The Brussels I-Regulation, often referred to as the Jurisdiction Regulation, is said to be the matrix of the European judicial cooperation system within the area of international private law. The Regulation states how jurisdiction is to be determined in an international dispute. The aim of the Regulation is to ensure that parties in a dispute within the EU have access to justice.The Regulation is considered to be working well in general, and have been since it came in-to force in 2007. Although it is held to be well functioning it does not exclude that some improvements might be needed. The commission ordered a review of the Regulation and the result was that some deficiencies were identified. Some of the deficiencies that were found were concerned with the relation to defendants from third countries. It was held that the regulation was unsatisfactory in this aspect. These deficiencies resulted in the working group presenting a proposal of a review of the regulation.The aim of this thesis is to investigate some of the consequences that might come with the proposed solutions. The investigation is limited to only discussing some sections of the Regulation. The parts that will be discussed are the ones that are concerned with the rela-tion to defendants from third countries. The investigation shows that although the propos-al means positive developments within the area it is far from clear and precise. The result of these unclear rules might be that they are hard to interpret and apply.The author comes to the conclusion that although the proposal means positive and sought after development within the area of private international law it needs to be reworked due to the ambiguities with the proposed solutions. If the proposal is not reworked the EUD will probably have to interpret the meaning of the proposed rules which might lead to a time consuming and costly process.