國際私法之實體法方法探析
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-18 08:06
【摘要】：國際私法歷史中，法律沖突問題的解決途徑主要有三種方法，即單邊主義、多邊主義以及實體法方法。這三種方法各具特色，在國際私法發(fā)展的各個時期為解決法律沖突發(fā)揮著不同的作用。實體法方法是公認的，解決法律沖突最早的方法，然而，它受到的重視程度遠不及單邊主義方法和多邊主義方法。學術研究上，沖突法學者醉心于傳統沖突法方法；審判實踐中，實體法方法也得不到法官的垂青。究其緣由，原因種種。然而，實體法方法仍具有許多理論與實踐的研究價值。本文從對比的角度，對實體法方法進行研究。 引言部分主要是從兩個方面列舉國內外學者有關于實體法方法內容的探討，以及他們之間觀點的異同，從客觀角度對其觀點進行評價，分析其中存在的不足之處。 第一部分從時間維度，對三種解決法律沖突的方法分別進行論述，探討國際私法的三種方法的歷史邏輯，突出其在國際私法發(fā)展史上所起到的重要作用以及其地位。該部分重點論述實體法方法早期的幾種表現主要形式，并用發(fā)展的觀點看待實體法方法在當代的復興。 第二部分旨在闡述實體法方法存在的合理性。通過與單邊主義和多邊主義的比較，說明兩種沖突法方法的不足以及實體法方法相比之下的優(yōu)點，并從主權角度，闡釋實體法方法與國家的關系以及如何實現二者的良好互動。 第三部分承接第二部分，在指出傳統沖突法方法的不足之處后，采用實體法方法對其進行補充和完善。分別介紹了美國近代的“沖突法革命”以及歐洲主要國家的沖突法改良道路，論證了對待傳統沖突法方法的兩種不同態(tài)度，即拋棄規(guī)則或者改良規(guī)則。實體法方法就是在與沖突法方法的不斷抗爭中發(fā)展起來，經由此，論證當代國際私法方法的三足鼎立的局面。 第四部分把實體法方法與我國的國內理論實踐結合起來。首先介紹了我國目前解決涉外民商事糾紛的法律及方法；再次，分析了我國目前的研究現狀以及審判實踐，發(fā)現其存在的缺陷；最后，在全球化大背景下，提出應重視實體法方法在我國學術理論究以及審判實踐中的研究與運用，論證實體法方法在我國特殊的國情下推行的可行性，為我國多法域法律沖突解決提供新的出路。 當代國際私法的方法論已呈現出多元化的發(fā)展趨勢。三種對于解決涉外民商事糾紛問題都起到了至關重要的作用，究竟采用哪種方法更好，取決于實踐發(fā)展的需要。但是，可以肯定的是，任何一種方法，只要它有助于法律沖突的解決，，都應當受到我們的歡迎。
[Abstract]:In the history of private international law, there are three ways to solve the conflict of laws: unilateralism, multilateralism and substantive law. These three methods have their own characteristics and play different roles in resolving conflicts of law in each period of the development of private international law. The substantive law method is recognized as the earliest way to solve the conflict of laws. However, it receives far less attention than the unilateralism method and the multilateralism method. In academic research, conflict law scholars are obsessed with the traditional conflict law method, and the substantive law method is not favored by the judge in the trial practice. There are many reasons for this. However, the method of substantive law still has a lot of theoretical and practical research value. In this paper, the method of substantive law is studied from the point of view of comparison. In the foreword part, the author enumerates the contents of substantive law methods from two aspects, and the similarities and differences between them, evaluates their viewpoints from an objective angle, and analyzes their shortcomings. The first part discusses the three methods of resolving the conflict of laws from the time dimension, discusses the historical logic of the three methods of private international law, and highlights the important role and status of the three methods in the history of private international law. This part focuses on the main forms of the early substantive law method, and views the revival of the substantive law method in the contemporary era from the point of view of development. The second part aims to expound the rationality of the existence of substantive law method. By comparing with unilateralism and multilateralism, this paper explains the shortcomings of the two methods of conflict of laws and the advantages of the substantive law methods, and from the perspective of sovereignty, explains the relationship between the substantive law method and the state and how to realize the good interaction between the two methods. The third part carries on the second part, after pointing out the deficiency of the traditional conflict law method, it uses the substantive law method to supplement and perfect it. This paper introduces the "conflict of laws revolution" in modern America and the ways to improve the conflict law of the major European countries, and demonstrates two different attitudes to the traditional conflict law methods, that is, jettisoning rules or improving rules. The method of substantive law is developed in the constant struggle with the method of conflict of laws. The fourth part combines the method of substantive law with the domestic theory and practice of our country. First of all, it introduces the current law and method of solving civil and commercial disputes involving foreign affairs in our country; thirdly, it analyzes the current research situation and trial practice of our country, and finds out its defects; finally, under the background of globalization, This paper puts forward that we should pay attention to the research and application of substantive law method in academic theory and trial practice in our country, demonstrate the feasibility of carrying out substantive law method under the special national conditions of our country, and provide a new way to resolve the conflict of law in many jurisdictions of our country. The methodology of contemporary private international law has shown a diversified development trend. The three methods play an important role in solving the civil and commercial disputes involving foreign countries, which method is better depends on the needs of the development of practice. But, to be sure, any approach, as long as it contributes to the resolution of conflicts of laws, should be welcomed.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D997
