欧美国际私法理论的晚近发展研究
|
摘要
自20世纪80年代以来,欧美国际私法理论有了较大的发展。在理论争辩的喧嚣声中欧美国际私法诞生了若干以保障人权和追求实质正义为宗旨的新理论。欧美国际私法理论的晚近发展有着共同的价值取向。近十年来,欧美在实体法规范统一化趋势不断加强的同时,尽量使冲突规范趋于统一。而实体法与冲突法统一化之目标在于促进和便利国际民商事关系的流转。这种规范的趋同化乃是以解决全球化和区域化的私法问题为其宗旨,以建立新的国际民商秩序为目标,此种现象内在地含有国际社会本位理念。在全球化和区域化的进程不断深入的条件下,国际私法作为解决法律冲突的法律部门,在国际法律体系中的地位大大得到了提升
理论的创新源于实践的需要。上个世纪末叶以来,国际社会的民商事交流出现了新的特点。就欧洲而言,政治一体化和经济一体化不断加深和强化,欧洲国家相互之间的人员流动、资本流动以及区域内贸易活动趋于活跃,以欧盟成员国为主导力量的国际私法统一化运动呈现出欧盟化、联邦化和宪法化特征。欧洲范围之内,“国家的”国际私法正在走向“国际的”国际私法,欧洲国际私法的欧盟化特征凸显。在欧洲,冲突法的欧盟化趋势要求“范式转换”,其激烈程度绝对不低于美国的冲突法革命。可以肯定的是,在欧洲,冲突法不再是私的、国家的、内国的或国际的。欧洲的冲突法如今是欧盟的、管理性的和中间化的。
近年来美国冲突法也有较大的发展。政治对冲突法的影响、向理论和规则的回归、同性婚姻、互联网世界的管辖权及法律选择、表达自由权以及单边决策的取向、跨国公司人权责任的法律选择,等都变成了热点。美国冲突法学者从经济学、政治学和人类学等跨学科的视角对冲突法展开研究。鉴于美国冲突法革命后时代政治话题与理论的回归现象,有冲突法学者甚至提出编撰新的“冲突法重述”,纳入某种类型的规则。美国部分学者强调互联网法律选择问题属于需要特别要求研究和理论化的领域,以站在较有利的位置去应对互联网治理面临的挑战。网络世界的表达自由给涉及互联网的法律选择带来了挑战。这主要体现为诽谤类侵权案法律分析过程中的单边价值判断。在跨国公司人权责任案件中美国法院要求优先适用跨国公司本国法,是因为美国侵权法较之于人权受侵犯的受害人所属国家的侵权法能够给予受害人更公正合理的赔偿,更能够矫正因东道国损害赔偿制度的缺陷所致的非正义结果。虽然美国法院适用跨国公司本国法的做法有扩大法院地法适用范围的嫌疑,易于引起人们对其动机的怀疑,但是,一个不争的事实是：通过适用跨国公司本国法,在美国,跨国公司人权责任案件的实体结果确实使受害人获得了满意的赔偿,使实质正义获得了较好的实现。
在国际私法上关注和研究正义问题及其理论无疑具有重要意义。冲突正义的确构成古典国际私法的根本目标,且以管辖权选择规则为手段使之得以实现。不过,欧美国际私法上关于实质正义的价值目标的论述甚至出现得比冲突正义的早得多。当一个案件含有涉外因素的时候,以实质上公平和公正的方式解决当事人之间发生的此类纠纷,应该成为国际私法的目标。20世纪末叶以来欧美国际私法的价值取向发生了惊人的转变,通过采用结果导向规则使准正、婚姻、父母子女关系等领域的法律选择变得更加人性化和更加趋于保护弱者利益。这一目标主要是通过适用有利于消费者、受害者、雇员等主体的法律来实现的。如今,有利于一方当事人的法律选择方法在欧美国际私法上随处可见,由此形成为法律选择的“有利原则”。这一原则受到了柯里的政府利益分析说和凯弗斯提出的“优先原则”的影响。其核心思想是要保护法律选择过程中弱者一方的利益,实质上是一个扶强抑弱的利益平等原则,可以通过法经济分析得到验证。
传统欧美国际私法认为其最高境界是追求判决结果的一致性。然而,判决结果的一致性目标即使获得实现也无法保证个案实体结果的公正。自上世纪30年代以来实证分析法学的兴起深刻地影响了美国冲突法学界,学者们纷纷对采取价值中立姿态的冲突规范发起批判运动,意图通过导入正义价值而改造过去机械和僵硬的冲突规范,涌现出诸多学者和学说。在欧洲大陆国家,冲突法领域虽然也发生了巨大变化,使传统冲突规范的机械与僵硬转向灵活。不过,比较而言,欧洲冲突法革新的路子走得较为保守、谨慎,没有美国的那样激进。在非合同之债,尤其是侵权之债的法律选择领域,以欧盟侵权之债冲突规范的区域统一化进程的最新成就Rome Ⅱ为代表的新的立法大大革除了冲突规范无价值取向的弊病,大胆地引进了意思自治原则,允许当事人自主选择其自愿服从的法律,此举极大地加强了实质正义向冲突正义的渗透力度。美国侵权之债冲突法的变革以非规则方法为导向,实质是以灵活的、可预期的法律选择结果为追求目标,旨在促进法律选择过程的实质正义。欧洲国家的侵权之债冲突法虽然在渐变中完成其价值转型,但我们仍然可以发现在某种程度上欧洲国家通过引入意思自治、当事人住所和“更密切联系(Closer Connection)"等连结因素作为指引法律的根据,形成一种属人性连结点和属地性连结点的混合态势,并且更多地尊重当事人的自主选择和有利于实现受害人诉求为其内在价值取向,反映了对冲突规范的正义价值的孜孜追求。
弱者利益保护在习惯居所的认定上表现得极为突出。在美国国际私法上习惯居所相对于住所是一个较新的概念,其内涵、外延及其应用方法都处于发展当中。2008年4月1日美国批准加入了《关于保护儿童和国际收养合作的公约》并通过转化方式使之成为内国法,习惯居所的概念随之进入美国国际私法。迄今,美国法院在对习惯居所进行解释与界定的时候附加了保护弱者利益的价值判断。
欧美国际私法学在研究方法上的一个重要创新是试图利用经济学的基本范式来研究法律选择问题,希望对法律选择的实体主义与选择主义、单边主义与多边主义、法律的确定性与灵活性等基本问题作出较为合理的诠释。通过对既有法律选择方法进行成本-效益分析来改造传统的法律选择规范,使之实现正义目标与效率目标的平衡。
Ever since1980s there's a big step forward in European and US private international law theories and jurisprudence. Among disagreement between various authors,there is some new theories advocating human rights and substantive justice. The latest developments of European and US PIL theories have certain common pursuit of vales.While the increasing unification of substantive rules, there was also an ever-growing convergence of conflict rules. All of those are for the convenience and promotion of international civil and commercial communication, whose purpose is to resolve all private law disputes arising out of global and regional issues and its goal is to establish a new order of international civil and business community. All of those were based upon the idea that the international society as a whole would be a primary power. As a law department for resolving conflict of laws, private international law has become more and more important.
The demand of practice has brought in theoretical innovation. Since the end of20st century, new features of international civil and commercial communication has become evident. As for European countries, political integration and economic integration has been strengthened. The movement of natural persons, capital and and intra-regional trade activities become more and more active. The unification of PIL by main power of member states has the features of Europeanized, federalized and constitutionalized. That's to say, national PIL is coming to international PIL. In Europe, the Europeanized conflict of laws has required a paradigm shift as strong as a US Conflict Revolution. European conflict law in no longer private, national, domestic or international, which is now European, regulatory and mediatized.
In recent years there is great advancement in US conflict law. The impact of politics on conflict law, going home of theories and rules, same sex marriage and jurisdiction and choice of laws in Internet world, freedom of expression and unilateral decision-making, human rights responsibility and choice of law of transnational corporations have become heated topics. A interdisciplinary perspective of economics, politics and anthropology has been used to study conflict laws. Now US scholars have demanded a new Restatement(the Third),into which some new rules would be adopted.
Since the end of20st century a great change of value orientations has occurred. The application of result oriented rules to legitimization,marriage and support of children make a choice of law become more and more human and considerate of weak party including consumers, employees and victims. The favor to one side of two parties has become a concerted principle which has been influence by Currie's governmental interests analysis and Cavers's Preference principle. The favor principle has been a balanced rule.
In European countries, flexible choice of law rules replaced old and rigid rules. As in the field of non-contractual obligations, the latest achievement is Rome II, which introduced the party autonomy principle and allowed those parties to make a choice of the applicable law to which he or she voluntarily abides by. The revolution of US tort conflict laws has based on non-rule approaches,which is for a flexible and expectable result of choice of laws. The introducing of such connecting factors as party autonomy,domicile and closer connection has shaped European conflict law,which embraced personal and territorial connecting points together, paid full respect to the autonomous choice of parties and more favorable to the realization of victim's claims.
The habitual residence in private international law in the United States relative to domicile is a relatively new concept, its meaning, extension and application of methods which are in development. April1,2008approved the accession of the United States "on cooperation in the protection of children and international adoption of the Convention" and making way through the transformation within the law of the land, used the concept of home along with access to the U.S. private international law. So far the United States case law on the interpretation and definition of custom homes are not consistent.
International Private Law in Europe on research methods is an important innovation which is the basic paradigm of trying to use economics to study the choice of law issues, the entity would like to choice of law doctrine and choose doctrine, unilateralism and multilateralism, legal certainty and flexibility the basic issues of a more reasonable interpretation. Choice of law by both methods of cost benefit analysis to transform the traditional choice of law rules, so to achieve the dual goals of justice and efficiency balance.
理论的创新源于实践的需要。上个世纪末叶以来,国际社会的民商事交流出现了新的特点。就欧洲而言,政治一体化和经济一体化不断加深和强化,欧洲国家相互之间的人员流动、资本流动以及区域内贸易活动趋于活跃,以欧盟成员国为主导力量的国际私法统一化运动呈现出欧盟化、联邦化和宪法化特征。欧洲范围之内,“国家的”国际私法正在走向“国际的”国际私法,欧洲国际私法的欧盟化特征凸显。在欧洲,冲突法的欧盟化趋势要求“范式转换”,其激烈程度绝对不低于美国的冲突法革命。可以肯定的是,在欧洲,冲突法不再是私的、国家的、内国的或国际的。欧洲的冲突法如今是欧盟的、管理性的和中间化的。
近年来美国冲突法也有较大的发展。政治对冲突法的影响、向理论和规则的回归、同性婚姻、互联网世界的管辖权及法律选择、表达自由权以及单边决策的取向、跨国公司人权责任的法律选择,等都变成了热点。美国冲突法学者从经济学、政治学和人类学等跨学科的视角对冲突法展开研究。鉴于美国冲突法革命后时代政治话题与理论的回归现象,有冲突法学者甚至提出编撰新的“冲突法重述”,纳入某种类型的规则。美国部分学者强调互联网法律选择问题属于需要特别要求研究和理论化的领域,以站在较有利的位置去应对互联网治理面临的挑战。网络世界的表达自由给涉及互联网的法律选择带来了挑战。这主要体现为诽谤类侵权案法律分析过程中的单边价值判断。在跨国公司人权责任案件中美国法院要求优先适用跨国公司本国法,是因为美国侵权法较之于人权受侵犯的受害人所属国家的侵权法能够给予受害人更公正合理的赔偿,更能够矫正因东道国损害赔偿制度的缺陷所致的非正义结果。虽然美国法院适用跨国公司本国法的做法有扩大法院地法适用范围的嫌疑,易于引起人们对其动机的怀疑,但是,一个不争的事实是：通过适用跨国公司本国法,在美国,跨国公司人权责任案件的实体结果确实使受害人获得了满意的赔偿,使实质正义获得了较好的实现。
在国际私法上关注和研究正义问题及其理论无疑具有重要意义。冲突正义的确构成古典国际私法的根本目标,且以管辖权选择规则为手段使之得以实现。不过,欧美国际私法上关于实质正义的价值目标的论述甚至出现得比冲突正义的早得多。当一个案件含有涉外因素的时候,以实质上公平和公正的方式解决当事人之间发生的此类纠纷,应该成为国际私法的目标。20世纪末叶以来欧美国际私法的价值取向发生了惊人的转变,通过采用结果导向规则使准正、婚姻、父母子女关系等领域的法律选择变得更加人性化和更加趋于保护弱者利益。这一目标主要是通过适用有利于消费者、受害者、雇员等主体的法律来实现的。如今,有利于一方当事人的法律选择方法在欧美国际私法上随处可见,由此形成为法律选择的“有利原则”。这一原则受到了柯里的政府利益分析说和凯弗斯提出的“优先原则”的影响。其核心思想是要保护法律选择过程中弱者一方的利益,实质上是一个扶强抑弱的利益平等原则,可以通过法经济分析得到验证。
传统欧美国际私法认为其最高境界是追求判决结果的一致性。然而,判决结果的一致性目标即使获得实现也无法保证个案实体结果的公正。自上世纪30年代以来实证分析法学的兴起深刻地影响了美国冲突法学界,学者们纷纷对采取价值中立姿态的冲突规范发起批判运动,意图通过导入正义价值而改造过去机械和僵硬的冲突规范,涌现出诸多学者和学说。在欧洲大陆国家,冲突法领域虽然也发生了巨大变化,使传统冲突规范的机械与僵硬转向灵活。不过,比较而言,欧洲冲突法革新的路子走得较为保守、谨慎,没有美国的那样激进。在非合同之债,尤其是侵权之债的法律选择领域,以欧盟侵权之债冲突规范的区域统一化进程的最新成就Rome Ⅱ为代表的新的立法大大革除了冲突规范无价值取向的弊病,大胆地引进了意思自治原则,允许当事人自主选择其自愿服从的法律,此举极大地加强了实质正义向冲突正义的渗透力度。美国侵权之债冲突法的变革以非规则方法为导向,实质是以灵活的、可预期的法律选择结果为追求目标,旨在促进法律选择过程的实质正义。欧洲国家的侵权之债冲突法虽然在渐变中完成其价值转型,但我们仍然可以发现在某种程度上欧洲国家通过引入意思自治、当事人住所和“更密切联系(Closer Connection)"等连结因素作为指引法律的根据,形成一种属人性连结点和属地性连结点的混合态势,并且更多地尊重当事人的自主选择和有利于实现受害人诉求为其内在价值取向,反映了对冲突规范的正义价值的孜孜追求。
弱者利益保护在习惯居所的认定上表现得极为突出。在美国国际私法上习惯居所相对于住所是一个较新的概念,其内涵、外延及其应用方法都处于发展当中。2008年4月1日美国批准加入了《关于保护儿童和国际收养合作的公约》并通过转化方式使之成为内国法,习惯居所的概念随之进入美国国际私法。迄今,美国法院在对习惯居所进行解释与界定的时候附加了保护弱者利益的价值判断。
欧美国际私法学在研究方法上的一个重要创新是试图利用经济学的基本范式来研究法律选择问题,希望对法律选择的实体主义与选择主义、单边主义与多边主义、法律的确定性与灵活性等基本问题作出较为合理的诠释。通过对既有法律选择方法进行成本-效益分析来改造传统的法律选择规范,使之实现正义目标与效率目标的平衡。
Ever since1980s there's a big step forward in European and US private international law theories and jurisprudence. Among disagreement between various authors,there is some new theories advocating human rights and substantive justice. The latest developments of European and US PIL theories have certain common pursuit of vales.While the increasing unification of substantive rules, there was also an ever-growing convergence of conflict rules. All of those are for the convenience and promotion of international civil and commercial communication, whose purpose is to resolve all private law disputes arising out of global and regional issues and its goal is to establish a new order of international civil and business community. All of those were based upon the idea that the international society as a whole would be a primary power. As a law department for resolving conflict of laws, private international law has become more and more important.
The demand of practice has brought in theoretical innovation. Since the end of20st century, new features of international civil and commercial communication has become evident. As for European countries, political integration and economic integration has been strengthened. The movement of natural persons, capital and and intra-regional trade activities become more and more active. The unification of PIL by main power of member states has the features of Europeanized, federalized and constitutionalized. That's to say, national PIL is coming to international PIL. In Europe, the Europeanized conflict of laws has required a paradigm shift as strong as a US Conflict Revolution. European conflict law in no longer private, national, domestic or international, which is now European, regulatory and mediatized.
In recent years there is great advancement in US conflict law. The impact of politics on conflict law, going home of theories and rules, same sex marriage and jurisdiction and choice of laws in Internet world, freedom of expression and unilateral decision-making, human rights responsibility and choice of law of transnational corporations have become heated topics. A interdisciplinary perspective of economics, politics and anthropology has been used to study conflict laws. Now US scholars have demanded a new Restatement(the Third),into which some new rules would be adopted.
Since the end of20st century a great change of value orientations has occurred. The application of result oriented rules to legitimization,marriage and support of children make a choice of law become more and more human and considerate of weak party including consumers, employees and victims. The favor to one side of two parties has become a concerted principle which has been influence by Currie's governmental interests analysis and Cavers's Preference principle. The favor principle has been a balanced rule.
In European countries, flexible choice of law rules replaced old and rigid rules. As in the field of non-contractual obligations, the latest achievement is Rome II, which introduced the party autonomy principle and allowed those parties to make a choice of the applicable law to which he or she voluntarily abides by. The revolution of US tort conflict laws has based on non-rule approaches,which is for a flexible and expectable result of choice of laws. The introducing of such connecting factors as party autonomy,domicile and closer connection has shaped European conflict law,which embraced personal and territorial connecting points together, paid full respect to the autonomous choice of parties and more favorable to the realization of victim's claims.
The habitual residence in private international law in the United States relative to domicile is a relatively new concept, its meaning, extension and application of methods which are in development. April1,2008approved the accession of the United States "on cooperation in the protection of children and international adoption of the Convention" and making way through the transformation within the law of the land, used the concept of home along with access to the U.S. private international law. So far the United States case law on the interpretation and definition of custom homes are not consistent.
International Private Law in Europe on research methods is an important innovation which is the basic paradigm of trying to use economics to study the choice of law issues, the entity would like to choice of law doctrine and choose doctrine, unilateralism and multilateralism, legal certainty and flexibility the basic issues of a more reasonable interpretation. Choice of law by both methods of cost benefit analysis to transform the traditional choice of law rules, so to achieve the dual goals of justice and efficiency balance.
引文
① Derek E. Bambauer. Olwell's Armchair, [J].CHI. L. REV.(2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1926415.
② G. J. SIMSON,'Beyond Interstate Recognition in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate' [J], in:40 U.C.Davis L. Rev.313(2006).
③ Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World[J].,8 PITTSBURGH J. TECH. L.& P.2,15-18(2007).
①G. RUHL,‘PTarty Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts:Transat-lantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency', in: Essays In Memory of A.T. von Mehren (2007).
② SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES,THE AMERICAN CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTIO N:PA ST, PRESENT AND FUTURE[J].AM. J. COMP. L.,2006(54):236.
