冲突法基本制度.ppt

1、第四章 冲突法的一般问题 Pervasive Problems 4-1 识别 Characterization 4-2 反致 Renvoi 4-3 禁止法律规避 Anti-Evasion of Law 4-4 公共秩序保留 Public Policy,4-1 识别 Characterization 4-1-1 识别的概念 Qualification/ Classification/ Interpretation 4-1-2 识别冲突的产生原因 The Causes for Conflict of Characterization 4-1-3 解决识别冲突的方法 法院地法说 Lex fori D

2、octrine 准据法说 Applicable Law Doctrine 分析法学与比较法说 the Theory of Analytical Jurisprudence and Comparative Law 个案识别说 Qualification Case by Case 功能定性说 Functional Qualification 二级识别说 Secondary Qualification 4-1-4 识别的司法实践,4-2 反致 Renvoi 4-2-1 反致的类型与概念 反致 remission; 转致 transmission; 间接反致 indirect remission 4-

3、2-2 产生条件： A.冲突规范指引的外国法包括冲突规范； B.有关国家冲突规范不一致； C.致送关系没有中断。 4-2-3 关于反致问题的争论 A.国家主权问题； B.判决的一致性问题； C.法律的完整性问题 4-2-4 反致的立法与司法实践,4-3 禁止法律规避 Anti-Evasion of Law,4-3-1 概念(行为与制度) definition 4-3-2 规避行为构成要件The Condition of Formation A.当事人主观上故意；intention of evasion B.被规避的是强制性法律；compulsory law C.通过改变连结点的事实构成因素这一

4、方式；changing the factor of connecting points D.客观上已达到目的 gain ones ends 4-3-3 禁止法律规避制度的性质 the Nature 4-3-4 法律规避行为的效力 the Effect,中国公民王伟，男性，现年21岁。中国公民张莉，女性，现年19岁。王伟与张莉是邻居，自幼相处，两小无猜，是年二人决定结婚，到住所所在地街道办事处登记。街道办事处工作人员认定两人未达到法定婚龄，不予登记。为了达到结婚目的，王伟、张莉参加了某旅行社组织的新加坡、泰国、马来西亚旅游团，在泰国按宗教方式举行了结婚仪式。回国后，二人以夫妻名义共同生活。第二年

5、，王伟死于一场意外车祸。为遗产继承问题，张莉与王伟的亲属发生纠纷。张莉认为自己是王伟的妻子，与其共同生活一年多，是法定继承人之一。王伟亲属认为，张莉与王伟未进行婚姻登记，在泰国按宗教仪式举行了婚姻仪式违背我国法律关于婚姻形式要件的规定，属无效婚姻，因此，不是遗产继承人。双方协商未果，遂诉诸法院。,法院经审理查明，王伟、张莉未达到法定结婚年龄登记结婚被拒绝之后，二人到泰国采取宗教方式结婚，婚后回国居住。法院认为：王伟、张莉在婚姻实质要件不符合我国法律规定的情况到泰国采取宗教方式结婚，婚后回国居住，是规避我国法律的行为，其婚姻无效，采用宗教方式结婚，我国法律不予认可。张莉对王伟的遗产不享有继承权。

6、,Fraud in Conflict Cases,When the parties (or either of them) create an artificial link with another legal system in order to evade the law which is rendered applicable to their legal relationship by the appropriate choice-of-law rule, we have the case of fraud. The intention of evading the applicab

7、le law is generally held to be a notional element of fraud, which often creates difficulties of proof.,Fraud in Conflict Cases,On principle, fraud in selection of law may lead to the application either of the law of the forum or of the law of a foreign legal system. Its commons form is that of the p

8、arties artificially changing the connecting factor by which the applicable law is determined. This is easy to achieve especially in the case of so-called mobile connecting factors (place of residence, place of contracting, etc.) but deliberate change in domicile or even nationality is likewise a com

9、mon resource.,Fraud in Conflict Cases,By fraudulence selection of law, the parties (or either of them) seek to gain individual advantage: either to avoid the undesirable consequences of their legal relationship or to produce a favorable legal effect not incidental to their original legal status.,Fra

10、ud in Conflict Cases,The legal appraisal of and sanctions for fraudulent conduct vary by countries. Some legal systems (e.g. the French) adopt a rigorous approach, others take a larger view, and still others (the English, the American) show a tolerant attitude.,最高人民法院关于贯彻执行中华人民共和国民法通则若干问题的意见第194条规定:

11、“当事人规避我国强制性或禁止法律规范的行为,不发生适用外国法的效力。”,4-4 公共秩序保留 Reservation of Public Order 4-4-1 概念 the definition 4-4-2 实质和作用 the Essence and function 4-4-3 不同的理论（萨维尼、孟西尼、布鲁歇） the Different theories 4-4-4 不同的立法和实践 the Different legislation 4-4-5 司法实践应注意的问题 Public order in Judicial practice,A.区分国内民法和国际私法中的公共秩序 B.尊重

12、他国主权 C.国际条约中的公共秩序问题 D.排除外国法后的救济问题,Characterization Before a court can apply a choice-of-law rule to a problem or undertake the type of analysis advocated by modern choice-of-law approaches, it must first identify the area of the law that is involved. It must characterize the legal issue or case aris

