【摘要】：柯里(Brainerd Currie)提出的法律適用意愿分析方法曾經是法律選擇方法中的異端,但自從上世紀70年代美國“沖突法革命”拋棄《沖突法重述(第一版)》的僵硬規(guī)則之后,逐漸成為一種代替舊規(guī)則的新法律選擇方法�？吕镎J為大部分法律沖突都是“虛假的”,即只有一個州存在法律適用意愿。因此,大部分案件將會只需要適用對案件有真正法律適用意愿的州的法律。而對于比較少見的“真實沖突”,柯里主張適用法院地法。柯里法律適用意愿分析方法在提出之后的30多年間遭到種種責難,批評意見主要是這個方法對州法律適用意愿解釋過于狹窄,甚至是違憲的。 與柯里同時代的白柯斯特(William Baxter)教授是柯里法律適用意愿分析方法的擁護者,他唯一不能認同的是柯里對“真實沖突”的解決辦法。他用柯里分析真假沖突的邏輯進一步討論解決“真實沖突”的辦法,繼而提出“比較損害分析方法”理論。他認為,在解決真實沖突案件的時候,應當最大可能地減少對所有州的法律適用意愿的損害。為了達到這個目的,應當適用一旦未適用其法律,則其法律適用意愿就受到更大損害的州的法律。比較損害分析方法對法律適用意愿方法進行了改進,避免對各州法律政策的“價值論斷”,解決了法律適用意愿方法被學者批判的許多缺點,已經為加利福尼亞州法院和路易斯安那州的司法和立法所采納并適用至今。 目前國內學界對柯里的法律適用意愿分析方法已經較為熟悉,但是對于比較損害分析方法卻研究不足。很多學者對比較損害分析方法沒有正確理解,甚至存在誤解,將比較損害分析方法與法律適用意愿分析方法混同。有的學者甚至將比較損害分析方法與最密切聯(lián)系原則想混同。路易斯安那州于1991年首次將比較損害分析方法納入成文法中,但是在引入我國的時候,國內有的學者卻錯誤地將這個方法解釋為“如果案件與若干州有關,則適用與案件‘有最密切聯(lián)系’的州的法律”。 本文將全面介紹比較損害分析方法的理論發(fā)展及司法經驗,對我國法院在解決法律選擇沖突的問題上提供一個新的視角。 文章第一章將介紹比較損害分析方法提出的法理基礎、具體內容。第二章將介紹加利福尼亞州的比較損害分析方法的適用經驗。第三章主要介紹路易斯安那州嚴重損害分析方法的立法及適用。第四章將結合加利福尼亞州法院和路易斯安那州的立法、司法經驗對比較損害分析方法的適用做總結,試探討其對我國法院在處理沖突法案件的實務中的啟示。
[Abstract]:Corey (Brainerd Currie) 's method of analyzing the willingness to apply law was once a heresy in the method of choice of law, but since the American "conflict of laws revolution" in the 1970s abandoned the rigid rules of "conflict of laws restatement" (first edition), It has gradually become a new method of choice of law in place of the old rules. Curry believes that most conflicts of law are "false", meaning that only one state has the will to apply the law. As a result, most cases will only need to apply the laws of the states that have the real will to apply the law to the case. For the relatively rare "conflict of truth", Curry advocated the application of the law of the forum. Curry's analysis of the willingness to apply the law has been criticized for more than 30 years since it was put forward. The criticism is that the method is too narrow and even unconstitutional in interpretation of the intention of application of state law. Professor Baxter (William Baxter), a contemporary of Curry, is a proponent of Curry's willingness to apply the law. The only thing he can't agree with is Curry's solution to the "conflict of truth." He further discusses the solution of "real conflict" by using the logic of Curry's analysis of true and false conflict, and then puts forward the theory of "comparative damage analysis method". He believes that in resolving real conflict cases, the damage to the will to apply the law to all states should be minimized. To that end, the law of a state whose will to apply would have been more impaired if its law had not been applied should be applied. Compared with the method of damage analysis, it improves the method of the willingness to apply the law, avoids the "value judgment" of the legal policy of the states, and solves many shortcomings of the method of the willingness to apply the law which has been criticized by the scholars. It has been adopted and applied to the courts of California and Louisiana. At present, the domestic academic circles are familiar with Curry's analysis method of law application intention, but the research on comparative damage analysis method is not enough. Many scholars do not have a correct understanding of the comparative damage analysis method, or even misunderstand it, and mix the comparative damage analysis method with the law applicable will analysis method. Some scholars even compare the damage analysis method with the principle of the closest connection. Louisiana first introduced the method of comparative damage analysis into statute law in 1991, but when it was introduced into our country, some domestic scholars mistakenly interpreted it as "if the case is related to several states, The laws of the states most closely related to the case shall apply. " This paper will comprehensively introduce the theoretical development and judicial experience of comparative damage analysis, and provide a new perspective for Chinese courts to resolve the conflict of choice of law. The first chapter will introduce the legal basis and content of comparative damage analysis method. The second chapter introduces the applicable experience of the California comparative damage analysis method. The third chapter mainly introduces the legislation and application of the Louisiana severe damage analysis method. The fourth chapter will combine the California court and the Louisiana legislation, the judicial experience will make the summary to the comparison damage analysis method application, tries to discuss its to our country court in the handling conflict law case practice enlightenment.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D997

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前1條

1 張瀟劍;評柯里的“政府利益分析說”[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2005年04期

，

本文編號：2282355