本文編號：2247287
[Abstract]:In the history of private international law, there are three ways to solve the conflict of laws: unilateralism, multilateralism and substantive law. These three methods have their own characteristics and play different roles in resolving conflicts of law in each period of the development of private international law. The substantive law method is recognized as the earliest way to solve the conflict of laws. However, it receives far less attention than the unilateralism method and the multilateralism method. In academic research, conflict law scholars are obsessed with the traditional conflict law method, and the substantive law method is not favored by the judge in the trial practice. There are many reasons for this. However, the method of substantive law still has a lot of theoretical and practical research value. In this paper, the method of substantive law is studied from the point of view of comparison. In the foreword part, the author enumerates the contents of substantive law methods from two aspects, and the similarities and differences between them, evaluates their viewpoints from an objective angle, and analyzes their shortcomings. The first part discusses the three methods of resolving the conflict of laws from the time dimension, discusses the historical logic of the three methods of private international law, and highlights the important role and status of the three methods in the history of private international law. This part focuses on the main forms of the early substantive law method, and views the revival of the substantive law method in the contemporary era from the point of view of development. The second part aims to expound the rationality of the existence of substantive law method. By comparing with unilateralism and multilateralism, this paper explains the shortcomings of the two methods of conflict of laws and the advantages of the substantive law methods, and from the perspective of sovereignty, explains the relationship between the substantive law method and the state and how to realize the good interaction between the two methods. The third part carries on the second part, after pointing out the deficiency of the traditional conflict law method, it uses the substantive law method to supplement and perfect it. This paper introduces the "conflict of laws revolution" in modern America and the ways to improve the conflict law of the major European countries, and demonstrates two different attitudes to the traditional conflict law methods, that is, jettisoning rules or improving rules. The method of substantive law is developed in the constant struggle with the method of conflict of laws. The fourth part combines the method of substantive law with the domestic theory and practice of our country. First of all, it introduces the current law and method of solving civil and commercial disputes involving foreign affairs in our country; thirdly, it analyzes the current research situation and trial practice of our country, and finds out its defects; finally, under the background of globalization, This paper puts forward that we should pay attention to the research and application of substantive law method in academic theory and trial practice in our country, demonstrate the feasibility of carrying out substantive law method under the special national conditions of our country, and provide a new way to resolve the conflict of law in many jurisdictions of our country. The methodology of contemporary private international law has shown a diversified development trend. The three methods play an important role in solving the civil and commercial disputes involving foreign countries, which method is better depends on the needs of the development of practice. But, to be sure, any approach, as long as it contributes to the resolution of conflicts of laws, should be welcomed.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D997
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 徐國建;國際統一私法法源研究[J];比較法研究;1993年04期
2 李雙元;;略論沖突法立法的新發(fā)展[J];法學評論;1984年01期
3 李雙元，程衛(wèi)東，李先波;重構國際民商秩序中的國際私法[J];法學評論;1996年03期
4 張春良;;重估一切價值的嘗試:薩維尼沖突法革命發(fā)生學之究竟[J];貴州大學學報(社會科學版);2009年06期
5 李春鋒;;從法律選擇方法的演變看國際私法的價值定位[J];西部法學評論;2009年04期
6 徐冬根;;論國際私法的形式正義與實質正義[J];華東政法學院學報;2006年01期
7 陳韜;評西蒙尼德斯《20世紀末的國際私法——進步還是退步?》——兼議李雙元教授的評論[J];時代法學;2005年01期
8 劉衛(wèi)國;論調整涉外民商事關系的國內實體法的發(fā)展[J];華中理工大學學報(社會科學版);2000年03期
9 周江;;“西方情結”的生成與消解——中國沖突法學術史考察[J];南京大學法律評論;2012年02期
10 張文顯;WTO與中國法律發(fā)展[J];法制與社會發(fā)展;2002年01期
本文編號：2247287
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2247287.html
