This article highlights, from comparative perspectives, some important features of Japanese rules of jurisdiction, which were put on statutory footing with effect from 1 April 2012. Comparison is made with the Brussels I-bis (Recast) and the law of common law countries including the US case law on Due Process. A particularly detailed comparison is made between the Japanese rule allowing discretionary dismissal and the forum non conveniens principle. The heads of jurisdiction chosen for analysis include general jurisdiction, the Japanese version of “doing business” jurisdiction, jurisdiction for disputes over consumer contracts, jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, jurisdiction based on the presence of the defendant's asset and jurisdiction over rights in rem in immovable property. Those heads are chosen because comparative analysis is particularly useful to shed light on their distinctive or innovative characters as well as to demonstrate a potential for cross-fertilisation with other legal systems.