①这里需要特别提出的是：限于讨论主题的范围以及篇幅所限,“欧美国家”在本文指美国、欧洲联盟的部分成员国。
①自1999年5月1日《阿姆斯特丹条约》生效后,欧盟国际私法的形式就不再是成员国间缔结的条约了,而是由欧盟理事会直接发布条例、指令和决定,它们对于各成员国均具有直接法律效力。2009年12月1日,《里斯本条约》生效之后,欧洲统一化进程进一步加速,尤其是司法领域的合作进一步深入。原来的欧盟委员会下设的司法、自由与安全部被一分为二,即内务部和司法部。新司法部专门负责欧盟各国之间的司法合作事务,职能更为集中。近三年,欧盟国际私法统一化进程明显加快。参见杜涛博士于2012年向国际私法年会递交的《国外国际私法发展前沿年度综述》(2011-2012)
①参见杜涛博士于2012年向国际私法年会递交的《国外国际私法发展前沿年度综述》(2011-2012)。
② Ralf Michaels,The New European Choice-of-Law Revelution, Tul. L. Rev.82(2008)1 607f.
①美国著名国际私法学家西蒙先生撰文《美国冲突法革命与欧洲冲突法革命——相互借鉴》指出：若用“革命”一词来描述欧洲冲突法的发展,不如用它来描述美国冲突法运动更加恰当。Symeon C. Symeonides, The American Revolution and the European Evolution in Choic e of Law: Reciprocal Lessons,82 TUL. L. REV.1741,1743但是,偶这学者似乎持不同见解,主要有以下文献See Fausto Pocar, La comunitarizzazione del diritto interna zionale privato: una "European Conflict of Laws Revolution"?,36 RIVISTA DI DIR ITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE [RIV. DIR. INT. PRIV. PROC.] 873,883-8 4 (2000) (Italy);Johan Meeusen, Instrumentalisation of Private International La w in theEuropean Union:Towards a European Conflicts Revolution?,9 EUR. J. MIGR ATION & LAW 287,290-91 (2007);Symeon C. Symeonides, Rome Ⅱ and Tort Confl icts:A Missed Opportunity,56 AM. J. COMP. L.173,174 (2008).
①参见杜涛博士于2012年向国际私法年会递交的《国外国际私法发展前沿年度综述》(2011-2012)
② Paul Neuhaus, Savigny und die Rechtsfindung aus der Natur der Sache,15 RAB ELS ZEITSCHRIFT FUR AUSLANDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT[RABE LSZ] 364,366 (1949-1950) (F. R. G.).
③See K. Lipstein, The General Principles of Private International Law, in 1 35 ACADEMIE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 144-47 (1972) ("Ehrenzweig-Wac hter redivivus").
④ HEINRICH THOL, EINLEITUNG IN DAS DEUTSCHE PRIVATRECHT 170-71,175-76 (Got tingen,1851).
⑤ Lea Brilmayer,Interest Analysis and the Myth of Legislative Intent,78 MIC H. L. REV.392,392-93 (1980).
⑥ CARL FRIEDRICH VON GERBER, SYSTEM DES DEUTSCHEN PRIVATRECHTS 728 n.5 (6th ed.1858).
① FRIEDRICH CARL VON SAVIGNY, A TREATISE ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS (Wm. Gut hrie transl.,1868).
② See Gerhard Kegel,Story and Savigny,37 AM. J. COMP. L.39 (1989); Ral f Michaels,Public and Private International Law: German Views on Global I ssues,4 J. PRIVATE INT'L L.121,126-28 (2008).
③ See Ralf Michaels, Globalizing Savigny? The State in Savigny's Private Inte rnational Law and the Challenge from Europeanization and Globalization, in A KTUELLE FRAGEN ZU POLITISCHER UND RECHTLICHER STEUERUNG IM KONTEXT DER GLOB ALISIERUNG 119,128-30 (Michael Stolleis & Wolfgang Streeck eds.,2007).
④ PRIVATRECHT ZWISCHEN RISORGIMENTO UND PRAKTISCHER JURISPRUDENZ (1980); Kur t H. Nadelmann, Mancini's Nationality Rule and Non-Unified Legal Systems: Nationality Versus Domicile,17 AM. J. COMP. L.418 (1969).
①对有关国际私法性质的观点的评价,请参见李双元：《国际私法》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2012年3月,第24-26页。同时参见李双元、宁敏、熊之才：《关于国际私法的几个理论问题》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》,2000年第3卷,法律出版社,2000年版。李健男：《论国际私法的国际法因素》,载《暨南学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005年第3期。
② GERHARD KEGEL & KLAUS SCHURIG, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 52-58 (9th ed.20 04);KLAUS SCHURIG, KOLLISIONSNORM UND SACHRECHT: ZU STRUKTUR, STANDORT UND METHODE DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVATRECHT(1981).
① Konrad Zweigert, Die dritte Schule im internationalen Privatrecht. Zur neue ren Wissenschaftsgeschichte des Kollisionsrechts, in FESTSCHRIFT FUR LEO RAAPE 35; 43,49 (1948);cf. Kurt Lipstein, Private International Law with a Social Content—A Super Law?, in FESTSCHRIFT FUR KONRAD ZWEIGERT ZUM 70 GEB URTSTAG 179,179 (Herbert Bernstein et al. eds.,1981).
② Larry Kramer, Rethinking Choice of Law,90 COLUM. L. REV.277,324-29 (1 990); Kermit Roosevelt Ⅲ, The Myth of Choice of Law: Rethinking Conflicts, 97 MICH. L. REV.2448,2472 (1999).
①关于此案的案情及法律选择结果的评价,请参见李双元：《国际私法》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2012年3月,第265-266页。
② See Ulrich Drobnig, Conflict of Laws and the European Community,15 AM. J. COMP. L.204 (1967); Rene Savatier, Le marche commun au regard du droit in ternational prive, REVUE CRITIQUE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE [REV.CRIT. DR. INT. PRIV.] 237 (1959) (Fr.).
① Walter Wheeler Cook, The Powers of Congress Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause,28 YALE L. J.421,433-34 (1919);Henry J. Friendly, In Praise of Er ie-And of the New Federal Common Law,39 N. Y. U. L. REV.383,402 (1964); Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Relations Between State and Federal Law,54 COLUM. L. REV.489,513 (1954);Alfred Hill, The Erie Doctrine and the Constitution, 53 NW. U. L. REV.541,542-43 (1958);Ernest G. Lorenzen Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws,33 YALE L. J.736,751 (1924).
② Lorenzen Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws,33 YALE L. J. 736,751 (1924). see Paul S. Bird, Note, Mass Tort Litigation: A Statutory Solution to the Choice of Law Impasse,96 YALE L. J.1077,1092-93 (1987).
③ Michael H. Gottesman, Draining the Dismal Swamp:The Case for Federal Choic e of Law Statutes,80 GEO. L. J.1,1-51 (1991); Erin A.0'Hara & Larry E. R ibstein, From Politics to Efficiency in Choice of Law,67 U. CHI. L. REV.1 151,1224-25(2000).
④ DAVID F. CAVERS, THE CHOICE-OF-LAW PROCESS 247 (1965); David F. Cavers, Legislative Choice of Law: Some European Examples,44 S. CAL. L. REV.340, 359 (1971).
⑤ Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations,1980 0.J. (L 26 6). The consolidated version appears at 1998 0. J. (C 27) 34. On the legisla tive history, see Peter M. North, The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable t o Contractual Obligations (1980):Its History and Main Features, in PETER M. NORTH, ESSAYS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 23,29-34 (1993).
① Teun Struycken, Private Law Contracts to Which the European Community Is a P arty, in INTERCONTINENTAL COOPERATION THROUGH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: ES SAYS IN MEMORY OF PETER E. NYGH 385,393-94 (Talia Einhorn & Kurt Siehr eds. 2004); A.V. M. Struycken, Les consequences de 1'integration europeenne sur le developpement du droit international prive, in 232 ACADEMIE DE DROIT IN TERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 257,295,323-24(1992).
② PETER STONE, EU PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW-HARMONISATION OF LAWS 316-17(2006).
③ Richard Fentiman, Choice of Law in Europe,82 TUL. L. REV.2021,2024-27 (2 008).
④ Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I) (adopted June 6,2008).
⑤ 46. Commission Green Paper on Conflict of Laws in Matters Concerning Matrim onial Property Regimes, Including the Question of Jurisdiction and Mutual Re cognition, COM (2006) 400 final (July 17,2006).
⑥See Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing en hanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal se paration (OJ n. L 343, p.10 ff.).
⑦这些成员国分别为Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia
⑧ Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EC) No.2201/2003 as Regards Jurisdiction and Introducing Rules Concerning Applicable Law in Matr imonial Matters, COM (2006) 339 final (July 17,2006). Proposal for a Counci 1 Regulation on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions and Cooperation in Matters Relating to Maintenance Obligations, C OM (2005).649 final (Dec.12,2005). Commission Green Paper on Succession an d Wills, COM (2005) 65 final (Mar.1,2005); European Parliament Resolution with Recommendations to the Commission on Succession and Wills, EUR. PARL. D OC. P6.TA (2006)0496 (2006).
① GERHARD KEGEL, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 86 (6th ed.1987), note 27, at 139.
② Dennis Solomon, The Private International Law of Contracts in Europe:Advan ces and Retreats,82 TUL. L. REV.1709,1711 (2008).
③ Patrick Borchers, Categorical Exceptions to Party Autonomy in Private Intern ational Law,82 T, L. R.1645 (2008).
① Jan von Hein, Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Rome I I and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution,82 TUL. L. REV.1663 (2008).
② Symeon C. Symeonides, The American Revolution and the European Evolution in Choice of Law: Reciprocal Lessons,82 TUL. L. REV.1741 (2008).
③ Ralf Michaels, Three Paradigms of Legal Unification:National, Internationa 1, Transnational, in AM. SOC’ Y INT’L L., PROCEEDINGS OF THE 96TH ANNUAL ME ETING 333,333-36 (2002); see also Ulrich Drobnig, Unification of National L aw and the Uniformisation of the Rules of Private International Law, in THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES P I L M S 1,2 (P. Bourel et al. ed s.,1981).
① See Jiirgen Basedow, Specificite et coordination du droit international priv e communautaire, in DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE, TRAVAUX DU COMITE FRANCAIS DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE-ANNEES 2002-2004 at 275,283-84 (2005). See B ERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 50 (4th ed.2006).
② See JAN VON HEIN, DAS GUNSTIGKEITSPRINZIP IM INTERNATIONALEN DELIKTSRECH T 124-26 (1999); Christian von Bar, Environmental Damage in Private Internat ional Law, in 268 ACADEMIE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLL ECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 291,367-75 (199 9).
③ Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations ("ROME Ⅱ"), at 12, COM (200 3) 427 final (July 22,2003).
① See Walter G. Paefgen, Kollisionsrechtlicher Verbraucherschutz im Internationa len Vertragsrecht und europaisches Gemeinschaftsrecht,2003 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EUROPAISCHES PRIVATRECHT [ZEUP] 266 (F. R. G.); Peter von Wilmowsky, Der int ernationale Verbrauchervertrag im EG-Binnenmarkt-Europarechtlicher Gestaltu ngsspielraum fur kollisionsrechtlichen Verbraucherschutz,1995 ZEUP 735.
② Richard Fentiman,Choice of Law in Europe,82 TUL.L. REV.2021,2024-27 (2008).
③ Lucia Serena Rossi, L'incidenza dei principi del diritto comunitario sul d iritto internazionale privato:dalla "comunitarizzazione" alla "constitu tionalizzazione," 40 RIV. DIR. INT. PRIV. PROC.63 (2004).
④See Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe,2004 O. J. (C310)1.
①2009年12月1日《里斯本条约》生效。
② Jurgen Basedow, Federal Choice of Law in Europe and the USA-A Comparative Account of Interstate Conflicts,82 TUL. L. REV.2119 (2008).
① See Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon),1979 E.C. R.649另可参见Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Procedures Relating to th e Application of Certain National Technical Rules to Products Lawfully Marke ted in Another Member State and Repealing Decision 3052/95/EC, COM (2007) 36 final (Feb.,14,2007).
② See Case C-76/90, Sager v. Dennemeyer & Co.,1991 E. C. R.1-4221,1-4243.
③ See Joined Cases C-267 & 268/91, Keck & Mithouard,1993 E. C. R.1-6097.
④ See, e.g., Erik Jayme & Christian Kohler, Europaisches Kollisionsrecht 2007: Windstille im Erntefeld der Integration,27 IPRAX 493 (2007).
⑤ See AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (Jiirgen Basedow & Toshiyuki Kono eds.,2006); Giesela Ruhl, Methods and Approaches in Choice of Law: An Economic Perspective,24 BERK. J. INT' L L.801 (2006); Giesela Ruhl, Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts:Transat lantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency, in CONFLICT OF LAWS IN A GLOBA LIZED WORLD 153 (Eckart Gottschalk, Ralf Michaels, Giesela Ruhl & Jan von He in eds.,2007).
⑥ Case C-411/03, SEVIC Sys. AG,2005 E. C. R.I-10,805; Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd.,2003 E. C. R.1-1 0,155; Case C-208/00, Uberseering BV v. Nordic Constr. Co. Baumanagement Gmb H (NCC),2002 E.C.R..1-9919; Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. v. Ehvervs-og Sels kabsstyrelsen,1999 E. C. R.1-1459.
① Onnig H. Dombalagian, Choice of Law and Capital Markets Regulation,82 TUL. L REV.1903 (2008).
② Jens Dammann, Adjudicative Jurisdiction and the Market for Corporate Charter s,82 TUL. L. REV.1869 (2008).
① Larry Cata Backer, The Private Law of Public Law:Public Authority as Shareho lders, Golden Shares, Sovereign Wealth Funds, and the Public Law Element in Private Choice of Law,82 TUL. L. REV.1801 (2008).
② Council Directive 89/552, On the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Dow n by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning t he Pursuit of Television Broadcasting Activities, arts.2,2a 19890. J. (L 2 98) 23, amended by Directive 97/36,19970.J. (L 202) 60; Directive 2000/31, On Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Ele ctronic Commerce, in the Internal Market ("Directive on Electronic Commerc e"), art.3,20000. J. (L 178) 1,9-10 [hereinafter Directive on Electronic Commerce].
③ Directive 2006/123, On Services in the Internal Market, art.16,2006 0. J. (L 376) 36,58-59;See Achim Kampf, EU-Dienstleistungsrichtlinie und Kollisi onsrecht,28 IPRAX 101,102-03(2008).
① See Wulf-Henning Roth, Methoden der Rechtsfindung und Rechtsanwendung im Eu ropaischen Kollisionsrecht,25 IPRAX 338,343 (2006).
②See Roberto Baratta, Problematic Elements of an Implicit Rule Providing for Mutual Recognition of Personal and Family Status in the EC,27 IPRAX 4,9-11 (2006).
③ Katharina Boele-Woelki, The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships With in the European Union,82 TUL. L. REV.1949 (2008).
① Linda J. Silberman, Rethinking Rules of Conflict of Laws in Marriage and Di vorce in the United States:What Can We Learn from Europe?,82 TUL. L. REV 1999 (2008).
② Horatia Muir Watt, European Federalism and the "New Unilateralism," 82 TU L. L. REV.1983 (2008).
① See Pedro A. de Miguel Asensio, Conflictos de leyes e integration juridica: Estados Unidos y la Union Europea,5 ANUARIO ESPANOL DE DERECHO INTERNACION AL PRIVADO 43-102 (2005); Horatia Muir Watt, Choice of Law in Integrated and Interconnected Markets:A Matter of Political Economy,9 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 383 (2003).
② See Home Ins. Co. v. Dick,281 U.S.397,411-12 (1930); Mut. Life Ins. Co. o f N. Y. v. Liebing,259 U.S.209,213-14 (1922); N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S.357,373-74 (1918); EDWIN SCOTT FRUEHWALD, CHOICE OF LAW FOR AMERICAN COURTS:A MULTILATERALIST METHOD 12-14 (2001); John K. Beach, Un iform Interstate Enforcement of Ve s t ed Right s,27 YALE L. J.656,656-57 & n.5 (1918); P. E. Herzog, Constitutional Limits on Choice of Law, in 234 A CADEMIE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 234,239,260-66 (1992); G. W. C. Ross, Ha s the Conflict of Laws Become a Branch of Constitutional Law?,15 MINN. L. R EV.161,165 (1931).
③ Georg Haibach, The Mutual Recognition of Decisions in Civil and Commercial Matters in the European Union in the Light of the Full Faith and Credit Clau se of the U.S. Constitution,10 MAASTRICHT J. EUR.& COMP. L.291,291-300 (2003).
④ Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Indus. Accident Comm' n of Cal.,294 U.S.532,547-50 (1935); Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. Indust. Accident Comm' n,306 U.S.493, 500-05 (1939); Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper,286 U.S.145,159-62 (1 932), overruled in part by Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co.,380 U.S.39 (1965).
①“卡斯德第戎原则”(CASSIS-DE-DIJON)来自于1979年欧洲法院(Europaischen Gericht shof)的一个判决。起因是德国Rewe贸易集团欲进口法国第戎的黑醋栗利口酒。但德国当局以该酒酒精含量不符合德国法律规定为由,禁止进口该酒。于是Rewe起诉到欧洲法院,并取得了这场诉讼的胜利。卡斯德第戎原则规定,在欧盟国家合法生产和销售的产品,应可自由地在欧盟国家流通。只有当该产品危及健康时,才会被禁止。
② See Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman,486 U.S.717,730-34 (1988);Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,472 U.S.797,818-19 (1985);Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague,449 U.S.302,320 (1981) (plurality opinion).
③ See CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am.,481 U.S.69,93 (1987); Edgar v. MIT E Corp.,457 U.S.624,644-46 (1982). More explicit (for obvious reasons) is case law from the Delaware Supreme Court. See VantagePoint Venture Partners 196 v. Examen, Inc.,871 A.2d 1108,1115-18 (Del.2005); McDermott Inc. v. Lewis,531 A.2d 206,214-16 (Del.1987). See Deborah A. DeMott Perspectives on Choice of Law for Corporate Internal Affairs,48 LAW & CONTEMP.PROBS.1 61,183-90(1985).
④ Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt,538 U.S.488,499 (2003).
① Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello v. Etat Beige,2003 E. C. R.I-11,613关于此案的案情及分析,可以参见Johan Verlinden, European Court of Justice, Judgment of October 2,2003, Case C-148/02, Carlos Garcia Avello v. Etat Belge (the Sta te of Belgium),11 COLUM. J. EUR. L.705 (2005).
② Case C-96/04, Standesamt Stadt Niebull (Grunkin-Paul),2006 E. C. R.I-3561.此案在美国曾一度成为新闻。See Mary Jacoby, No Hyphens, Please:Germany Tells Parents To Keep Names Simple, WALL ST. J., Oct 12,2005, at Al.
① See Case C-353/06, Grunkin v. Grunkin-Paul (Apr.24,2008) (opinion of AG Sh arpston),available at http://curia.europa.eu.
② EC Treaty arts.12,17-18.
③ U.S. CONST, amend. XIV, § 1, cl.3 ("No State shall... deny to any pers on within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.").
④ See CHRISTIAN VON BAR & PETER MANKOWSKI, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 517-21 (2d ed.2003).
⑤ Ulrich Drobnig, Verstoβt das Staatsangehorig-keitsprinzip gegen das Diskrim inierungsverbot des EWG-Vertrages?,34 RABELSZ 636,636-62 (1970).
