公司章程中是否得以記載相關爭議的管轄法院？若可，應如何為之？國內文獻似未加以詳論。惟此並非僅為單純理論探討，而為我國證券交易所及有價證券櫃檯買賣中心於審核外國發行公司之上市上櫃申請時，要求外國發行公司於其章程中所應記載之事項。對此，晚近美國學說實務上恰因多重管轄訴訟之流弊，而對此等條款之效力，有所討論，而主導公司法重要發展的德拉瓦州法院，亦於2013年作成Boilermakers Local 154 v. Chevron判決，對此問題著有深刻分析。本文參考、介紹Chevron案及後續法院見解，以及相關美國學說討論，以解明章程管轄條款於美國法上的發展歷程，並就我國章程款項條款之效力，進行分析。

While reviewing IPO applications by foreign issuers, Taiwan Stock Exchange and Taiwan Gretai Securities Market require the applicants to provide relevant provisions in the charter that allow the shareholders to sue in the future, which leads to several unanswered questions, such as whether such charter forum provision is enforceable and, if yes, to what extent should it be enforceable. Therefore, answers for those issues are not merely theoretical but for practical need for Taiwan capital market. However, those questions are not covered in current literatures. Due to the abuse of the corporate multi-jurisdictional litigation, issues related to charter forum provision are currently discussed and clarified by the U.S. courts and legal scholars. Especially, the Delaware Court of Chancery has rendered Boilermakers Local 154 v. Chevron in 2013 providing an inspiring analysis with respect to the enforceability of charter forum provision. This article comments on the Chevron opinion, the subsequent relevant court opinions and academic comments under U.S. law to reflect the development of those issues up to now. Based on those inspiring ideas, this article further, referring to relevant academic literatures, provides an analysis with respect to relevant issues surrounding charter forum provision, such as its validity, enforceability and standard of review.