Convenient as a basis for attaching the international jurisdiction rule to public order- contemporary vision according to the provisions of procedural law and Egyptian court of cassation rulings.

This research deals with the rule of international jurisdiction through analysis and rooting, as it reviews the jurisprudential and judicial trends related to the application and interpretation of that rule, and the extent of its connection and foundation on the ideas of sovereignty and territoriality, as well as its national character based on the methodology of its formulation unilaterally by the Egyptian legislator.

The research raises several questions about the stability of these ideas in light of the invasion of the international dimensions of the rule of international jurisdiction, then opens the door to new ideas for applying and interpreting that rule, and among these ideas is the principle of convenient, which operates in an international framework that depends on the impact of the issue of judicial jurisdiction in the international field, looking at this issue objectively, linked to the ends of justice for the opponents, without excessive adherence to regional sovereignty, can we find jurisprudential and judicial support for applying convenient principle before the Egyptian courts, or is the matter settled in favor of building the basis of international judicial jurisdiction on the basis of regional sovereignty only? the rulings of the Egyptian Court of Cassation vary regarding this issue, some of them are rulings that are based primarily on the principle of territorial sovereignty and thus expand on considering all the rules of international jurisdiction related to public order. However, some recent rulings have begun to take into account the developments occurring in the field of international jurisdiction to raise the ideas of convenient in this field. Can we establish a general theory of convenient in the field of international jurisdiction? This is what We will answer it through this research.