⑥ See Case C-323/95, Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH,1997 E. C. R.1-1711,1-1724; C ase C-122/96, Saldanha v. Hiross Holding AG,1997 E.C. R.1-5325,1-5342;Cas e C-43/95, Data Delecta Aktiebolag v. MSL Dynamics Ltd.,1996 E.C. R.1-4661, 1-4676; Case C-398/92, Mund v. Hatrex Int'1 Transport,1994 E. C.R.1-467, 1-481 to 82; Case C-20/92, Hubbard v. Hamburger,1993 E.C. R.1-3777,1-3793 to 94; Case 22/80, Boussac Saint-Freres SA v. Gerstenmeier,1980 E.C.R.342 7,3436.
⑦See Case C-430/97, Johannes v. Johannes, E. C. R.I-3475; Michael Bogdan, The EC Treaty and the Use of Nationality and Habitual Residence as Connecting Fa ctors in International Family Law, in INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW FOR THE E UROPEAN UNION 303,308-15 (Johan Meeusen et al. eds.,2007).
① Case C-96/04, Standesamt Stadt Niebull (Grunkin Paul),2006 E. C. R.1-3561 (o pinion of AG Jacobs); Case C-353/06, Grunkin v. Grunkin-Paul(opinion of AG Sharpston),paras.67-70, available at http://curia.europa.eu.
② Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello v. Etat Belge,2003 E. C. R.1-11,613,I-11,645 t o 46.
③ EC Treaty art.18. For an overview, see Flora Goudappel & Silvia Romein, Ev olving Legal Personality: The Case of European Union Citizenship,11 IUS GEN TIUM 1 (2005); Jo Shaw, E. U. Citizenship and Political Rights in an Evolvin g European Union,75 FORDHAM L. REV.2549 (2007).
④ U. S. CONST, amend. XIV, § 1, cl.2.
① See BRAINERD CURRIE, Unconstitutional Discrimination in the Conflict of Laws: Privileges and Immunities, in CURRIE, at 445,445-525; Douglas Laycock, Eq ual Citizens of Equal and Territorial States:The Constitutional Foundations. of Choice of Law,92 COLUM. L. REV.249,274-88 (1992).
② Case C-96/04, Standesamt Stadt Niebull (Grunkin-Paul),2006 E. C.R.I-3561 (o pinion of AG Jacobs) (citing Stjerna Case App. No. A280-B,37 Y. B. EUR. CONV ON H. R.278 (1994); Burghartz Case, App. No. A299-B,37 Y. B. EUR. CONV ON H. R.166 (1994)).
③Veerle van den Eeckhout, Promoting Human Rights within the Union:The Role o f European Private International Law,14 EUR. L. J.105,105-06 (2008).
④ See Stefan Grundmann, Internal Market Conflict of Laws:From Traditional C onflict of Laws to an Integrated Two Level Order, in LES CONFLITS DE LOIS ET LE SYSTEME JURIDIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE, at 5; KATRIN SCHILLING, BINNENMARKTKO LLISIONSRECHT(2006).
① Karl Kreuzer, Zu Stand und Perspektiven des Europaischen Internationalen Pri vatrechts-Wie europaisch soll das Europaische Internationale Privatrecht se in?,70 RABELSZ 1,78-86(2006).
② IAN F. FLETCHER, CONFLICT OF LAWS AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LAW 44 (1982).
③ Case C-339/89, Alsthom Atlantique v. Sulzer,1991 E.C.R.1-107, para.15.
④ Ralf Michaels & Hans-Georg Kamann, Europaisches Verbraucherschutzrecht und I PR,52 JURISTEN ZEITUNG [JZ] 601,607 (1997) (F. R. G.); Luigi Fumagalli, E C Private International Law and the Public Policy Exception-Modern Feature s of a Traditional Concept,2004 Y. B. PRIVATE INT'L L.171,178-79; see Mar c Fallon, Les conflits de lois et de juridictions dans un espace economique integre-L' experience de la Communaute Europeenne, in 253 ACADEMIE DE DROI T INTERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 9,252-53 (1996).
⑤See Jurgen Basedow, Recherches sur la formation de 1'ordre public.europeen dans la jurisprudence, in LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE:ESPRIT ET METHODE S. MELANGES EN L'HONNEUR DE PAUL LAGARDE 55 (2005); Hans van Houtte, Fro m a National to a European Public Policy, in LAW AND JUSTICE IN A MULTISTATE WORLD, at 841,847-48,852-53; Savatier, at 252;IOANNA THOMA, DIE EUROP AISIERUNG UND DIE VERGEMEINSCHAFTUNG DES NATIONALEN ORDRE PUBLIC(2007).
①Hans-Jiirgen Sonnenberger, Zweites Kapitel, Internationales Privatrecht:Ein leitung, in 10 MUNCHENER KOMMENTAR BURGERLICHES GESETZBUCH:INTERNATIONALE S PRIVATRECHT 5, no.216, at 131-33 (4th ed.2006).
②Andreas Schwartze, Die Ermittlung und Anwendung des Vertragsrechts anderer E U-Staaten im deutschen ZivilprozeB nach § 293 ZPO-ein besonderer Fall, in RECHT IN EUROPA:FESTSCHRIFT FUR HILMAR FENGE 127,144 (Pelaya Yessiou-Fal tsi et al. eds.,1996); Oliver Remien, Iura novit curia und die Ermittlung f remden Rechts im europaischen Rechtsraum der Art.61ff. EGV-fur ein neues V orabentscheidungsverfahren bei mitgliedstaatlichen Gerichten, in AUFBRUCH NA CH EUROPA,75 JAHRE MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FUR PRIVATRECHT 617,625,630 (Jiirge n Basedow et al. eds.,2001).
③ FRANCOIS VIANGALLI, LA THEORIE DES CONFLITS DE LOIS ET LE DROIT COMMUNAUTA IRE 116-17 (2004);Klaus Schurig, Unilateralistische Tendenzen im europaisch en Gesellschaftskollisionsrecht, oder: Umgehung als Rechtsprinzip, in LIBER AMICORUM GERHARD KEGEL 199 (Hilmar Kruger et al. eds.,2002).
④ Erin Ann O'Hara & Larry E. Ribstein, Rules and Institutions in Developing a Law Market:Views from the United States and Europe,82 TUL. L. REV.2147 (2008).
① Case C-381/98, Ingmar GB Ltd. v. Eaton Leonard Techs.,Inc.,2000 E. C. R. I-9305.
② Case C-381/98, Ingmar GB Ltd. v. Eaton Leonard Techs.,Inc.,2000 E. C.R.1-9 305.
③ Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], Jan 30,1961,14 NEUE J URISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT [NJW] 1061 (F.R.G.); Cour de cassation [Cass com.] [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Nov.28,2000, Bull. civ. IV No.1 83 (Fr.) (basing its decision on the prevalent view in France; the decision came down two weeks after the Ingmar decision).
④ Ralf Michaels & Hans-Georg Kamann, Grundlagen eines allgemeinen gemeinschaft lichen Richtlinienkollisionsrechts- "Amerikanisierung" des Gemeinschafts-I PR?,12 EUROPAISCHES WIRTSCHAFTS-UND STEUERRECHT 301,311(2001).
①Case C-438/05, Int'1 Transport Workers'Fed'n v. Viking Line ABP,2007 EC J (Dec.11,2007), available at http://curia.europa.eu本案是英格兰和威尔士上诉法院于2005年向欧洲法院递交的案件。
② Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd. v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareforbundet, 2007 ECJ (Dec.18,2007), available at http://curia.europa.eu.
③2008年6月17日欧洲议会和理事会联合发布的(Regulation (EC) No 593/20089(简称Rome Ⅰ)第8(2)条对1980年公约的第6(1)条作了修订,原文如下"To the extent th at the law applicable to the individual employment contract has not been cho sen by the parties, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country in which or, failing that, from which the employee habitually carries out h is work in performance of the contract. The country where the work is habitu ally carried out shall not be deemed to have changed if he is temporarily em ployed in another country."
④一般认为,"preliminary injunction"指司法程序中的“预先禁令”,也即起诉后、判决前由法院签发的禁令,禁止被告实施或继续某项行为。
⑤See Norbert Reich, Free Movement v. Social Rights in an Enlarged Union:The Laval and Viking Cases Before the European Court of Justice,9 GERMAN L.J. 125 (2008).
①See Marc Fallon, Le principe de proximitedans le droit de 1'Union europeenn e, in MELANGES LAGARDE, supra note 136,at 241,246.
② See Dieter Martiny, Die Anknipfung an den Markt, in FESTSCHRIFT FUR ULRIC H DROBNIG ZUM SIEBZIGSTEN GEBURTSTAG 389 (Jiirgen Basedow et al.ed.,1998).
③ See Jiirgen Basedow, European Private International Law of Obligations and In ternal Market Legislation-A Matter of Coordination, in LIBER MEMORIALIS AR EVI,at 13,21-24.
①Case C-346/06,Ruffert v.Land Nieder sachsen,2008 ECJ(Apr.3,2008),avail able at http://curia.europa.eu.
②See Directive 96/71,Concerning the Posting of Workers in the Framework of t he Provision of Services,1997 0.J.(L 18)1.
③See Ruffert,2008 ECJ(opinion of AG Bot),paras.10-12,available at http:/ /curia.europa.eu.
④See Judgment of Nov 11,2002,Case C-208/00,Uberseering BV v.Nordic Const ruction Company Baumanagement GmbH(NCC).
① See Wulf-Henning Roth, From Centros to Ueberseering:Free Movement of Compan ies, Private International Law, and Community Law,52 International and Comp arative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) 177-208,180-193 (2003).
② See Bundesgerichtshof, July 1,2002,2002 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJ W),3539= 23 Praxis des International Privatrechts (IPRax) 62, note Kin dler p.41;cf. Stefan Leible & Jochen Hoffmann, Vom "Nullum" zur Pers onengesellschaft Die Metamorphose der Scheinauslandsgesellschaft im deuts chen Recht,2002 Der Betrieb (DB),2203.
③See Judgment of Sep 29,1988, Case C-81/87, The Queen v. Daily Mail and Gene ral Trust plc, [1988] E. C. R.5483, no.19
① See Judgment of March 9,1999, Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. V. Ehvers-og Sel skabsstryelsen, [1999]ECR 1-1459.
② See Daniel Zimmer, Ein internationales Gesellschaftsrecht fur Europa,67 Rabels Zeitschrift fur auslandisches und internationales Privatrecht (Rabels Z) 298-317,299-306 (2003).
③ See Klaus Schurig, Unilateralistische Tendenzen im europaischen Gesellschaf tskollisionsrecht, oder:Umgehung als Rechtsprinzip, in: Liber amicorum Ger hard Kegel,199-221 (Munich: Beck,2002).
④See Axel Flessner Schiffbruch der Interpreten und Statuten,8 Zeitschrift fii r Europaisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 1 (2000);See also Harald Halbhuber, Limit ed Company statt GmbH? Europarechtlicher Rahmen und deutscher Widerstand (Ba den-Baden: Nomos,2001);Halbhuber, National doctrinal structures and Europe an company law,38 Common Market Law Review (CMLR) 1385-1419 (2001), with an analysis of German comments on Daily Mail and Centros;contra Flessner: Schurig (supra n.11),201 f:at least registration is an issue of private international law.
① See Bundesgerichtshof, March 3,2000,2000 DB 114;cf. Wulf-Henning Roth, Di e Sitzverlegung vor dem EuGH,2000 ZIP 1597.
② See Judgment of Nov 11,2002, Case C-208/00, Uberseering BV v. Nordic Constr uction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC).
③ See Harald Kallmeyer, Tragweite des Uberseeringurteils des EuGH vom 05.11. 2002 zur grenzuberschreitenden Sitzverlegung,2002 Der Betrieb (DB),2521-2 522;Helmut Heiss, Uberseering ":Klarschiff im internationalen Gesellsch aftsrecht?,44 Zeitschrift fur Rechtsver-gleichung (ZfRV), Issue 2, sub I V (2003);see also Roth (supra n.9) 196,198 ff,207;Eva Micheler, Re cognition of Companies Incorporated in other EU Member States,52 ICLQ 521-5 29,526 (2003).
④See Christian Joerges, On the Legitimacy of Europeanising Europe's Private Law,10 (EUI Working Paper No.2003/3).
① See Stefan Leible & Jochen Hoffmann, "Uberseering " und das (vermeintliche) Ende der Sitztheorie,48 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW),925-936,930 ff. (2002);Wulf-Henning Roth, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht nach Uberseering,23 Praxis des Internationalen Privatrechts (IPRax),117-1 27,126 f. (2003).
② See Jurgen Basedow, Der kollisionsrechtliche Gehalt der Produktfreiheiten im europaischen Binnenmarkt:favor offerentis,59 Rabels Zeitschrift fur aus landisches und internationales Privatrecht. (RabelsZ),1-55 (1995);Peter Mankowski, Das Herkunftslandprinzip als Interna-tionales Privatrecht der e-commerce-Richtlinie:100 ZvglRWiss 137-181 (2001);Stefan Grundmann, Das In ternationale Privatrecht der E-Commerce-Richtlinie was ist kategorial and ers im Kollisionsrecht des Binnenmarkts und warum?,67 RabelsZ 246-297(200 3).
③ See Joseph Story, Conflict of Laws,§19, p.13 (3rd ed., Boston:Little & B rown, and London:Maxwell & Son,1846) (The first edition dates from 1834). For Story's influence on Savigny (and thereby on European conflicts thinki ng) see Gerhard Kegel, Wohnsitz und Belegenheit bei Story und Savigny,52 R abelsZ 431 (1988); see also Gerhard Kegel, Story and Savigny,37 Am. J. of Comp. L.39-66 (1989). Ironically (or perhaps tellingly), while the name "p rivate international law" was imported to Europe through Foelix and Schaef fner and became dominant (Internationales Privatrecht, Diritto internazional e privato, droit international prive, derecho internacional privado), in the common law world and most notably in the United States the name is still us ually "conflict of laws". See Zitelmann, Der Name IPR, in 27 Zeitschri ft fur internationales Recht 177-196 (1918).
①See Swift v. Tyson,41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1,10 L. Ed.865 (1842). This decisio n was overruled by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64,58 S. Ct.817, 82 L.Ed.1188 (1938) (arguing, amongst others, that no law exists without s ome definite state authority behind it).
② See Peter Behrens, Die Bedeutung des Kollisionsrechts fur die "Globalisie rung" der Wirtschaft, in: Aufbruch nach Europa,381-398 (J. Basedow et al. eds., Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,2001); Pedro de Miguel Asensio, El Derecho i nternacional privado ante la globalizacion, I Anuario Espanol de Derecho Int ernacional Privado,37-87 (2001); Robert Wai, Transnational Liftoff and Jur idical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization,40 Col. J. of Transnat'1 L.209-274 (2002);J.C. G onzales. Globalizacion y Derecho internacional privado (Murcia,2002Admitte dly, there is more readiness to accept Europeanization of the field. See, m ost recently, M. Wilderspin & X. Lewis, Les relations entre le droit communa utaire et les regles de conflits de lois des Etats membres,91 Revue critiqu e de droit international prive,1-37,289-313 (2002).
③ See Klaus Giinther & Shalini Randeria, Recht, Kultur und Gesellschaft im Proz eβ der Globalisierung,21 f. (Bad Homburg: Werner Reimers Stiftung,2001).
① See Erik Jayme & Christian Kohler, Europaisches Kollisionsrecht 2002:Zur Wiederkehr des Internationalen Privatrechts,22 IPRax 461-471 (2002); K. B oele-Woelki & R. H. vaon Ooik, De ingrijpende communautarisering van het inte rnationaale privaatrecht,2002 Sociaal-economische wetgeving (SEW),394-407 (2002);Hans Ulrich Jessurun d'Oliveira, The EU and a Metamorphosis of Priv ate International Law, in: Reform and Development of Private International L aw Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North,89-110 (James Fawcett, ed., Oxfo rd: Oxford Univ. Press,2002).
②See Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law (Cambridge, 2003).
③ See Ralf Michaels & Hans-Georg Kamann, Grundlagen eines allgemeinen geme inschaftlichen Richtlinienkollisionsrechts "Amerikanisierung" des Gemei nschafts-IPR,12 EWS 301-311,311 (2001).
④ See Friedrich K. Juenger, The Problem with Private International Law, in:P rivate Law in the International Arena Liber amicorum Kurt Siehr,289-309 (Jiirgen Basedow et al., eds.,2000).
① See Gerhard Kegel, The Crisis'of Conflict of Laws,112 Recueil des Cours, 91-268 (1964-Ⅱ); See already Heinrich Kronstein, Crisis of "Conflict of L aws",37 Geo. L. J.483 (1949).
② See Daniel Zimmer, Savigny und das Internationale Privatrecht unserer Zeit, in Festschrift fur Fritz Sturm zum siebzigsten Geburtstag,1709 (1999);see also Paul Volken, How Common are the General Principles of Private Interna tional Law? America and Europe Compared, in I Yearbook of Private Internatio nal Law (supra n.30),85-102 (1999).
③关于对萨维尼冲突法理论体系的评价,据笔者查考所得的外文文献主要有(1) Jan K ropholler, Internationales Privatrecht,15 (4th ed.,2001);(2) Bernard Au dit, A Continental Lawyer Looks at Contemporary American Choice-of-Law Prin ciples,27 Am. J. Comp. L.,589-613 (1979);(3) Klaus Schurig, Kollisionsno rm und Sachrecht (1980).
④托马斯·库恩在《科学革命的结构》中提出“范式”的概念。库恩对科学发展持历史阶段论,认为每一个科学发展阶段都有特殊的内在结构,而体现这种结构的模型即“范式”(PARADIGM)。
①See Eugen Ehrlich, Internationales Privatrecht,126 Deutsche Rundschau 419-4 32,425 (1906); Arthur T. von Mehren, The Significance of the State for Choi ce of Law, in Festschrift fur Konrad Zweigert zum 70. Geburtstag,287-306 (H. Bernstein et al., eds.,1981);See Gerhard Kegel & Klaus Schurig, Internatio nales Privatrecht (8th ed., Munich: Beck),7-22 (2000).
② See Ulrike Seif, Savigny und das Internationale Privatrecht des 19. Jahrhu nderts,65 RabelsZ 492-512 (2001). ean-Louis Halperin, Entre nationalisme juridique et communaute de droit,47-66 (Paris,1999).
③ See Max Gutzwiller, Internationalprivatrecht:Die drei GroBen des 19. Jahrhu nerts, in:Festschrift fur Frank Vischer zum 60. Geburtstag,131-140 (Pete r Bockli et al. ed., Zurich, Schulthess,198.3).
④ See Pasquale Stanislao Mancini, Della nazionalita come fondamento del diritt o delle genti (E. Jayme, ed., Torino: Giappichelli,1994);Mancini, De 1'u tilite de rendre obligatoires pour tous les Etats, sous la forme d' un ou de plusieurs traites internationaux, un certain nombre de regles generales du D roit international prive pour assurer la decision uniforme des conflits en tre les differentes legislations civiles et criminelles,1 J. dr. int. priv e(Clunet) 221-239,285-304 (1874).
①See Martin van Creveld, The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge:Cambri dge University Press 1999); for Europe Hagen Schulze, Staat und Nation in der europaischen Geschichte (Munich:Beck,1995).
