重要問題，亦即涉外婚姻事件之國際裁判管轄總論上，例如決定方法之學說與國際管轄之專屬性等問題加以檢討 (參)，進而就國際裁判管轄各論上的管轄規定，分別針對普通審判籍與民事訴訟法第五百六+八條之規定，逐一檢視 (被告) 住所、原告住所、居所、原因事實發生地居所、最後之住所、夫妻住所與本國管轄在國際民事訴訟法上的妥當性，並對於總論上探取類推適用說之不當提出分析；此外，鑑於我國學說過說與最高法院均否定涉外婚姻事件之國際管轄專屬性，本文亦就附體所生之合意管轄與應訴管轄在涉外離婚訴訟上應如何評價進行檢討 (肆)。最後，則針對我國實務上關於外國離婚裁判的承認之問題，除了民事訴訟法第四百零三條之規定外，國際民事訴訟法上之一事不再理原則與訴訟標的等問題，以我國最高法院的判決為中心，展開基礎理論上的檢討。 本文之特色在於針對涉外婚姻關係事件之國際裁判管轄問題，經由各論的逐一檢討呼應總論方法上的研究，構築我國涉外民事事訟之國際裁判管轄整體之理論體系，跳脫解釋學上單純的比較法介紹或剪貼式的立法論主張。並以我國涉外裁判實務上所發生的爭點，具體指陳我國國際私法多數說所採類推適用說不當之理由所在，即在於容易流於照本宣科純梓國內之民事訴訟法規定。其結果，將使我國裁判實務忽略涉外民事訴訟的程序問題之特殊性，仍然應以國際私法學的法律價制與精神作為指導原則，而非在於固執司法權之行使或盲目保護本國民，而縱容國際雙重起訴，導致國際判決牴觸，不僅實體上使婚姻關係因含有涉外要素而跛行化，程序上亦有違紛爭解決之一次性原則，浪費司法資源。

There are so many cases dealing with the issue of international jurisdiction and the recognition of foreign judgments in Taiwanese courts. In particular there are many judgments rendered by Taiwanese Supreme Court in transnational matrimonial matters. The sole criterion for Taiwanese courts to decide whether recognize foreign judgments is the application of the Article 402 of Civil Procedure Law. Article 402 is applied not only to foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, but also to those in matrimonial matters with international elements. But, as to the interpretation and application of Article 402, in particular Article 402(1) concerning indirect international jurisdiction, there is obvious different interpretation and application between civil and commercial foreign judgments and matrimonial cases. That is to say, in the cases involving indirect jurisdictional issue in international civil and commercial matters, the interpretation of Article 402(1) by Taiwanese courts is ambiguous an uncertain. The possible reason accountable for the avoidance in definite interpretation is that, most of the private international law scholars in Taiwan advocate that the gate for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments should be wide-opened as much as possible from the global point of view. Namely, the criterion as to determine indirect international jurisdiction should be more loose-fitting than direct international jurisdiction. What is the specific criterion to meet so-called loose- fitting condition for recognition of foreign judgments? No further explanation to be found in those who contends so-called loose-fitting standard in Taiwan. On the other hand, on the contrary in international matrimonial cases, most of the courts in Taiwan, including Taiwanese Supreme Court, indicate definitely that the criterion as to determine indirect international jurisdiction on Article 402(1) is identical to the determination of direct international jurisdiction, ie., the Article 568 in Civil Procedure Law in matrimonial litigations, such as divorce, legal separation and marriage annulment. The legal argument for such irreconcilable interpretation of identical Article 402 for the recognition of foreign judgments is nowhere to be found neither in the reasoning of Taiwanese courts' judgments nor in private-international-law commentaries. This article takes 3 Taiwanese-Supreme-Court cases for example, and argues that not only property-law cases with international elements, but also family-law ones should be applied in identical criterion as to the international jurisdiction issue. That is, the criterion to determine indirect international jurisdiction is identical to the determination of direct international jurisdiction, and this application is truth both to civil and commercial cases and matrimonial cases. Six chapters compose this essay. In the first place, jurisdictional issues presented in the cases rendered by Taiwanese Supreme Court will be examined. This essay explains the skeleton structure of jurisdictional statute in civil law nations, including Taiwan. This is the most important essence for the methodology in international civil procedure law (chapter one to three). Then, the concrete jurisdictional connecting factors in Civil Procedure Law, such as domicile, matrimonial domicile, last domicile and temporary residence will be examined from the international civil procedure law aspect. The reason why connecting factors such as temporary residence and nationality should not be taken account into the determination of international jurisdiction will be presented in chapter four. In consideration of that in practice, foreign divorce judgments has become a medium for liable spouse to repudiate marriage and to escape from the liability for adultery, the resolution will be proposed in chapter five. From the aspect of the indirect international jurisdiction and the regulation concerning divorce registry, this essay proposes that foreign divorcement judgments above-mentioned should not be recognized.