The ambiguous theme of cyberspace and its broad widespread inflict a major effect on the legal procedures of litigations. Since litigation might include several nationalities, because of the cosmopolitan nature of cyberspace, determining the competent court is not as direct as traditional litigations. Cyber litigations complicate this procedural threshold as the traditional application of jurisdiction determinants might not suit cyber disputes. Furthermore, jurisdiction conflicts in cyberspace frustrate settling the dispute as courts avoid giving their judgments due to invalidity.

Therefore, these conflicts introduce a modern issue to private international law theorists. It is indisputable that drafting obvious jurisdictional rules enhances the rule of law in cyberspace. Thus, the research analyses this issue and establishes a comparison to determine the state of the art regarding it. The article reviews the relevant academic contributions and legislation to point out how they crystallize the aspects of the research question. Besides, it studies relevant case laws from the UK and US judiciaries to conclude the legal principle they adopt to settle these conflicts and to enhance the validity of their judgments. Eventually, it introduces a comprehensive theory on settling jurisdiction conflicts regarding cyber litigation, which enhances the rule of law in cyberspace.