②Georg Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre 394-434. (3th ed., Berlin:Springer, 1914); see most recently Jens Kersten, Georg Jellinek und die klassische S taatslehre (2000).
① See Global Law Without a State (Gunther Teubner, ed., Aldershot et al.,199 7).
② See Politik und neuere Legislationen Materialien zum Geist der Gesetzge bung " (H. Akamatsu & J. Riickert, eds.,2000).
③ See Savigny, I System des heutigen Romischen Rechts (1840),§ 13 (pp.38-44).
④ Savigny, I System § 9, pp.25-27; Dieter Strauch, Recht, Gesetz und Staat b ei Friedrich Carl von Savigny,100 (2nd ed., Bonn 1963).
⑤ See Carl Ludwig v. Bar, Das internationale Privat-und Strafrecht,58 (186 2).
⑥ Savigny, I System § 9 (p.23):"Vielmehr wird jedes Volk, sobald es als so lches erscheint, zugleich als Staat erscheinen, wie auch dieser gestaltet se yn moge. ",§10 (p.29):mussen wir wiederholt behaupten, daβ der Staat urspriinglich und naturgemaβ in einem Volk, durch das Volk, und fur das Volk entsteht. " (emphases in original). See already Savigny, Juristische Methode nlehre nach der Ausarbeitung des Jakob Grimm,14 (Wesenberg, ed.,1951); cf. Strauch (supra n.52)20-22,98).
① See Okko Behrends, Geschichte, Politik und Jurisprudenz in F. C. v. Savig nys System des heutigen romischen Rechts, in:Romisches Recht in der europai schen Tradition Symposion aus AnlaB des 75.Geburtstages von Franz Wi eacker,257-321,266 ff. (Behrends et al., eds., Ebelsbach: Gremer,1985).
② Savigny, I System § 6 (p.12). For the question of contract as a source of law in Roman law see Zoltan Vegh, Ex pacto ius Studien zum Vertrag als R echtsquelle bei den Rhetoren,110 SavZ/Rom,184-295 (1993). Savigny was also opposed to social contract theories of the state, see Savigny, I System § 10, p.29.
③ "Les conventions legalement formees tiennent lieu de loi a ceux qui les ont faits."
④ Savigny, I System § 9.
⑤ See Savigny, Uber den Zweck dieser Zeitschrift [Zeitschruft fur geschichtli che Rechtswissenschaft]; in Thibaut und Savigny,261-268,264.
⑥ See Claudio Cesa, Sulle idee politiche della scuola storica,16 Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa:Classe di Lettere e Filosofia,83-106 (19 86).
⑦ See Joachim Riickert, The Unrecognized Legacy:Savigny's Influence on German Jurisprudence after 1900,37 Am. J. Comp. L.121-137,136 (1989); Ruckert, Savignys Konzeption von Jurisprudenz und Recht, ihre Folgen und ihre Bed eutung bis heute,61 Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis 65-95,82 f. (1993). Savigny's depoliticization of choice of law has been emphasized frequently; see only critically JEJ. Th. Deelen, De blinddoek van von Sav igny (Amsterdam,1966); Hans Ulrich Jessurun d'Oliveira, De ruine van een paradigma: de konfliktregel (Deventer,1976);Joerges (supra n.51),9f. (1971).
① Savigny, Ⅷ System,26,130.
② See Horst Muller, Der Grundsatz des wohlerworbenen Rechts im international en Privatrecht (Hamburg,1935);Max Keller & Kurt Siehr, Allgemeine Lehren d es internationalen Privatrechts (Zurich, Schulthess,1986),418-426;for cri ticism see Jan Kropholler, Internationales Privatrecht,§ 21.I, pp.141-144 (4th ed.,2001). Antoine Pillet, La theorie generale des droits acquis,8 Re cueil des Cours,485-538 (1925-Ⅲ).
③另一种解决方法是以外国法律制度为模型由法官临时创造自己的“临时性规范”(Ad Hoc Rule),适用于个案。这是一种拟制的方法。萨维尼(Savigny)并不看好这种方法,为他所抛弃,但后来为美国的“本地法说”(Local Law Theory)以及意大利的“成立地法说”(Incorporation Theory)。在美国的判例,可以参见Guinness v. Miller,291 Fed.769 (S. D. N. Y.1923), aff' d,299 Fed.538 (2d Cir.1924), aff' d sub no m, Hicks v. Guinness,269 U.S.71 (1925) per J. Hand; Walter Wheeler Cook, T he Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws (Cambridge, Mass.:Harvar d Univ. Press 1942; cf. David F. Cavers, The Two "Local Law" Theories,63 Harv. L. Rev.822-832 (1950), reprinted in Cavers, The Choice of Law,45-55(1985).意大利学者的论述,可以参见Santi Romani, L' ordinamento giuridico (1 918); Bernardini, Produzione di norme giuridiche mediante rinvio (Milan,196 6).
①国内学者的通说认为是戴西创立了此一理论。本文认为戴西只是此一理论的传播者,并非创立者。戴西的这一著名论述的英文原文现摘录如下：”[T]he courts, e. g. of En gland, never in strictness enforce foreign law; when they are said to do so, they enforce not foreign laws, but rights acquired under foreign laws. " See Albert Venn Dicey, A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Con flict of Laws,11 (2d ed.1908).
② Restatement, First Conflict of Laws (1934); Joseph Beale, Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (1935); see also Soater v. Mexican National Railroad Co. 194 U.S.120,126,24 S. Ct.581,582,48 L.Ed.900, per J. Holmes (1904).
③ See Perry Dane, Vested Rights, "Vestedness", and Choice of Law.96 Yale L. J.1191-1275 (1987).
④ Carl Georg von Wachter, Ueber die Collision der Privatrechtsgesetze verschie dener Staaten (Fortsetzung),25 Archiv fur die civilistische Praxis (AcP) 1-9. On Wachter see Nadelmann, Wachter's Essay on the Collision of Private Laws of Different States,13 Am. J. Comp. L.414-428 (1964); Sandmann, Gru ndlagen und Enfluss der internationalpivatrechtlichen Lehre Carl Georg von W achters (1797-1880) (Diss. Munster,1979); see also Paul Volken, Wenn Wachte r mit Story, in: Private Law in the International Arena (supra n.29),815-8 28.
⑤主张礼让说的学者有Voet, Huber, Dicey, Story, F lix, Vareilles-Sommieres.
① Savigny, Ⅷ System, § 348, p.28:"freundliche Zulassung"
② Savigny, VIII System, § 348, p.25; see also Seif (supra n.38) 509.
③ Paul Neuhaus, Savigny und die Rechtsfindung aus der Natur der Sache,15 Ra belsZ 364,376 (1949/50).
④ Savigny, VIII System,§ 346, p.17斯托里(Story)当时已经将基督教教法与异教之法区别开来。See Story (supra n.) § 25, p.36.
⑤ Paul Neuhaus, Savigny und die Rechtsfindung aus der Natur der Sache,15 Rabe l sZ 364,366 (1949/50).
①Savigny,I System,1-3；cf.Schurig(supra n.35)115 f.
②Kegel＆Schurig(supra n.37)165 f.
③See Paul Heinrich Neuhaus,Abschied von Savigny?,46 Rabel sZ 1-25(8 f.).
④See Eugene F.Scoles,Peter Hay et al.,Confl ict of Laws,§2.9,pp 25-38 (2011).
⑤Savigny,Ⅷ System, § 349,p.32
⑥Savigny,Ⅷ System,§ 349.
⑦Savigny,Ⅷ System,§ 349,p.34 f.
①Savigny § 346,p.18萨维尼将相关问题界定为：“怎样的领土之法才是个案中应 当予以适用的法律?”
① Ⅷ System,108,120.
② See Max Gutzwiller, Der EinfluB Savignys auf die Entwicklung des Internation alprivatrechts (1923); Leo Raape & Fritz Sturm, I Internationales Privatrech t 410 (Munich, Vahlen,1977).
③ Wilhelm Peter Schaeffner, Entwicklung des internationalen Privatrechts,40 (1841). On Schaeffner, See Stefan Wagner, Wilhelm Peter Schaeffner,17 Praxi s des Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 73-76 (1997).
④ Savigny, Ⅷ System,.§361, p.120 f.
① Savigny, VIII System, § 346, p.16 f.
② Savigny, VIII System, §§ 350-359, pp.39-106关于萨维尼的住所原则的评价,可以参见Gerhard Kegel, Wohnsitz und Belegenheit bei Story und Savigny,52 Ra belsZ 431-465,437-442 (1988).
③ Savigny himself wrote about the medieval principle; see his Geschichte des r omischen Rechts im Mittelalter,115 ff. (2nd ed.,1834). See, more recently, Simeon L. Guterman, The Principle of the Personality of Law in the Early M iddle Ages:A Chapter in the Evolution of Western Legal Institutions and Ideas,21 U. of Miami L. Rev.259-348 (1966/67);Guterman, The principle of the personality of law in the Germanic kingdoms of western Europe from the fifth to the eleventh century (Peter Lang,1990); Max Keller & Kurt Siehr, Allgemeine Lehren des internationalen Privatrechts §§ 2-3, pp.11-20 (198 6).
① Savigny, VIII System § 346, p.17.
① Savigny, VIII System § 346, p.17. Cf. Jiirgen Basedow, The Effects of Globa lization on Private International Law, in Legal Aspects of Globalization, 1-10,8 f. (Basedow & Kono, eds., The Hague et al.2000).
② Savigny, Stimmen fur und wider neue Gesetzbiicher,3 Zeitschrift fur geschich tliche Rechtswissenschaft,1-52, reprinted in Savigny und Thibaut (supra n.) 231-254,241:Vollends die Juden sind und bleiben uns ihrem innern Wese n nach Fremdlinge.
③ Thomas Henne & Carsten Kretschmann, Der christlich fundierte Antijudaismus S avignys und seine Umsetzung in der Rechtspraxis,119 Zeitschrift fur Rechtsg eschichte germanistische Abteilung (SavZ/Ger) 250-315(2002).
①Savi gny,Ⅷ System, § 349,p.36普鲁士法律中禁止犹太人取得土地权利的条款同样适用于外国犹太人
① Georg Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre 394-434. (3th ed., Berlin:Springer, 1914);see Jens Kersten, Georg Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre (200 0).
② EC Treaty, Art.61-69.
③ Ralf Michaels, Privatautonomie und Privatkodifikation,62 RabelsZ 580-626 (5 97).
④ See Gunther Teubner, The King's Many Bodies:The Self-Deconstruction of Law' s Hierarchy.31 Law & Soc. Rev.763,768 (1997).
⑤ See Dennis Solomon, Das vom Schiedsgericht in der Sache anzuwendende Recht n ach dem Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts, 43 Recht der inter-nationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) S.981-990(1997).
① See Ralf Michaels, Territorial Jurisdiction after Territoriality, in:Essays on Globalization and Jurisdiction (Piet-Jan Slot, ed.. The Hague:Kluwer,2 004).
① Savigny § 347, p.22.
② see Bernhard Grossfeld, Zur Geschichte der Anerkennungsproblematik bei Aktie ngesellschaften,38 RabelsZ 344-371 (1974).
① Albert Farnsworth, The Residence and Domicil of Corporations (London,1939).
② Philippe-Emmanuel Partsch, cited after Markus Rehberg, Internationales Gesel lschaftsrecht im Wandel:Das Uberseering-Urteil des EuGH und seine Folgen (T agungsbericht),23 IPRax 175-181,176 f. (2002).
① Ⅷ System § 348, p.29.
② EC Regulation 44/2001, Art.33 (1); U.S. Constitution, Art. IV Sec.1 ("Ful 1 Faith and Credit").
③ Scoles, Hay et al. (supra n.90), § 23.2, p.1106 (2000); Daily Mail, no.1 9.
① See Dermott McCann, Small States in Globalizing Markets:The End of Economic Sovereignty?,34 Int'1 Law & Politics,281-297 (2001).
② See Ralf Michaels, My Own Private Switzerland,7 Zeitschrift fur Europaische s Privatrecht 197-199 (1999).
③ See Behrens, Das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach dem Centros-Urteil d es EuGH,19 IPRax,323-33,326 (1999); Schurig (supra n.11) 206.
④ See Steindorff, Centros und das Recht auf die giinstigste Rechtsordnung,54 J uristenzeitung (JZ),114-1143 (1999); Eva-Maria Kieninger, Niederlassungsfre iheit als Rechtswahlfreiheit,28 Zeitschrift fur Unternehmens und Gesells chaftsrecht (ZGR),724-749(1999).
① See Heinrich Kronstein, The Nationality of International Enterprises,52 Colu m. L. Rev.983 (1952); Comment, The "Nationality" of International Corporati ons Under Civil Law and Treaty,74 Harv. L. Rev.1429-1451 (1961).
② Ohio & Mississippi R. R. v. Wheeler,66 U.S. (1 Black) 286 (1862).
③ Savigny, Ⅷ System,§ 346, p.17.
④ U. S. C. A.§ 1332 (c); see Moore & Weckstein, Corporations and Diversity of Ci tizenship:A Supreme Court Fiction Revisited,77 Harv. L. Rev.1426 (1964).
⑤ Johnson & Johnson v. Picard,282 F.2d 386 (6th Cir.1960).
⑥ See Eugene F. Scoles, Peter Hay et al., Conflict of Laws,§ 2.9, pp 25-38 (2000).
①孟西尼(Mancini,1817-1888)是19世纪中期意大利的一位大政治家,也是著名的国际法和国际私法学家。他在其著名的演说《国籍乃国际法的基础》(Nationality as the Foundation of the Law of Nations)中指出,不论何种法律关系,其法律适用原则上都应以国籍作为连结因素。参见李双元主编：《国际私法》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2012年3月,第48页。
② See Ruffert,2008 ECJ(opinion of AG Bot), paras.10-12, available at http:/ /curia.europa.eu.
① See Christian Joerges, The Challenges of Europeanization in the Realm of Pri vate Law: A Plea for a New Legal Discipline,14 DUKE J. COMP.& INT' L L.1 49,178-79(2004).
② See Helene Gaudemet-Tallon, Quel droit international prive pour 1'Union Eur opeenne?,in INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS,at 317,329-38.
① See William F. Baxter, Choice of Law and the Federal System,16 STAN. L. REV 1,23 (1963); Elliott E. Cheatham, A Federal Nation and Conflict of Laws, 22 ROCKY MT. L. REV.109,111 (1950); Harold W. Horowitz, Toward a Federal Common Law Choice of Law,14 UCLA L. REV.1191,1193 (1967);Robert H. J ackson, Full Faith and Credit-The Lawyer's Clause of the Constitution,45 COLUM. L. REV.1,26 (1945);Laycock, at 333.
② See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co.,313 U.S.487,496-98 (1941).
③ Larry Kramer, On the Need for a Uniform Choice of Law Code,89 MICH. L. REV.21 34,2134-49(1991).
① See Friedrich K.Juenger, Conflict of Laws:A Critique of Interest Analysis, 32 AM. J. COMP. L.1,44 (1984) ("The mountains labored mightily only to g ive birth to a mouse.").
② THOMAS S. KUHN, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS 92 (2d ed.1970).
① See Gerhard Kegel,Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Lawsa nd the American Reformers,27 AM. J. COMP. L.615,633 (1979).
② See Erik Jayme, The American Conflicts Revolution and the Impact on European Private International Law, in FORTY YEARS ON:THE EVOLUTION OF POSTWAR PRI VATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EUROPE 15,15-27 (1990); Frank Vischer, New Develo pments in European Conflict of Laws and the Influence of the U.S. Doctrine-A Short Survey, in LAW AND JUSTICE IN A MULTISTATE WORLD: ESSAYS IN HONOR 0 F ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN 459 (James A. R. Nafziger & Symeon C. Symeonides eds. 2002).
③ See Ralf Michaels, American Law (United States), in ELGAR ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMPARATIVE LAW 66,70 (Jan M. Smits ed.,2006);see Mathias Reimann, Domes tic and International Conflicts Law in the United States and Western Europe, in INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM-ESSAYS IN HONOR OF FRIEDRICH K. JUENGER 109,113 (Patrick Borchers & Joachim Zekoll eds.,2001).
④ BRAINERD CURRIE, The Verdict of Quiescent Years, in BRAINERD CURRIE, SEL ECTED ESSAYS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 584,613(1963).
① See Kurt Siehr, General Problems of Private International Law in Modern Codi fications-De Lege Lata and De Lege Europea Ferenda,2005 Y. B. PRIVATE INT' L L.17,26-29 (summarizing the recent development of escape clauses in Euro pe).
② See Ralf Michaels, EU Law as Private International Law? Reconceptualising t he Country-of-Origin Principle as Vested-Rights Theory,2 J. PRIVATE INT' L L.195,216-20,226-27 (2006).
③ See W. W. COOK, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws (1942).
④ See B. CURRIE, Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws (1963).
① See D. CAVERS,The Choice-of-Law Process (1965); id., The Choice of Law:Sel ected Essays 1933-1983 (1985).
② See W. F. BAXTER,'Choice of Law and the Federal System', in:16 Stan. L. Rev.1 (1963).
③ See A. A. EHRENZWEIG,'The Lex Fori-Basic Rule in the Conflict of Laws' in:58 Mich. L. Rev.637 (1960).
④ See R. B. LEFLAR,'Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law', in: 41 NYU L. Rev.367 (1966); id.,'More on Choice Influencing Considerations' in:54 Cal. L. Rev.1584 (1966).
⑤ See A. T. VON MEHREN & D. TRAUTMAN, The Law of Multistate Problems (1965).
⑥ See 191 N. E.2d 279 (N. Y.1963); republished, e.g., in H. SCHACK, Hochstricht erliche Rechtsprechung zum Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrecht (2d e d.2000) case no.21, p.89.
① See K. SIEHR,'Revolution and Evolution in Conflicts Law', in:60 La. L. R ev.1353 (2000).
② See S. C. SYMEONIDES, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present a nd Future (2006) 9-35. The book is a revised version of S. C. SYMEONIDES, Th e American Choice-of-Law Revolution in the Courts:Today and Tomorrow,298 R ec. des cours 1 (2003).
③ See S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Conflict of Laws Bibliography: U.S. Sources,2005-20 06', in:54 Am. J. Comp. L.789 (2006);id.,'Private International Law Bi bliography 2007-08: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English', in:57 Am. J. Com p. L.331-346 (2009).
④See K. KNOP, R. MICHAELS & A. RILES,'Foreword: Transdisciplinary Conflicts of Law', in:K. KNOP et al. (note*) 1,3.
⑤ See S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2009:Twenty-Third Annual Survey', in:58 Am. J. Comp. L.227(2010).
① See J. VON HEIN,'Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Ro me Ⅱ and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution', in:82 Tul. L. Rev.1663 (2 008); D. SOLOMON,'The Private International Law of Contracts in Europe:Ad vances and Retreats', in:82 Tul. L. Rev.1709 (2008); S. C. SYMEONIDES,'T he American Revolution and theEuropean Evolution in Choice of Law:Reciproca 1 Lessons', in:82 Tul. L. Rev.1741-91 (2008).
② See R. MICHAELS,'Die europaische IPR-Revolution: egulierung, Europaisieru ng, Mediatisierung', in: estschrift J. Kropholler (2008),151-173;English version as 'The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution', in:82 Tul. L. Rev. 1607-1644 (2008).