13、ing in a particular substantive area of the law, such as tort, contract, or family law. Especially in states which still adhere to the traditional approach to choice of law, characterization of the legal issue may have decisive effect on the outcome of the case.,Illustration: In Reeves v. Schulmeier

14、, 303 F.2d 802 (5th Cir.1962), a married woman sued for personal injuries sustained in a car accident in Texas. The question was whether her husband should have joined in the action because Texas, the place of the tort, considers claims for personal injuries to be part of the community property of s

15、pouses. In order to decide this issue, the court had to characterize it: if it was a tort issue, Texas law as the place where the tort occurred might apply; in contrast, if the issue of who owned the personal injury claim related to the area of interspousal property rights, then the law of the spous

16、es domicile might apply.,Characterization,The court characterized the issue as relating to property, looked to the spouses state of domicile (Oklahoma) and found that, under that law, the personal injury claim was the wifes separate property so that the husband was not required to join in the action

17、. As a general rule, the forum will use only the other jurisdictions substantive law but use its own procedure.,Public Policy,Under the traditional approach to choice of law, the forums conflicts rules would direct it to the law of a particular state, initially without regard to the content of that

18、law. Upon examination of the other states law, the forum might then discover that the other law offended its local public policy. Example: the claim, valid under the law of the state where it arose, involves a gambling debt, yet gambling is prohibited in the forum state. In these circumstances, the

19、forum would not entertain the foreign claim. Public policy thus served as a defense against unpalatable result under the otherwise applicable foreign law.,案例 中国技术进出口总公司诉瑞士工业资源公司(IRC)案,1984年,中技公司与IRC签订一份钢材买卖合同.1985年4月, IRC通过各种欺骗手段使中技公司开了229万美圆的信用证,但货物一直没有到.1985年12月,中技公司领导得知该公司负责人被意大利警察逮捕,1986年3月,中技公司

20、向上海中院起诉,同时申请诉讼保全.上海中院采取了保全措施,后判决被告赔偿559万美圆.IRC上诉.提出:(1)合同中有仲裁条款,法院没有管辖权;(2)保全措施不当;(3)重复诉讼;(4)中国法律禁止间接损失等.,上海市高级人民法院经公开审理确认：上诉人在无钢材的情况下，谎称“货物已在装运港备妥待运”，“装船日期为1985年3月31日”，“在我方银行收到信用证二周内交货”，诱使被上诉人与其签订合同。这证明，上诉人在签订合同修改协定书时，就使用了欺诈手段。上诉人在收到被上诉人指示中国银行上海分行开出的信用证后，在货物没有装船的情况下，向被上诉人提交了包括提单在内的全套伪造单据，以骗取被上诉人的巨额

21、货款。上诉人利用合同形式进行欺诈，已超出履行合同的范围，不仅破坏了合同，而且构成了侵权。双方当事人的纠纷，已非合同权利义务的争议，而是侵权损害赔偿纠纷。被上诉人有权向法院提起侵权之诉，而不受双方所订立的仲裁条款的约束。,因本案侵权行为地在上海，依据民事诉讼法（试行）第22条关于“因侵权行为提起的诉讼，由侵权行为地人民法院管辖”的规定，以及该法第185、186条的规定，上海市中级人民法院对本案具有管辖权。上诉人提出的中国已加入承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约，当事人签订的合同又有仲裁条款，中国法院无管辖权，其理由不能成立。,被上诉人并未在其他法院对上诉人提出过侵权损害赔偿的诉讼，因此，也不存在重复诉讼

22、问题。原审法院准许被上诉人的诉讼保全申请，冻结上诉人在中国银行上海分行的托收货款，符合民事诉讼法（试行）第92条第1款和第93条第1、2款的规定，应予认可。本案是因欺诈行为引起的侵权损害赔偿纠纷，侵权人除应退还受害人的货款外，对于受害人因被欺诈遭受的其他重大损失，亦应当赔偿。原审法院判决上诉人返还被上诉人钢材货款、赔偿被上诉人的钢材货款的银行货款利息、经营损失以及其他费用，并无不当。鉴于在原审法院判决后钢材货款的银行货款利息继续孳生，赔偿金额亦应增加。,据此，上海市高级人民法院于1988年10月11日判决如下：（一）驳回上诉人瑞士资源公司的上诉，维持原判。（二）上诉人应增加赔偿被上诉人中技公司自原审法院判决后至本判决宣判之日的钢材货款的银行贷款利息163338.7美元，自宣判之日起10日内一次付清。逾期按中国人民银行结算办法处理。本案二审诉讼费由上诉人承担。,案例 1984年旅居阿根廷的中国公民婚姻纠纷案,一对婚后旅居阿根廷的中国公民王钰与杨洁敏发生婚姻纠纷，由于所在国法律不准离婚，即按其允许的方式达成长期分居协议，请求我国驻阿使馆领事部承认并协助执行。我国最高人民法院于1984年就该案给驻阿使馆领事部的复函指出：我国驻外使馆办理中国公民间的有关事项应当执行我