① See R. MICHAELS,'Die europaische IPR-Revolution: Regulierung, Europaisieru ng, Mediatisierung', in: Festschrift J. Kropholler (2008),151-173; English version as 'The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution', in:82 Tul. L. Rev. 1607-1647 (2008).
② See A. RILES,'A New Agenda for the Cultural Study of Law:Taking on the Te chnicalities', in: 53 Buff. L. Rev.973 (2005),1018-21.
③据本文作者考证,迄今美国有关《第三次冲突法重述》的探讨的文献主要有'Sympos ium: The Silver Anniversary of the Second Conflicts Restatement', in:56Mar yland L. Rev.1193 (1997);'Symposium: Preparing for the Next Century A New Restatement of Conflicts', in:75 Indiana L. J.399-686 (2000);S. C. SY MEONIDES,'A New Conflicts Restatement:Why Not?', in:5 J. Pr. Int. L.38 3-424 (2009); see also M. TRAYNOR,'The First Restatements and the Vision o f the American Law Institute, Then and Now', in:32 So.Ill.U. L. J.145 (2 007).
① See K. H. NADELMANN,'Marginal Remarks on the New Trends in American Confli cts Law', in:28 Law & Contemp. Probs.860 (Autumn 1963), cited in F. K. JU ENGER, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice 6(1993).
① Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,798 N. E.2d 941 (Sup.Jud. Ct.Mass. 2003).
② In re Marriage Cases,183 P.3d 384 (Sup. Ct. Cal.2008).
③ Kerrigan v. Commr. of Pub. Health,957 A.2d 407 (Sup. Ct. Conn.2008).
④ Varnum v. Brien,763 N. W.2d 862, (Sup. Ct. Iowa 2009).
⑤ 15 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 8, as amended by 2009 Vermont Laws No.3 (S. 115).
⑥ An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom, 2009 Maine Legislative Service Ch.82 (S.P.384) (L. D.1020)该法明文承认在外州缔结的同性婚姻。
⑦ New Hampshire Revised Statutes § 457:1-a.
① D. C. Code § 46-401.01, as amended by the Religious Freedom and Civil Marria ge Equality Amendment Act of 2009, L18-110, effective March 3,2010
② Proposition 8 (2008) added sec.7.5 to Art.1 of the State Constitution.
③ 19-A Maine Revised Statutes Annotated § 650.
④ New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill, New York Times,3 Decemb er 2009, p. Al; New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill, New York Times, 8 January 2010, p. A18.
⑤有关同性婚姻的冲突法问题的辩论,可以参见A. KOPPELMAN, Same Sex, Different St ates. When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines, Yale Univ. Press 2006; an e xcellent brief survey is P. HAY,'Recognition of Same-Sex Legal Relationshi ps in the United States', in:54 Am. J. Comp. L.257 (2006).
① R. MICHAELS,'Die europaische IPR-Revolution:Regulierung, Europaisierung, Mediatisierung', in: Festschrift J. Kropholler (2008),151-173;English ver sion as 'The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution', in: 82 Tul. L. Rev.1 607-1644 (2008).
②美国宪法上的“充分信任条款”的英文表述如下'Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manne r in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effe ct thereof’
③ See D.E. ENGDAHL,'The Classic Rule of Faith and Credit', in:118 Yale L. J. 1584 (2009); S. E. SACHS,'Full Faith and Credit in the Early Congress' in:95 Va. L. Rev.1201 (2009).
① See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague,449 U.S.302 (1981);Sun Oil v. Wortman, 486 U.S.717 (1988);Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt,538 U.S.4 88 (2003). The current interpretation of the clause is summarized in R. U. W HITTEN,'Full Faith and Credit for Dummies', in: 38 Creighton L. Rev.465 (2005).
②See E.g. L. KRAMER,'Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstit utional Public Policy Exception', in:106 Yale L.J.1965 (1997);cf. R. U. WHITTEN,'The Original Understanding of the Full Faith and Credit Clause an d the Defense of Marriage Act', in:32 Creighton L. Rev.255 (1998);S. E. COX,'Nine Questions About Same-Sex Marriage Conflicts', in: 40 New Eng. L. Rev.361(2006),377-84.
③ See Wilson v. Ake,354 F. Supp.2d 1298 (M. D. Fla.,2005).
④ See Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair,22 N. J. Tax 166 (N. J. Tax 2005); Fund erburkev. New York State Dep't of Civ. Servs.,822 N. Y.S.2d 393 (Nassau Cou nty Sup. Ct.2006). See Funderburke v. State Dept. of Civil Service,854 N.Y. S.2d 466 (2d Dep't 2008)); Lane v. Albanese,2005 WL 896129 (Conn. Super.,20 05).
① See Martinez v. County of Monroe,850 N. Y. S.2d 740 (N. Y. App. Div.4th Dep't 2008), leave to appeal dismissed,889 N.E.2d 496 (2008);see also Godfrey v. DiNapoli,866 N. Y. S.2d 844 (New York Sup. Ct.2008).
② See E.g. Opinion of the Attorney-General of Connecticut,2005 WL 2293060 (C onn A. G.).
③ See California 2009 Legislative Service Ch.625 (S. B.54), amending Section 308 of the Family Code.
④ See Hernandez v. Robles,855 N. E.2d 1 (N. Y.2006).
⑤ See Godfrey v. Spano,13 N. Y.3d 358 (New York Court of Appeals 2009).
⑥有关纽约州长此番行政指令的合宪性问题(Constitutionality)已经获得通过。See G olden v. Paterson,877 N. Y.S.2d 822 (N.Y.Sup.,2008).
⑦有关纽约州的立法动态,See Arthur S. Leonard,'New York Recognition of Legal S tatus for Same-Sex Couples:A Rapidly Developing Story', in:54 N. Y. L. Sch. L. Rev.479 (2010).
① D. C. Codet § 46-405.01, as amended by the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, L 18-9 effective July 7,2009.
② In re J. B. (District Court of Texas,302nd Judicial District.2009),2009 WL 3316580.
③ See Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L.104-199, Sept.21,1996,110 Stat. 2419).
④ See I U. S.C. Sec.7“为了确定国会任何文件、裁决、条例的含义以及美国各个行政机关的解释意见的含义,‘婚姻’(marriage)仅指一男一女、一妻一夫的合法的结合(a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife);‘配偶’(spouse)一词仅指异性之人,或为夫或为妻(a person of the opposite sex who i s a husband or a wife) 。"
⑤ See 29 U.S.C. Sec.1738“美国任何一个州、领土或属地、印第安部落,都不得被要求承认另一个州、领土或属地、印第安部落所作出的任何有关同性婚姻效力的公共法案、档案记录、司法程序,也不得被要求承认从此类同性婚姻关系中获得的权利(right)或声索(claim)."
⑥ See Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co.,448 U.S.261,272 n.18 (U.S. Sup. Ct.1980)：“虽然国会显然有权增大一个州可能给予另一州的法律、判决以充分的信任与尊重的分量,但至少有一个问题：它也可能削减此类信任与尊重的分量”
①See L. D. WARDLE,'Non-Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage Judgments under DOMA and the Constitution', in:38 Creighton L. Rev.365(2005).
② See Th. B. COLBY,'The Federal Marriage Amendment and the False Promise of Originalism', in:108 Colum. L. Rev.529 (2008).
③ See W. SINGER,'Same Sex Marriage, Full Faith and Credit, and the Evasion o f Obligation', in:1 Stan. Civ. Rts. Civ. Liberties J.1 (2005) 46显然,此一修正案若获得通过,它将授权各州自由决定拒绝承认在州外缔结的同性婚姻。See H. WILKINSON Ⅲ,'Gay Rights and American Constitutionalism:What's a Consti tution For?', in:56 Duke L. J.545(2006),553-57.
④ See J. RENSBERGER,'Interstate Pluralism:The Role of Federalism in the Sam e-Sex Marriage Debate', in:B.Y.U.L. Rev.1703 (2008).
① See T. WOLFF,'Interest Analysi s in Interjuri sdictional Marriage Disputes' in:153 U.Penn.L.Rev.,2215-50.(2005).
②See H. Y. LEVIN,'Resolving Interstate Conflicts Over Marriage, Martiage-Li ke,and Marriage-Lite Relationships'(2009),available at
① See K. KNOP, R. MICHAELS & A. RILES,'International Law in Domestic Courts: A Conflict of Laws Approach'(2009) at 10, available at.
② See K. KNOP,'Citizenship, Public and Private', in:71/3 Law & Cont. Prob s.309 (Summer 2008).
③ See M. CONSTABLE,'Afterword: Conflicts as a Law of Laws?', in:71/3 Law & Contemp. Probs.343 (Summer 2008).
④ R. POSNER,'The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline:1962-1987', in: Harv. L. Rev.100 (1987) 761,769-70;see also his fundamental criticism in Kaczmarek v. Allied Chemical Corp.,836 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir.1987).
① See Law & Contemp Probs 71/3 (Summer 2008):'Transdisciplinary Conflicts' (K. KNOP, R. MICHAELS & A. RILES, special eds.).
② E.O'HARA (ed.), The Economics of Conflict of Laws, Elgar Publishing-(2007).后来他又作了综述,可以参见E.O' HARA & L. E. RIBSTEIN, Conflict of Laws and Choice of Law (2009), available at.
③174 F.3d 842,845 (7th Cir.1999). S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Choice of Law in the American Courts 1999:One More Year', in:48 Am. J. Comp. L.143,150-52.波斯纳法官(Judge Posner)多次在多个案件中对此案中总结的原则予以援引,最近是在2009年的两个案件Abad v. Bayer Corp.,563 F.3d 663,669 (7th Cir.2009) and in Kamelgard v. Macura, WL 3400953 at *6 (7th Cir.2009)侵权行为地法在该案中未被扩大适用于侵害名誉(Defamation)的冲突法案件。
① See J. L. GOLDSMITH & A.0. SYKES,'Lex loci del ictus and global economic w elfare: Spinozzi v. ITT Sheraton Corp.', in:120 Harv. L. Rev. (2007) 1137.
②关于WTO法对冲突法的冲击的一般性研究,参见M. KRAUS, Die Auswirkungen des Welt handelsrechts auf das Internationale Kol1isionsrecht (2007).
③ See R. MICHAELS,'Two Economists Three Opinions? Economic Models for Privat e International Law Cross-Border Torts as Example', in:J. BASEDOW & T. KONO (eds.), An Economic Analysis of Private International Law (2006)143.
④ See E.O'HARA & L. E. RIBSTEIN,'From Politics to Efficiency in Choice of Law', in:67 U. Chi. L. Rev.1151 (2000).
① See E.O' HARA & L. E. RIBSTEIN, The Law Market (2009).
② See J. TRACHTMAN, The Economic Structure of International Law (2008).
③ See J. P. TRACHTMAN,'Economic Analysis of Prescriptive Jurisdiction', in: 42 Va. J. Int'1 L.1 (2001); J. P. TRACHTMAN,'Conflict of Laws and Accur acy in the Allocation of Government Responsibility', in: 26 Vand. J. Transn at'1 L.975 (1994).
④ See K. ROOSEVELT, Conflict of Laws (2010) 39-41.
① L. BRILMAYER,'Rights, Fairness and Choice of Law', in:98 Yale L. J.1277 (1989).
② A.-M. SLAUGHTER,'Liberal International Relations Theory and International Economic Law', in:10 Am. U. J. Int'1 L.&. Pol'y 717 (1995) 730.
③ A.-M. SLAUGHTER, A New World Order (2004).
④ M. E. SOLIMINE,'An Economic and Empirical Analysis of Choice of Law', in: 24 Ga. L. Rev.49 (1989); P. J. BORCHERS,'The Choice-of-Law Revolution: An Empirical Study', in: 49 Wash.& Lee L. Rev.357 (1992); S. E. THIEL, 'Choice of Law and the Home Court Advantage: Evidence', in:2 Am. L.& Ec on. Rev.291 (2000),305; H. Y. LEVIN,'What Do We Really Know About the Am erican Choice-of-Law Revolution?', in: 60 Stan. L. Rev.247 (2007).
① C. A. WHYTOCK,'Myth of Mess? International Choice of Law in Action', in: 84 N. Y. U. L. Rev. (2009) 719.
② C. A. WHYTOCK,'Domestic Courts and Global Governance', in:84 Tulane Law Review 2009. See also T. PUTNAM,'Courts Without Borders:Domestic Sources of U.S. Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere', in:63 International Organiza-tion 459-490 (2009).
③ See R. MICHAELS,'Global Legal Pluralism', in: 5 Annual Review of Law 243 (2009).
④ See P. S. BERMAN,'Towards a Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws:Redef ining Governmental Interests in a Global Era', in:153 U. Pa. L. Rev.1819 (2005);P. S. BERMAN,'The New Legal Pluralism', in:5 Annual Review of La w and Social Science 225 (2009),234-36.
⑤See N. HATZIMIHAIL,'On Mapping the Conceptual Battlefield of Private Inter national Law', in:13 Hague Y. B. Int'1 L.57 (2000).
⑥ See R. MICHAELS,'The Re-Statement of Non-State Law, The State, Choice of L aw, and the Challenge from Global Legal Pluralism', in:51 Wayne L. Rev.12 09 (2005).
①See A.RILES,'Cultural Conflict s',in:71/3 Law&Contemp.Prob s.273(S ummer 2008).
① See F. BUCKLEY & L. E. RIBSTEIN,'Calling a Truce in the Marriage Wars',i .n:U.Ill. L. Rev.561 (2001).
② See E.O'HARA & L. E. RIBSTEIN, The Law Market (2009). at 165-66.
③ See B. COSSMAN,'Betwixt and Between Recognition:Migrating Same-Sex Marria ges and the Turn Toward the Private', in 71/3 Law & Contemp. Probs.153-68 (Summer 2008).
④反过来也是如此：拒绝承认此类婚姻意味着离婚是不可能的,因此,婚姻也就继续存在。See D. JOHNSON,'Same-Sex Divorce Jurisdiction:A Critical Analysis of Chambers v. Ormiston and Why Divorce is an Incident of Marriage That Should Be Uniformly Recognized Throughout the States', in:50 Santa Clara L. Rev. 225 (2009).
① An Economic Analysis of Private International Law (J. BASEDOW & T. KONO eds. 2006); G. RUHL,'Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contra cts:Transat-lantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency', in:Essays In Mem ory of A. T. von Mehren (2007); G. RUHL,'Methods and Approaches in Choice o f Law:An Economic Perspective', in:24 Berkeley J. Int'1 L.801 (2006); H. MUIR WATT,'Choice of Law in Integrated and Interconnected Markets:A Matt er of Political Economy', in:9 Colum. J. Eur. L.383 (2003); H. MUIR WATT, 'Aspects economiques du droit international prive', in:25 Rec. des cours 307 (2004).
① See Jack L. Goldsmith, Against Cyberanarchy,65 U. CHI. L. REV.1199 (1998).
② See David Johnson& David Post, Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspa ce,48 STAN. L. REV.1367,1376 (1996).
① LEA BRILMAYERm, JACK GOLDSMITH,ERIN 0'HARA O' CONNOR, CONFLICT OF LAWS xix (6TH ED.2011).
① See John &Post, Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspace,48 Stan. L. R. ev.1367,1370-1376(1996).
① See Hanson v. Denkla,357 U. S.235,250-251,1958.
① See Cybersell,Inc. v. Cybesell,Inc.130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir.1997).
② See Hanson v. Denkla,357 U.S.235,1958.
① CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson,89 F.3d 1257 (6th cir.,1996). Bensusan Restaur ant Corp. v. King,937 F. Supp.295 (S. D. N. Y.1996), aff' d,126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir.1 997).
① Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King,937 F. Supp.295 (S. D. N. Y.1996), aff' d,126 F. 3d 25 (2d Cir.1997).
② See Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,952 F. Supp.1119,1124 (W. D. Pa.1997).
③ See Inset System, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc.,937 F. Supp.161 (D. Conn.1996).
① See Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Found.,958 F. Supp.1 (D. D. C.1996).
② See Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,952 F. Supp.1119,1124 (W. D. Pa.1997).
① See Calder v. Jones,465 U.S.783,1984.
② See Core-vent Corp. V. Nobel Industries,11 F.3D 1482(9th.),1993.
① See International Shoe Co. v. Washington,326 U.S.310,1945.
① See Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC,190 F.3d 333,336 (5th Cir.1999). Cybersell,130 F.3d at 418.
② See Panavision Int'1 L. P. v. Toeppen,141 F.3d 1316,1322(9th Cir.1998).
① See Telco Communication Group,Inc. v. An Apple a Day, inc.977 F. Supp.404 (E. D. Va.1997).
① See Bailey v. Turbine Design, Inc.,86 F. Supp.2d 790 (W. D. Tenn.2000).
② See CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson,89 F.3d 1257 (6th cir.,1996).
③ See Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,952 F. Supp.1119,1124 (W. D. Pa.1997).
④ See Blumenthal v. Drudge,992 F.Supp.44 (D.D.C.1998).
① See Tech Heads,inc. v. Desktop Serv. Center,Inc.,105 F. Supp.2d 1141,1150 (D. Or.2000).
② See Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, L. P,33F. Supp.2d 907,922 (D. ORE.1 999).
① See Andrea Slane, Tales, Techs, and Territories:Private International Law, Globalization, and the Legal Construction of Borderlessness on the Internet, 71 LAW & CONTEMP. PROB.129,130 (2008).
① See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown,180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011).
② See Michael H. Hoffheimer, General Personal Jurisdiction after Goodyear Dunl op Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, at 3-4, available on ssrn at http://ssrn. com/abstract=1919208.
③ See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,444 U.S.286 (1980).
① See Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Service, Ltd.,562 N.W.2d 466 (Mich.199 7).
② See Ralph U. Whitten, U.S. Conflict-of-Laws Doctrine and Forum Shopping, Int ernational and Domestic (Revisited),37 TEX. INT'L L J.559,573-74 (2002)
③ See Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc.,921 P.2d 933,935 (Nev.1996).
④ See Foster v. Leggett,484 S.W.2d 827,829 (Ky.1972)
①这类国际案件包括Chang v. Baxter Healthcare,599 F.3d 728 (7th Cir.2010)(现代时效问题)；Bakalar v. Vavra,619 F.3d 136 (2d Cir.2010) (适用纽约州的混合方法)；Naghiu v. Inter-continental Hotel Group,165 F. R.D.413 (D. Del.1996)(适用第二次冲突法重述的方法)；D'Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson 628 A.2 d 305 (N. J.1993) (运用政府利益分析的方法),Nedlloyd Lines B. V. v. Superior Court(评估是否赋予法律选择条款以法律效力),834 P.2d 1148 (Cal.1992);Catal ano v. Catalano,170 A.2d 726 (Conn.1961)(适用第一次冲突法重述的方法)。
② See Christopher A. Whytock, Myth or Mess?International Choice of Law in Act ion,84 N. Y. U. L. REV.719,723 (2009)由于地区法院的法官在国际法律选择案件中坚持平等立场,所以,对有效的全球治理,颇有贡献。
① See Licra and UEJF v. Yahoo! Inc., Tribunal de Grade Instance de Paris, May 22,2000. See also Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Lingue Contre le Racisme et 1'Antis emtisme,169 F.Supp.2d 1181 (N.D. Ca 2001), rev'd en banc on other grounds, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.2006).
② See Yulia A. Timofeeva, Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Cont ent Controversies:A Comparative Analysis,20 CONN. J. INT'L L.199,206-20 7(2004-2005).
③一个英特网视频共享网站。
④ See Adam Liptak, When Free Worlds Collide, N. Y. TIMES, FEB.28,2010, sec.WK, p.1.
⑤ See [2002] HCA 56 (High Court of Australia 2002).
① See Lewis v. King, [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1329, [31], [34] (Eng.).
② See Bangoura v. Washington Post (2004),235 D.L.R.4th 564,571 (Can. Ont. Su p. Ct. J.2004).
③ See re Moshe D. (Court of Cassation, Italy, Dec.27,2000), http://www.cdt.or g/speech/international/001227italiandecision.pdf).
④ See Yulia A. Timofeeva, Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Cont ent Controversies:A Comparative Analysis,20 CONN. J. INT'L L.199,210-21 0 (2005)).
⑤See Silverlit Toys Manufactory, Ltd. v. Absolute Toy Marketing, Inc.,2007 W. L.521239 (N. D. Cal.).
①范式的概念和理论是美国著名科学哲学家托马斯·库恩阐述的,指常规科学所赖以运作的理论基础和实践规范,是从事某一科学的研究者群体所共同遵从的世界观和行为方式。“法律范式”这一说法是借用的概念,指的是法律研究者们普遍适用的研究方法和方式。
② See Paul Schiff Berman, The Globalization of Jurisdiction,151 U. PA. L. REV. 311,322 (2002); See Paul Schiff Berman, Toward a Cosmopolitan Vision of Co nflict of Laws:Redefining Governmental Interests in the Global Era,153 U. PA. L. REV.1819,1857,1875-1876 (2005).
①See Derek E.Bambauer,01wel l's Armchai r,_CHI.L.REV.__(2012),avai la ble at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1926415.
②Licra and UEJF v.Yahoo!Inc.,Tribunal de Grade Instance de Paris,May 22, 2000.
③英文词汇"Libel tourism"最初是由英国著名法哲学家吉奥弗雷.罗伯逊(Geoffrey R obertson)创造的,意指在诽谤诉讼中的“挑选法院现象”(forum shopping for libe 1 suits)。中文作者一般直译为“诽谤旅游”,也就是说,由于美国等其它司法管辖区为发表诽谤言论之人提供了较多的抗辩理由,原告难以胜诉。于是,外国人会跑到英国法庭起诉那些在其他地方不会胜诉的诽谤案件。
① See Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Lingue Contre le Racisme et 1'Antisemtisme,169 F. Su pp.2d 1181,1192 (N. D. Ca.2001), rev'd en banc on other grounds,433 F.3 d 1199 (9th Cir.2006).
② See "The Funny Formula," WIRED MAGAZINE, May 2011,137-157.
③在这里,社会媒介平台指的是“博客”(blogs)、“我的空间”(MySpace)以及其它社会性媒介手段。这些媒介手段在互联网世界广泛应用。
①See John McCormick, "Obama's Top 2012 Fundraiser Prefers Farming to Huntin g for Money,"BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK,(Sept.22,2011,5:07 AM),http://www. businessweek.com/news/2011-09-22/obama-s-top-2012-fundrai ser-prefer s-farming-to-hunting-for-money.html,and"Obama campaign email subject lines,"CBS NEWS(Sept.30,2011,6:53 PM),http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544-162-2011 4153-503544.html.
②See Gregory S.Cooper.A Tangled Web We Weave:Enforcing International Speec h Restrictions in an Online World,8 PITTSBURGH J.TECH.L.& P.2,15-18 (2007).
③"Mashup Culture Goes Viral"(October 7,2011),available at http:///www.iol. co.za/scitech/technology/internet/mash-up-culture-goes-viral-1.1153007.
④混聚(Mashup)是一种基于Web Services资源元数据规范等技术的网络应用开发技术,它可以将不同站点或应用程序的数据、资源、API加以混聚来构建新的业务流程,满足新的用户需求。混聚的思想最早启迪于艺术领域,现已作为一种网络应用开发模式为世人所熟知。
⑤Horatia Muir Watt,Cyberage Conflict s Law: Yahoo!Cyber-Colli sion of Culture s:Who Regulates?,24 MICH.J.INT'L L.673,692-692(2003).
①See William Ho1lingworth, "'Scanllator s freely translating 'manga''ani me,'"THE JAPAN TIMES ONLINE(Mar.10,2009),ht tp://search.japantimes.co. jp/cgi-bin/nn20090310f2.html；
②1984年12月3日凌晨,设在印度中央邦首府博帕尔的美国联合碳化物公司的一家农药厂发生异氰酸甲酯(MIC)毒气泄漏事件,直接导致3150人死亡,5万多人失明,2万多人受到严重毒害,近8万人终身残疾,15万人接受治疗,受这起事件影响的人口多达150余万,约占博帕尔市总人口的一半。
①吴琼.监管跨国公司侵犯人权案的新突破—美国《外国人侵权法令》介评[J].比较法研究,2009,(05)：102-108.
②International Litigation and The Reworking of the Conflict of Laws[J].Law Q uarterly Review,2004,(120):580.
①Irene Khan.20 Year s After Bhopal:Multinational and Human Rights-Free Zone s[J].http:.//www.ipster raviva.net／tv／wsf2005／pdf／29.pdf,2005-03-23／2012-02-28.
②2000年1月30日晚上10点多钟,罗马尼亚一个小城镇巴亚马雷的一个黄金矿的尾矿池溃坝,导致大量含有氰化物和重金属的废水污染了周边几个国家的河流,直至黑海。这次事故造成的环境、健康和经济损失直到现在也难以估量。
③Alexander Szakats.Cross Border Pollution-Private International Law Problem s in Claiming Compensat ion[J].Victoria,University of Willington Law Review, 2001,(32):609.
① Angus Johnston and Edward Powles. The Kings of the World and their Dukes'Dil emma: Globalisation, Jurisdiction and the Rule of Law [A], in Piet Jan Slot an d Mielle Bulterman Ed. Globalisation and Jurisdiction[C]. Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2004,p.21.
①所谓公司面纱理论,即公司作为法人必须以其全部资产独立地对其法律行为和债务承担责任,公司的股东以其出资额为限对公司承担有限责任的理论。参见朱慈蕴.公司法人格否认法理研究[M].法律出版社1998：141-142.
① Richard Meeran. "Process" Liability of Multinationals:Overcoming the Forum Hurdle [J]. Journal of Personal Injury Litigation,1995,(05):170.
②择地行诉与法律选择和法院选择不同。一般认为,择地行诉是在国际民事纠纷发生后,原告无须与对方当事人协商,自主地选择对他有利的法院提起诉讼的行为。
①See Appeals for the Second Circuit,January 14th,1987.
①传统的国际民事诉讼理论认为,在国际民事诉讼活动中,由于原告可以自由选择一国法院而提起诉讼,他就可能选择对自己有利而对被告不利的法院。该法院虽然对案件具有管辖权,但如审理此案将给当事人及司法带来种种不便之处,从而无法保障司法的公正,不能使争议得到迅速有效的解决。此时,如果存在对诉讼同样具有管辖权的可替代法院,则原法院可以自身属不方便法院为由,依据职权或根据被告的请求作出自由裁量而拒绝行使管辖权。此种传统意义上的不方便法院理论具有一定的合理性,但它毕竟充斥着过大的随意性,易被滥用。参见李双元谢石松.国际民事诉讼法概论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：314.
①Mary Keyes. Jurisdiction in International Litigation[M]. Sydney:The Federation Press,2005:66-67.
②Upendra Baxi.Valiant Victims and Lethal Litigation[M]. Bombay: N. M. Tripathi P vt.Ltd.,1990:56.
①See Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 145.
② See S. A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense v. Boeing Co.,641 F.2d 746, 749 (9th Cir.1981).
① Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Service, Ltd.,562 N. W.2d 466,471 (Mich.199 7).
② Fu v. Fu,733 A.2d 1133,1138 (N. J.1999).
③柯里教授最早在1963年出版的《冲突法论文集》中提出了“利益分析”或“政府利益分析”方法论。柯里极力反对通过冲突规范来选择法律,认为“最好是抛掉冲突法规则”,而采用他的“利益分析(interest analysis)"方法去就有关国家的实体法规则直接作出选择。柯里的利益方法与传统的法律选择方法的显著区别,在于他透过法律冲突的表象,去分析背后的利益冲突,然后根据利益冲突的情况决定法律的适用。此一理论具有一定的合理性。但是,他的学说在司法实践中的运用引起了较多的批评。因为如果采用柯里所述的解决利益冲突的方法,常常会导致各国许多国际私法学家一直反对的法院地法优先适用的结果。尽管柯里认为依利益分析方法选择法律是合理的,而实际上法院总会在案件中找出理由认为自己州的利益是优先的。应该说,这是他的理论中一个不可避免的矛盾。关于柯里理论的评述,可以参见李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武 汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：317-321.
①See Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 145.
① See Philips Petroleum,472 U.S. at 816.
②本案的原告是两个美国公民,起诉前他们在土耳其遭绑架。
③ Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic,398 F. Supp.2d 131,139-40 (D.D.C.2005).
④ See Bano v. Union Carbide Corp.,2003 WL 1344884 at*3 (S. D.N.Y.)后来上诉至第二巡回法院,一审的部分判决结论被推翻。
①参见前引菲利普石油公司案。
② See Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., No. C 99-02506 SI,2006 WL 2455761 (N. D. Cal.2 006).
③ Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., No. C 99-02506 SI,2006 WL 2455761 (N.D. Cal.200 6).
① See Doe v. Unocal, No. BC 23.7980 and BC 237679, at 8 (Cal. Super. Ct.2003).
②缅甸法在该案中被视为事实,由原告举证证明缅甸法的存在及其内容。原告的缅甸法专家对之举证。该案的承办法官卡尼于2007年发表文章,对缅甸法的实际状况作了有趣的解释,可以参见Andrew Huxley.Case Note: Comparative Law Aspects of the Doe v. Unoca 1 Choice of Law Hearing [J].J. Comp. L.,2007 (1):219, available at http://www.thejcl. com/pdfs/huxley. pdf,2007-01-10/2012-01-23.
③ See Wyatt,398 F. Supp.2d at 139.
④ See Wyatt,398 F. Supp.2d at 139.
①李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：112-113.
②李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：129.
③(苏)乌.姆.柯列斯基.英美国际私法的理论与实践,转引自李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：130.
① See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp,2006 WL 516744, at 2 (D. D. C.2006).
② See Doe v. Unocal, No. BC 237980 and BC 237679, at 5,6 (Cal. Super. Ct.200 3).
① See Unocal, No. BC 237980 and BC 237679, at 10 (citing Wong v. Tenneco, Inc. 39 Cal.3d 126,135 (1985)).
②公共政策例外,又称公共政策,在大陆法系的冲突法著作中称公共秩序保留,一般是指在依法院国自己的冲突规则本应适用某一外国法,而因其适用会危及法院国的重大社会或公共利益或法律与道德的基本原则即可排除其适用的一种保留制度。关于公共政策例外对排除外国法适用的功能分析,可以参见李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：262.
③ See Friends For All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,587 F. Supp.18 0,191 (D. D. C.1984).
① See 587 F. Supp. at 191,citing Friends For All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Ai rcraft Corp.,717 F.2d 602,609-10 (C. A. D. C.1983).
② See Marsh v. Burrell,805 F. Supp.1493,1498 (N. D. Cal.1992).
① See Michael Anderson. Transnational Corporations and Environmental Damage:Is Tort Law the Answer? [J]. Washburn L.J.,2002,(41):399,402.
① See Michael D. Ramsey. The Power of the States in Foreign Affairs:The Origin al Understanding of Foreign Policy Federalism[J]. Notre Dame L. Rev.,1999,(7 5):341,344.
① See Mujica,381 F. Supp.2d at 1187-88.
② See Am. Ins. Ass'n v. Garamendi,539 U.S.401,409 (1999).
① See Crosby v. Nat'1 Foreign Trade Council,530 U.S.363,366,379-80 (2000).
② See Sinan Kalayoglu. Correct ing Mujica: The Proper Application of the Foreign Affairs Doctrine in International Human Rights Law[J]. Wis. Int'1 L. J.2007, (24):1045.
③ See Celeste Pozo.Foreign Affairs Doctrine Wanted Dead or Alive: Reconciling One Hundred Years of Preemption Case[J]. Val. U. L. Rev.2006 (41):591,617.
④ See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,2006 WL 516744, at*3 (D.D.C.2006).
① See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,2006 WL 516744, Docket No.38(letter from U.S. Dept. of State Legal Adviser William H. Taft, Ⅳ dated August 1,2002).
② See Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F. Supp.2d 1164,1169.
① J. KROPHOLLER & J. VON HEIN,'From Approach to Rule-Orientation in American Tort Conflicts, in Law and Justice in a Multistate World', in: Essays in H onor of A. T. von Mehren (2002),317.
② See G. SIMSON,'The Neumeier-Schultz Rules:How Logical a 《Next Stage in th e Evolution of the Law》 after Babcock?', in: 56 Alb. L. Rev.913 (1993).
③See J.A. R. NAFZIGER,'Oregon's Conflicts Law Applicable to Contracts', in: 3 Yb. Pr. Int. L. (2001),391 (republished in 38 Willamette L. Rev.397 (2 002)); S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Codifying Choice of Law for Contracts:The Orego n Experience', in:67 RabelsZ 726 (2003);S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Oregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract Conflicts:An Exegesis', in: 44 Wil lamette L. Rev.205-52 (2007).
① See G. J. SIMSON,'Beyond Interstate Recognition in the Same-Sex Marriage D ebate', in:40 U. C. Davis L. Rev.313 (2006).
② See W. M. RICHMAN,'A New Breed of Smart Empirically Derived Conflicts Rul es:Better Law than
《Better Law》 in the Post-Tort Reform Era: Reviewing Symeon C. Symeonides,'The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future (2006)', in:8 2 Tul.L. Rev.2181 (2008).
③ See S. C. SYMEONIDES, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution:Past, Present a nd Future (2006) 9-35塞氏的这本著作是根据其2003年的一本书修订而成的：S. C. SYMEONIDES, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution in the Courts:Today and Tomorrow,298 Rec. des cours 1 (2003).
①[美]埃德加·博登海默.邓正来译.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004：466.
②这里所指的古典国际私法是与现代国际私法相对称的,特指1945年第二次世界大战结束以前的国际私法及其理论。当然,以时间为标志来界定国际私法的古典与现代性质可能有失精准,但是第二次世界大战结束以来的国际社会一个明显的特征是民主和人权、和平与发展成为了世界政治的主流,相应的,国际民商事活动的范围日益扩大,以私法为手段调整国内和国际民事关系成为普遍现象。国际私法的性质与功能定位较之此前有着根本的变化。参见李双元.李金泽.世纪之交对国际私法性质与功能的再考察[J].法制与社会发展,1996,(03)：34-35.
③13世纪意大利半岛上诞生的法则区别说系由注释法学派集大成者巴托鲁斯(Bartolus,1314-1357)所创立,因其根据法则本身的物法、人法性质而确定其域内、域外效力而得名。
①萨维尼.现代罗马法体系(第8卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：216.
①萨维尼.现代罗马法体系(第8卷)[M].北京：北京法律出版社,转引自李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉武汉大学出版社,2002：117.
①李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉武汉大学出版社,2002：310.
②See Kegel,The Crisis of Conflict of Laws[J].Recueil des Cours,1964,(112):184-185.
①erhard Kegel. Paternal Home and Dream:Traditional Conflict of Laws and the A merican Reformers [J]. Am. I. Comp. L,1979,(27):617-621.
①参见沃尔夫.国际私法[M],1950：123.转引自李双元国际私法正在发生质的飞跃——试评《20世纪末的国际私法：进步抑或倒退》一书的总报告[A].李双元.法律趋同化问题的哲学考察及其他[C].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006：415.
②李双元国际私法正在发生质的飞跃——试评《20世纪末的国际私法：进步抑或倒退》一书的总报告[A].李双元.法律趋同化问题的哲学考察及其他[C].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006：415.
③李双元国际私法正在发生质的飞跃——试评《20世纪末的国际私法：进步抑或倒退》一书的总报告[A].李双元.法律趋同化问题的哲学考察及其他[C].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006：415.
④李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2002：108.
①李良才.欧盟区域国际私法统一化的新成果——2009年《扶养之债条例》之评介[J].湖北社会科学,2010,(07)：142-143.
①See Cavers.A Critique of the Choice of Law Problem [J]. Harv. L. Rev.,1933, (4 7):173.
①Symeon C.Symeonides.Material Justice and Conflict s Justice in Choice of Law [A].in P.Borchers & J. Zekoll, ed s.International Conflict of Laws for the T hird Millennium:Essays in Honor of Frjedrich K.Juenger[C].New York:Transn ational Publi sher s,2001,pp.125-140.
①徐冬根.国际私法趋势论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005：481.
①李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉武汉大学出版社,2002：713.
② See Austrian PIL Act Art.30; Hungarian PIL Act Art.26(2);Italian PIL Act Art.48;Polish PIL Act Art.35;Portuguese Civ. Code Art.65.1;Swiss PIL A ct Art.93; EGBGB Art.26; Yugoslav PIL Act Art.31.
③See Louisiana Civ. Code Art.3529; Austrian PIL Act §30.
④Greek Civ. Code Art.11; Spanish Civ. Code Art.11(1);Italian Civ. Code 1942 (Prel.Disp.)Art.26.
①Art.11 of the Hague Convention for the Law Applicable to the International S ales of Goods (1985); EGBGB Art.11; Swiss PIL Act Art.124. See also id. Ar t.56 (formalities of matrimonial agreements).
② See Greek Civ. Code Arts.7,9; Spanish Civ. Code Art.10(8);Peruvian Civ. Code Art.2070; Portuguese Civ. Code Art.28(1);Hungarian PIL Act Art.15(2) (3).
③ See La. Civ. Code Art.3539.
④ See Rome Convention Art.11; EGBGB Art.12; Swiss PIL Act Art.36; Italian P IL Act Art.23(2) (3); Quebec Civ. Code art 3086.
① See Russell J. Weintraub. Commentary on the Conflict of Laws[M]. New York:Tra nsnational Publishers,1986:397.
②See Cavers. The Choice of Law Process[M]. New York:Transnational Publishers 1965:180.
③关于以事后婚姻的方式给予私生子以准正的类似规则,可以参见《德国国际私法》第21条的规定。另外,《奥地利国际私法》(Austrian PIL Act)第21条也规定：若配偶双方分属不同的属人法管辖,应当适用更有利于子女准正的那个属人法。还有《法国民法典》(French Civil Code)第311-16.1条的规定。
①see Chin Kim.New Japanese PIL:The 1990 Horei[J].Am. J.Comp.L.,1992,(40):28-32.
②See Swiss PIL Art.72.
③See Swiss PIL Act Arts.72-73.
①关于婚姻形式有效性的规范,可以参见《意大利国际私法》(Italian PIL Act)第28条的规定：符合婚姻举行地法(lex loci celebrationis)、配偶任何一方的本国法或者共同居所地法的,即为有效。
②See Spaht & Symeonides. Covenant Marriage and the Law of Conflict of Laws[J].C reighton L. Rev.,1999,(32):1085,1102-1107.
③是否适用德国法取决于原告是否具备德国的公民资格——无论是婚姻缔结之时或者起诉离婚之时。
①徐冬根.国际私法趋势论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005：152.
①Cavers. Choice-of-Law Process,1965.326.
① Brainered Currie.selected essays on the conflict of laws[]M.,1963.126.
②关于对美国冲突法革命过程中发生的“规则”与“无规则”的对立关系的评价,参见李双元.国际私法正在发生质的飞跃——试评<20世纪末的国际私法：进步抑或倒退?>一书的总报告.国际法与比较法论丛》(第五辑).北京：方正出版社,2003.394-406.
③See Johan Meeusen. Instrumentalisation of Private International Law in the Eu ropean Union:Toward a European Conflicts Revolution?[J]. EUR. J. MIGR.& L. 2007, (9):287.
④See REGULATION (EC) NO 864/2007 ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO NON-CONTRACTUALOB L IGATIONS,0. J. (L 199) 40.
①例如,2007年度美国各州的和联邦的法院处理了4000多宗冲突法案件。See Symeon C. S ymeonides,Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007:Twenty-First Annual Survey [J]. AM. J. COMP.L.,2008, (56):128.
① See preface to Rome Ⅱ,2007.
②这里的“欧美冲突法”特指美国的冲突法与主要欧洲国家的冲突法,为了描述的方便,故采“欧美冲突法”的简称。
③塞缪尼德斯指出,所谓的“冲突正义”是与“实质正义”或“实体正义”并列的称谓,指的是这样一种观念：国际私法对选择“正确的”国家更有兴趣(也即与案件有实际联系的正确的国家),而非追求实体的正确结果。对于这些概念的辨析,可以参看Symeon C. Symeonides,Material Just ice and Conflicts Justice in Choice of Law[A] in P. Borchers & J. Zekoll, eds. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS FOR THE THIRD M ILLENNIUM: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF FRIEDRICH K.JUENGER[C].London:Macmillan,200 0,pp.125-40.
①塞缪尼德斯指出,“选择主义(Selectivism) "又称“冲突法主义(conflictualism) "描述的是这样一种观念：冲突法案件应当通过选择并适用所涉国家之一的内国法而不是通过创设实体法规范适用于特定的冲突法个案予以解决。第二种方法称为“实体法方法(s ubstantivism)"。关于这些概念的界定,See Symeon C. Symeonides, American Choi ce of Law at the Dawn of the 21st Century [J]. WILLAMETTE L. REV.,2001 (01):39.“单边方法(Unilateralism) "和“双边方法(bilateralism) "是选择主义的两种主要方法。一般而言,在涉及多个国家或州的冲突法案件中,各国或州竞相“要求”适用自己的法律于当前案件中,此种“诉求”即为确立单边方法的基础。双边方法(bi lateralism)或多边方法(multilateralism)则是根据事先界定的中立的标准,不以所涉国家或州的诉求为转移而进行准据法的选择。See Symeon C. Symeonides, Accommod ative Unilateralism as a Starting Premise in Choice of Law[A], in H. Rasmusse n-Bonne, R. Freer, W. Luke & W. Weitnauer.,eds. BALANCING OF INTERESTS:LIB ER AMICORUM PETER HAY[C]. New York: West,,2005, p.417.
② See AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE,RESTATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS(1933).
③ See Symeon C. Symeonides, The First Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes o f Old: As Bad as Its Reputation? [J]. SO. ILL. U. L. J.,2007,(32):39,57-59.
①巴迪福.国际私法各论.pp.255-265,转引自李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：584.
① Richard Fentiman. English Private International Law at the End of the 20th Ce ntury: Progress or Regress?[J]. in SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES ed. PRIVATE INTERNATI ONAL LAW AT THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURY:PROGRESS OR REGRESS?[C]. New York:K luwer Law International,1999,pp.165,169.
② Erik Jayme. The American Conflicts Revolution and Its Impact on European Priv ate International Law [A]. in FORTY YEARS ON: THE EVOLUTION OF POSTWAR PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EUROPE[C]. Amsterdam:Centrum voor Buitenlands Recht en Internationaal Privaatrecht Universiteit van Amsterdam,1992, pp.246-249.
③ See Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 8 November 1995(c.42)§12.关于此一立法的文本,可以参见李双元、欧福永、熊之才.国际私法教学参考资料选编(上册)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2002：453-456.
①See BENELUX UNIFORM LAW. art.14.
①See Willis Reese.Explanatory Report to the Hague Products Liability Conventi on, ACTS AND DOCUMENTS OF THE TWELFTH SESSION[J]. 1972(08):251,268.
①See Herma H. Kay.Conflict of Laws: Foreign Law as Datum [J]. CALIF. L. REV.,1 965,(04):47,53.
②See Commission Proposal,art.13 (2003).
①[美]埃德加·博登海默.邓正来译.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004：466.
②萨维尼.李双元等译.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：1-2.
①See Lawrence Collins with Speciali st Editors.Dicey,Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws[M].London:Sweet＆Maxwell,2006:1918-1919.
① Jan von Hein. Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Rome Ⅱ and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution[J]. TUL. L. REV.,2008 (04):278-279.
② Explanatory Report, art.7, p.19-20.
① See EGBGB art.42; BELGIAN PIL CODE art.101; cf. AUSTRIAN PIL ACT, § 35.
② See SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, WENDY C. PERDUE & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN. CONFLICT 0 F LAWS: AMERICAN, COMPARATIVE, INTERNATIONAL[J]. New York:Transnational Publ ishers,2003:110-111.
① See Symeon C. Symeonides. Oregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract C onflicts:An Exegesis [J]. WILLAMETTE L. REV.,2007, (44):205,223-226.
②See LA. CIV. CODE art.3540(协议之债)；OR. REV. STAT.81.120(合同权利义务)。
③See Symeon C. Symeonides. Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2002:Sixtee nth Annual Survey [J]. AM. I. COMP. L.,2003, (51):67-68.
①See ROME Ⅱ,Art s.6(4),8(3).
②See ROME Ⅱ.art.14(1)(b).
①See ROME Ⅱ.art.4(3).
①See BENELUX UNIFORM LAW,art.14.
②See ENGLISH PIL ACT§12.
①陈卫佐.中国国际私法立法的现代化———兼评《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》的得与失[J].清华法学,2011,(02)：101.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯.何怀宏等译.正义论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988：85-86.
① See Tito Ballarino & Andrea Bonomi.The Italian Statute on Private Internati onal Law of 1995 [A] in Yearbook of Private International Law[C].New York:Tran snational Publishers,2000,p.111.
② See Cavers, D. F. A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem[J]. Harv. L. Rev.193 3, (47):173.
③陈卫佐.中国国际私法立法的现代化———兼评《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》的得与失[J].清华法学,2011,(02)：101.
④姜茹娇.国际私法中损害赔偿法律适用问题研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2006：150.
①普拉诺编著.胡杰译.政治学分析词典[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1986：128.
② "Habitual Residence"这一英文表述也可以翻译成“习惯居所”,但我国绝大多数学者倾向于翻译成汉语“惯常居所”。为遵循约定俗成的翻译学原理,本文亦采“惯常居所”的说法。
③英文全称是"the Hague Conference on Private International Law Convention o n the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction",以下简称《海牙公约》。《海牙公约》提到的“诱拐(Abduction) "一般是指儿童监护争议：父母之一方违背另一方的真实意愿将被监护的儿童从监护人身边诱走,并非使用暴力实施绑架的情形。See Mozes v. Mozes,239 F.3d 1067,1069-1070(2001).
①42 U.S.C.§§11601 (2006＆Supp.2010).
②See U.S. Dep't of State, Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Enters i nto Force,http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/April/2008040117 1712xjsnommis0.189541.html,2008-04-01/2012-03-23.
③See L. (T.I.),V.F. (J.L.), [2001]153 Man.R.2d 241 at 19.
①See Jeffrey Schoenblum.Choice of Law and Succession to Wealth: A Critical An alysis of the Ramifi cations of the Hague Convention on Succession to Deceden ts' Estates,[J].Va.J.Int l,L.,1991,(32):83,86-126.
②See Gadi Zohar,HABITUAL RESIDENCE:AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF DOMICILE?available at:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1352964,2011-06-01/2-12-02-23.
③Pennoyer v.Neff,95 U.S.714(1877).
① Mitchell v. U.S.,88 U. S.350,352 (1874).
② Fong Yue Ting,149 U.S.698,732 (1893).
③ Fong Yue Ting,149 U.S. at 737-738.
① 490 U.S.30,48(1989).
② Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary [M].New York:West,2004:523.
③ 379 F.3d 631 (9th Cir.2004).
① See Hall v. Fall,379 F.3d at 634.
② See Coggins v. Carpenter,468 F. Supp.270,278 (E. D. Pa.1979).
② Mozes,239 F.3d at 1072-1073 (quoting C v. S, [1990] 3 W. L. R.492,504).
① See Knight v. C.I. R.,552 U.S.181,184 (2008).
② See Mozes,239 F.3d at 1076,1081.
①Mozes,239 F.3d at 1082.
②Robert,507 F.3d at 993-994(cit ing 42 U.S.C. §11603(e)(1)).
①Ruiz,392 F.3d 1247.
① Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield,490 U.S.30,48 (1989).
② See 28 C.J.S. Domicile § 23 (2008).
③ See Holyfield,490 U.S. at 48.
④ Black's Law Dictionary 523 (Bryan Garner ed.,8th ed. West 2004).
⑤ Intl. Shoe Co. v. Wash.,326 U.S.310 (1945).
⑥ See David Carl Minneman. Significant, connection jurisdiction of court under § 3(a)(2) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Par ental KIdnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)[R].28 U. S. C. § 1738a (c) (2) (b),5 A. L. R.5th 550,§22-24(1992).
①Gaudin,379 F.3d 631.
②Mozes,239 F.3d at 1078(若要建立新的习惯居所就必须有地理位置的改变).
①李双元,欧福永,熊之才.国际私法教学参考资料选编[Z].北京：北京大学出版社,2002：627.
②刘益灯.惯常居所：属人法趋同化的必然选择[J].中南工业大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(03)：304.
③Pilkington M P.Illegal Re sidence and the Acqui sition of Domicile of Choi ce [J].The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1984,(33):890.
① ANTHONY. T.KRONMAN, Contract Law and the State of Nature [J].J. L. Econ. Org.,1985, (01):5-32.
②JAMES M. BUCHANAN. Private International Trade in the Shadow of the Territor iality of Law: Why Does It Work? [J]. S. Econ. J.,1991, (58):329-338.
③普通法国家通常所讲的决定准据法的条款指的就是法律选择规范。它们被看作广义冲突法的一个部分,包括管辖权规范、外国判决承认与执行规范。民法法系国家,对比之下,确定准据法的条款指的是国际私法。不过,也有学者将国际私法与冲突法混着使用的。See SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES &WENDY COLLINS PERDUE & ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHRE N, Conflict of Laws:American, Comparative, International [J]. S. Econ. J.,2003, (01):3,6.
①这种分析方法多为法律与经济分析学者们所用且用来对冲突法进行法律经济分析。See ANDREW T. GUZMAN. Choice of Law:New Foundations [J]. Geo. L. J.,2002, (90): 3-940.
① JURGEN BASEDOW, Lex Mercatoria and the Private International Law of Contrac ts in Economic Perspective [A]. in JURGEN BASEDOW & TOSHIYUKI KONO (ed.) Econ omic Analysis of Private International Law[C].Urbana:University of Illinois Press,2006,pp.125-140.
②See FRIEDRICH K. JUENGER. A Page of History [J].Mercer L.Rev.,19S4,(35):420-42 2.
① HESSEL E. YNTEMA. The Historic Bases of Private International Law[J].Am.J. C omp. L.,1953,(2):297,299-303.
② See ALEXANDER N. SACK. Conflicts of Laws in the History of the English Law[A]. in WILLIAM A. REPPY (ed.). Law:A Century of Progress[C].1937,(03):342-454.
③ See Mostyn v.Fabrigas[Z].E. R.,1774,(98):1021,1030.
④ See JOEL P. TRACHTMAN. Economic Analysis of Prescriptive Jurisdiction[J]. Va. J. Int'l. L.,2001,(42):1-79.
① See ERIN A.O' HARA & LARRY E. RIBSTEIN. From Politics to Efficiency in Choice of Law[J]. U. Chi. L. Rev.,2000(67):1151-1232.
② ERIN A.O' HARA & LARRY E. RIBSTEIN, Conflict of Laws and Choice of Law[A] i n BOUDEWIJN BOUCKAERT & GERRIT DE GEEST (ed.), Encylopedia of Law and Econom ics[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,2000, pp.631-660.
③ ERIN A.O' HARA, Economics, Public Choice, and the Perennial Conflict of Law s [J]. Geo. L. J.,2002,(90):941-956.
④ See ERIN A.O' HARA & LARRY E. RIBSTEIN. Interest Groups,Contracts and Inter est Analysis[J]. Mercer L. Rev.,1997,(48):765-774.
⑤ See BRAINERD CURRIE. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham: Duke University Press,1963:128.
① See HERMA HILL KAY, A Defense of Currie's Governmental Interest Analysis[J]. J. COMP. L.,1989,(01):19-204.
② NITA GHEI & FRANCESCO PARISI,Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Forum Sho pping: Conflicts Laws as Spontaneous Order [J]. Cardozo L.Rer.,2004, (27):1372-1373.
① STUART E. THIEL. Choice of Law and Home-Court Advantage:Evidence[J]. Am. L.& Ec on. Rev.,2000, (02):291-317.
② See WILLIAM H. ALLEN & ERIN A.0' HARA, Second Generation Law and Economics of Conflict of Laws:Baxter's Comparative Impairment and Beyond[J]. Stan. L. R ev.,1999, (51):1011-1048,1023.
③ See KIMBERLY A. MOORE & FRANCESCO PARISI. Rethinking Forum Shopping in Cybers pace[J]. Chi.-Kent. L. Rev.,2002,(77):1328-1329.
④ See FRANCESCO PARISI & ERIN A.0' HARA. Conflict of Laws[A]. in PETER NEWMAN (ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law I[C].Urbana:Univ ersity of Illinois Press,1998,pp.387-395.
①See JOSEPH H. SOMMER. The Subsidiary: Doctrine Without a Cause?[J].Fordham L. Rev.,1990,(59):227-281,254-255.
②See STEWART E. STERK, The Marginal Relevance of Choice of Law[J].U. Pa. L. Re v.,1989,(142):949-1031,1015.
① See KIMBERLY A. MOORE. Forum Shopping in Patent Cases:Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation? [J]. N. C. L. Rev.,2001, (79):889-938,925.
② See Council Regulation 2001/44/EC of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and th e Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, O. J. L.,2001(01):12.
① See DANIEL J. DORWARD, The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine and the Judicial Pro tection of Multinational Corporations From Forum Shopping Plaintiffs[J]. U. P a. Int'1. Econ. L.,1998,(19):141-168.
① See MICHAEL J. WHINCOP & MARY KEYES, Economic Analysis of Conflict of Laws i n Torts Cases:Discrete and Relational Torts [J]. Melb. U. L. Rev.1998, (22):3 70-395.
② See MARY GARVEY ALGERO.In Defense of Forum Shopping: A Realistic Look at Sel ecting a Venue [J]. Neb. L. Rev.1999,(78):79-112.
① See Council Regulation 2001/44/EC of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and Re cognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,0. J. L,2001,(01):12.
② See ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN. Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority i n Private International Law: A Comparative Study of the Doctrine,Policies an d Practices of Common-and Civil-Law Systems[M]. Urbana:University of Ill in ois Press,2003,pp.250-256.
① See ROGER VAN DEN BERGH.Economic Criteria for Applying the Subsidiarity Prin ciple in the European Community: The Case of Competition Policy[J]. Int'1. Re v. Law.& Econ.,1995,(16):363,366.
② See LUCIAN ARYE BEBCHUK, Federalism, and the Corporation: The Desirable Limi ts on State Competition in Corporate Law[J].Harv. L. Rev.,1992,(105):1437.
③ See PETER DODD & RICHARD LEFTWICH, The Market for Corporate Charters:"Unhea lthy Competition" Versus Federal Regulation [J].J. Bus. L.,1980, (53):259.
④ See LARRY RIBSTEIN, From Efficiency to Politics in Contractual Choice of Law [J]. Ga. L. Rev.,2003,(37):363-471.
① See RICHARD A. POSNER, Economic Analysis of Law[M].New York:Kluwer Pulisher, 2002,pp.602-603.
② See RALF MICHAELS, Two Economists, Three Opinions? Economic Models for Private International Law of Tort Cross-Border Torts as Example[A]in JURGEN BASED OW & TOSHIYUKI KONO(ed.), Economic Analysis of Private International Law[C].N ew York:Kluwer Pulisher,2006,pp.239-246.
①YMEON C.SYMEONIDES. American Choice of Law at the Dawn of the 21st Century [J]. Willamette L. Rev.,2001,(37):1-87.
① See Potinger v. Wightman, E. R.,1893:29-31.
② ALBERT V. DICEY. A Digest of the Law of England With Reference to the Conflic t of Laws[M]. London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd.,1896:102.
① JOSEPH H. BEALE. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws[M]. London: Stevens and S ons,Ltd.,1935:128.
② The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws(193 4).
③ LUTHER L. MCDOUGAL. Toward Application of the Best Rule of Law in Choice of L aw Cases [J]. Mercer L. Rev.,2006,(01):483-533.
①FRIEDRICH CARL VON SAVIGNY,System des heutigen Romischen Rechts(1849),Volume 8.
①D EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome Convent ion),0. J. L.,1980:1-19.
①See MATHIAS REIMANN. Savigny's Triumph? Choice of Law in Contracts Cases at th e Close of the Twentieth Century [J]. Va. J. Int'l.L.,1999,(39):586.
① See HANS-BERND SCHAFER.Legal Rules and Standards[J].German Working Papers i n Law and Economics[C]. Hamburg:University of Hamburg,2002, (02):106.
② See WILLIS L.M.REESE, Choice of Law:Rules or Approach [J]. Cornell L.Q.,1972 (57):315,320-322.
①特征履行说原来认为乃瑞士法学家施尼译所首倡,但根据瑞士弗赖堡大学法学博士张明杰先生考证,认定为1902年由哈伯格(J.Harburger)在研究双务合同时便提了出来,到1955年海牙国际私法会议于有体动产买卖的冲突法中正式被采用。李双元.国际私法》(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：540.
①Information according to the STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT(FEDERAL STATISTICAL OF FICE),available at http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/bevoe/bevoetab4.php,2010-01-21/2012-03-23.
①See WILLIAM L.PROSSER, Interstate Publication[J]. Mich. L. Rev.,1953,(51):959-1000,971.
[1]韩德培.国际私法问题专论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2003：93.
[2]韩德赔.中国冲突法研究[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,1993：66.
[3]李双元.国际私法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2012：78.
[4]黄进.国际私法[M].北京：法律出版社,2005：68.
[5]李双元.中国与国际私法统一化进程[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,1998：126.
[6]李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：317-321.
[7]邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派(修订版)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006：20.
[8]李广辉.国际私法[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2010：101.
[9]徐东根,薛凡.中国国际私法完善研究[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,1998：301.
[10]赵相林.国际民商事案件司法协助制度研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2008：40.
[11]赵相林.中国国际私法立法问题研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003：55.
[12]赵相林.国际私法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007：55.
[1]韩德培.国际私法的晚近发展趋势[J].中国国际法年刊,1998(04)：96.
[2]肖永平.晚近欧洲冲突法之发展[J].中国法学,2004(05)：121.
[3]徐崇利.规则与方法——欧美国际私法政策的比较及其对我国的启示[J].法商研究,2001(01)：122.
[4]徐崇利.冲突规则的回归：美国现代冲突法理论与实践的一大发展趋势[J].法学评论,2000(05)：108.
[5]袁发强.人权保护对冲突法发展的影响[J].时代法学,2004(06)：78.
[6]蒋新苗等.“和平崛起”时代国际私法的定位[J].法学家,2004(06)：68.
[7]邹国勇.克格尔和他的国际私法“利益论”[J].比较法研究,2004(05)：74.
[8]黄世席.全球化与国际私法发展的新趋势[J].学术交流,2003(01)：56.
[9]姜茹娇、王娇莺.论国际私法中法律选择方法的价值追求——兼论最密切联系原则的勃兴与修正[J].比较法研究,2002(03)：26.
[10]宣增益、朱子勤.论20世纪西方国家国际私法学的发展[J].比较法研究,2000(02)：98.
[11]肖永平.美国冲突法革命之后的法律选择方法[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2000：56.
[12]焦燕.论既得权理论对当代冲突法的影响[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2002：78.
[13]刘益灯.论国际私法中的惯常居所[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2002：45.
[14]肖永平、王承志.第三次冲突法重述：美国学者的新尝试[J].武汉大学学报(哲社版),2004(01)：45.
[15]徐伟功.博弈论与中国区际法律冲突[J].武汉大学学报,2002(01)：76.
[16]徐唐棠.国际私法法律适用的确定性与灵活性之间的张力关系[J].当代法学,2002(11)：75.
[17]肖永平.国外国际私法的新发展与中国国际私法学的发展方向[J].中国法学,1996(01)：98.
[18]何易.中国法院审理涉外民商案件法律适用实证分析[A].中国涉外商事海事审判指导与研究[C],2001(01)：121.
[19]徐东根.论法律直接适用理论及其对当代国际私法的影响[J].中国国际法年刊,1994(02)：76.
[20]车英,胡永庆.国际问题交往中法律选择方法的最新走向[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,1999(01)：85.
[1][美]伯尔曼,贺卫芳等译.法律与革命—西方法律传统的形成[M].北京：中国大百科全书 出版社,1993：178.
[2][英]莫里斯,李双元等译.戴西和莫里斯伦冲突法[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1999：268.
[3][德]萨维尼,李双元等译.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：128.
[4][美]罗斯科.庞德,唐前宏等译.普通法的精神[M].北京：法律出版社,2001：18-20.
[5][美]博登海默,邓正来译.法理学——法律哲学与法律方法[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：102.
[6][罗马]查士丁尼,张企泰译.法学总论—法学阶梯[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：400.
[7][德]卡尔.拉伦茨,陈爱娥译.法学方法论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2004：123.
[1][美]西蒙尼德斯,宋晓译,黄进校.20世纪末的国际私法——进步还是退步?[A].民商法论丛[C].,2002(24)：389.
[2][英国]莫里斯,李东来等译.法律冲突法[J].中国对外翻译出版公司,1990：483.
[1]EUGENE F. SCOLES & PETER HAY & PATRICK J. BORCHERS & SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, Conflict of Laws[M]. London: Macmillan,2004:1-2.
[2]Bryan A. Gamer.Black's Law Dictionary[M].New York:West,2004:5-23.
[1]Karen Knop, Ralf Michaels,& Annelise Riles, International Law in Domestic Courts:A Conflict of Laws Approach [J].4, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1413189 (2009).
[2]White House, International Strategy for Cyberspace:Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World[J].(May 2011), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/de fault/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for__cybe rspace.pdf.
[3]W. M. RICHMAN,'A New Breed of Smart Empirically Derived Conflicts Rules:Better Law than 《Better Law》 in the Post-Tort Reform Era: Reviewing Symeon C. Symeonides,'The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future (2006)'[J]., in:82 Tul. L. Rev. 2181 (2008).
[4]G. J. SIMSON,'Beyond Interstate Recognition in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate'[J], in:40 U.C. Davis L. Rev.313 (2006).
[5]S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Oregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract Conflicts:An Exegesis'[J], in: 44 Willamette L. Rev.205-52 (2007).
[6]Sinan Kalayoglu.Correcting Mujica:The Proper Application of the Foreign Affairs Doctrine in International Human Rights Law[J]. Wis. Int'l LJ.2007,(24):1045.
[7]Celeste Pozo.Foreign Affairs Doctrine Wanted Dead or Alive:Reconciling One Hundred Years of Preemption Case[J].Val. U. L. Rev.2006(41):591,617.
[8]Symeon C. Symeonides, Private International Law at the End of the 20th Century:Progress or Regress[A].in International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millennium:Essays in Honor of Friedrich K. Juenger[C]. New York:West.1999:46,60.
[9]Symeon C. Symeonides, Material Justice and Conflicts Justice in Choice of Law[A], in P. Borchers & J. Zekoll, eds.,International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millennium:Essays in Honor of Friedrich K. Juenger[C]. New York:Transnational Publishers.2001:125-140.
[10]Derek E. Bambauer, Olwell's Armchair, [J]._ CHI. L. REV._ (2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstracr=1926415.
[11]Rochelle Dreyfuss, The ALI Principles on Transnational Intellectual Property Disputes:Why Invite Conflicts? [J]. Brook. J. Intl. L.,2005,(30):819,828.
[12]John McCormick, "Obama's Top 2012 Fundraiser Prefers Farming to Hunting for Mo ney," BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK, (Sept.22,2011,5:07 AM),http://www.busines sweek.com/news/2011-09-22/obama-s-top-2012-fundraiser-prefers-farming-to-hunting-for-m oney.html. and "Obama campaign email subject lines," CBS NEWS (Sept.30,2011, 6:53 PM), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20114153-503544. html.
[13]Horatia Muir Watt, Cyberage Conflicts Law: Yahoo! Cyber-Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates? [J].,24 MICH. J. INT'L L.673,692-692 (2003).
[14]SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES & WENDY COLLINS PERDUE & ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, Conflict of Laws:American, Comparative, International[J].Am.J.Comp. L.,2003,(01):297,299-303.
[15]Spaht & Symeonides, Covenant Marriage and the Law of Conflict of Laws[J], Creighton L. Rev.,1999,(32):1085,1102-1107.
[16]Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World[J].,8 PITTSBURGH J. TECH. L.& P.2,15-18 (2007).
[17]Alexandra Reeve.A New Strategy for Regulating AmericanCorporations That Commit Human Rights Abuses Abroad[J].Colum. Bus. L. Rev.,2008(01):387-422.
[18]Symeonides, The Need for a Third Conflicts Restatement (And a Proposal for Tort Conflicts[J]), Ind. L. Rev.,2000,(75):437,450-451,472-474.
[19]Michael Anderson, Transnational Corporations and Environmental Damage:Is Tort Law the Answer? [J], Washburn L. J.,2002,(41):399,402.
[20]Michael D. Ramsey, The Power of the States in Foreign Affairs:The Original Understanding of Foreign Policy Federalism [J], Notre Dame L. Rev.,1999,(75):341,344.
[21]Sinan Kalayoglu, Correcting Mujica:The Proper Application of the Foreign Affairs Doctrine in International Human Rights Law[J], Wis. Int'l L.J.,2007,(24):1045.
[22]Celeste Pozo, Foreign Affairs Doctrine Wanted Dead or Alive: Reconciling One Hundred Years of Preemption Cases[J], Vol. U. L. Rev.,2006,(41):591,617.
[23]Johan Meeusen, Instrumentalisation of Private International Law in the European Union:Toward a European Conflicts Revolution? [J]. EUR. J. MIGR.& L.,2007,(9):287.
[24]SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, THE AMERICAN CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTIO N:PA ST, PRESENT AND FUTURE[J].AM. J. COMP. L.,2006(54):236.
[25]Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007:Twenty-First Annual Survey[J]. AM. J. COMP. L,2008,(56):226.
[26]R. MICHAELS,'Global Legal Pluralism'[J]., in:5 Annual Review of Law 243 (2009).
[27]Symeon C. Symeonides, Material Justice and Conflicts Justice in Choice of Law[A].in P. Borchers & J. Zekoll, eds. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM:ESSAYS IN HONOR OF FRIEDRICH K. JUENGER[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,2000,pp.125-140.
[28]Symeon C. Symeonides, Accommodative Unilateralism as a Starting PremiseChoice of Law[A].in H. Rasmussen-Bonne, R. Freer, W. Luke & W. Weitnauer., eds.BALANCING OF INTERESTS:LIBER AMICORUM PETER HAY[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005,p.417.
[29]Symeon C. Symeonides, The First Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes of Old:As Bad as Its Reputation? [J]. SO. ILL. U. L.J.,2007(01):39,57-59.
[30]Symeon C. Symeonides, Territoriality and Personality in Tort Conflicts [A] in T. Einhorn & K. Siehr, eds. INTERCONTINENTAL COOPERATION THROUGH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF PETER NYGH[C], Urbana: University of Illinois Press,2004,p.401.
[31]Richard Fentiman, English Private International Law at the End of the 20th Century:Progress or Regress? [A].in SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AT THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURY:PROGRESS OR REGRESS?[C]. Urbana:University of Illinois Press,1999,pp.165,169.
[32]C. A. WHYTOCK,'Myth of Mess? International Choice of Law in Action'[J]., in: 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. (2009)719.
[33]C. A. WHYTOCK,'Domestic Courts and Global Governance'[J]., in:84 Tulane Law Review 2009.
[33]T. PUTNAM,'Courts Without Borders:Domestic Sources of U.S. Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere'[J]., in:63 International Organiza-tion 459-490 (2009).
[34]P. S. BERMAN,'The New Legal Pluralism'[J]., in:5 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 225 (2009),234-36.
[35]B. COSSMAN,'Betwixt and Between Recognition:Migrating Same-Sex Marriages and the Turn Toward the Private', in 71/3 Law & Contemp. Probs.153-68 (Summer 2008).
[36]Jan von Hein.Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Rome Ⅱ and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution[J].TUL. L. REV.,2008,(02):124.
[37]D. JOHNSON,'Same-Sex Divorce Jurisdiction:A Critical Analysis of Chambers v. Ormiston and Why Divorce is an Incident of Marriage That Should Be Uniformly Recognized Throughout the States'[J]., in:50 Santa Clara L. Rev.225 (2009).
[38]Symeonides. Codifying Choice of Law for Contracts:The Oregon Experience[J].in RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FUR AUSLANDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT[C].London:Macmillan,2003,pp.726,737.
[39]Symeon C. Symeonides, Oregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract Conflicts:An Exegesis[J], WILLAMETTE L. REV.,2007,(44):205,223-226.
[40]LEA BRILMAYER, JACK GOLDSMITH, ERIN O'HARA O'CONNOR, CONFLICT OF LAWS xix (6THED.2011).
[41]G. RUHL.'Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts:Transat-lantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency', in:Essays In Memory of A.T. von Mehren (2007).
② G. J. SIMSON,'Beyond Interstate Recognition in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate' [J], in:40 U.C.Davis L. Rev.313(2006).
③ Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World[J].,8 PITTSBURGH J. TECH. L.& P.2,15-18(2007).
①G. RUHL,‘PTarty Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts:Transat-lantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency', in: Essays In Memory of A.T. von Mehren (2007).
② SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES,THE AMERICAN CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTIO N:PA ST, PRESENT AND FUTURE[J].AM. J. COMP. L.,2006(54):236.
①这里需要特别提出的是：限于讨论主题的范围以及篇幅所限,“欧美国家”在本文指美国、欧洲联盟的部分成员国。
①自1999年5月1日《阿姆斯特丹条约》生效后,欧盟国际私法的形式就不再是成员国间缔结的条约了,而是由欧盟理事会直接发布条例、指令和决定,它们对于各成员国均具有直接法律效力。2009年12月1日,《里斯本条约》生效之后,欧洲统一化进程进一步加速,尤其是司法领域的合作进一步深入。原来的欧盟委员会下设的司法、自由与安全部被一分为二,即内务部和司法部。新司法部专门负责欧盟各国之间的司法合作事务,职能更为集中。近三年,欧盟国际私法统一化进程明显加快。参见杜涛博士于2012年向国际私法年会递交的《国外国际私法发展前沿年度综述》(2011-2012)
①参见杜涛博士于2012年向国际私法年会递交的《国外国际私法发展前沿年度综述》(2011-2012)。
② Ralf Michaels,The New European Choice-of-Law Revelution, Tul. L. Rev.82(2008)1 607f.
①美国著名国际私法学家西蒙先生撰文《美国冲突法革命与欧洲冲突法革命——相互借鉴》指出：若用“革命”一词来描述欧洲冲突法的发展,不如用它来描述美国冲突法运动更加恰当。Symeon C. Symeonides, The American Revolution and the European Evolution in Choic e of Law: Reciprocal Lessons,82 TUL. L. REV.1741,1743但是,偶这学者似乎持不同见解,主要有以下文献See Fausto Pocar, La comunitarizzazione del diritto interna zionale privato: una "European Conflict of Laws Revolution"?,36 RIVISTA DI DIR ITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE [RIV. DIR. INT. PRIV. PROC.] 873,883-8 4 (2000) (Italy);Johan Meeusen, Instrumentalisation of Private International La w in theEuropean Union:Towards a European Conflicts Revolution?,9 EUR. J. MIGR ATION & LAW 287,290-91 (2007);Symeon C. Symeonides, Rome Ⅱ and Tort Confl icts:A Missed Opportunity,56 AM. J. COMP. L.173,174 (2008).
①参见杜涛博士于2012年向国际私法年会递交的《国外国际私法发展前沿年度综述》(2011-2012)
② Paul Neuhaus, Savigny und die Rechtsfindung aus der Natur der Sache,15 RAB ELS ZEITSCHRIFT FUR AUSLANDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT[RABE LSZ] 364,366 (1949-1950) (F. R. G.).
③See K. Lipstein, The General Principles of Private International Law, in 1 35 ACADEMIE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 144-47 (1972) ("Ehrenzweig-Wac hter redivivus").
④ HEINRICH THOL, EINLEITUNG IN DAS DEUTSCHE PRIVATRECHT 170-71,175-76 (Got tingen,1851).
⑤ Lea Brilmayer,Interest Analysis and the Myth of Legislative Intent,78 MIC H. L. REV.392,392-93 (1980).
⑥ CARL FRIEDRICH VON GERBER, SYSTEM DES DEUTSCHEN PRIVATRECHTS 728 n.5 (6th ed.1858).
① FRIEDRICH CARL VON SAVIGNY, A TREATISE ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS (Wm. Gut hrie transl.,1868).
② See Gerhard Kegel,Story and Savigny,37 AM. J. COMP. L.39 (1989); Ral f Michaels,Public and Private International Law: German Views on Global I ssues,4 J. PRIVATE INT'L L.121,126-28 (2008).
③ See Ralf Michaels, Globalizing Savigny? The State in Savigny's Private Inte rnational Law and the Challenge from Europeanization and Globalization, in A KTUELLE FRAGEN ZU POLITISCHER UND RECHTLICHER STEUERUNG IM KONTEXT DER GLOB ALISIERUNG 119,128-30 (Michael Stolleis & Wolfgang Streeck eds.,2007).
④ PRIVATRECHT ZWISCHEN RISORGIMENTO UND PRAKTISCHER JURISPRUDENZ (1980); Kur t H. Nadelmann, Mancini's Nationality Rule and Non-Unified Legal Systems: Nationality Versus Domicile,17 AM. J. COMP. L.418 (1969).
①对有关国际私法性质的观点的评价,请参见李双元：《国际私法》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2012年3月,第24-26页。同时参见李双元、宁敏、熊之才：《关于国际私法的几个理论问题》,载《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》,2000年第3卷,法律出版社,2000年版。李健男：《论国际私法的国际法因素》,载《暨南学报》(哲学社会科学版),2005年第3期。
② GERHARD KEGEL & KLAUS SCHURIG, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 52-58 (9th ed.20 04);KLAUS SCHURIG, KOLLISIONSNORM UND SACHRECHT: ZU STRUKTUR, STANDORT UND METHODE DES INTERNATIONALEN PRIVATRECHT(1981).
① Konrad Zweigert, Die dritte Schule im internationalen Privatrecht. Zur neue ren Wissenschaftsgeschichte des Kollisionsrechts, in FESTSCHRIFT FUR LEO RAAPE 35; 43,49 (1948);cf. Kurt Lipstein, Private International Law with a Social Content—A Super Law?, in FESTSCHRIFT FUR KONRAD ZWEIGERT ZUM 70 GEB URTSTAG 179,179 (Herbert Bernstein et al. eds.,1981).
② Larry Kramer, Rethinking Choice of Law,90 COLUM. L. REV.277,324-29 (1 990); Kermit Roosevelt Ⅲ, The Myth of Choice of Law: Rethinking Conflicts, 97 MICH. L. REV.2448,2472 (1999).
①关于此案的案情及法律选择结果的评价,请参见李双元：《国际私法》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2012年3月,第265-266页。
② See Ulrich Drobnig, Conflict of Laws and the European Community,15 AM. J. COMP. L.204 (1967); Rene Savatier, Le marche commun au regard du droit in ternational prive, REVUE CRITIQUE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE [REV.CRIT. DR. INT. PRIV.] 237 (1959) (Fr.).
① Walter Wheeler Cook, The Powers of Congress Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause,28 YALE L. J.421,433-34 (1919);Henry J. Friendly, In Praise of Er ie-And of the New Federal Common Law,39 N. Y. U. L. REV.383,402 (1964); Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Relations Between State and Federal Law,54 COLUM. L. REV.489,513 (1954);Alfred Hill, The Erie Doctrine and the Constitution, 53 NW. U. L. REV.541,542-43 (1958);Ernest G. Lorenzen Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws,33 YALE L. J.736,751 (1924).
② Lorenzen Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws,33 YALE L. J. 736,751 (1924). see Paul S. Bird, Note, Mass Tort Litigation: A Statutory Solution to the Choice of Law Impasse,96 YALE L. J.1077,1092-93 (1987).
③ Michael H. Gottesman, Draining the Dismal Swamp:The Case for Federal Choic e of Law Statutes,80 GEO. L. J.1,1-51 (1991); Erin A.0'Hara & Larry E. R ibstein, From Politics to Efficiency in Choice of Law,67 U. CHI. L. REV.1 151,1224-25(2000).
④ DAVID F. CAVERS, THE CHOICE-OF-LAW PROCESS 247 (1965); David F. Cavers, Legislative Choice of Law: Some European Examples,44 S. CAL. L. REV.340, 359 (1971).
⑤ Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations,1980 0.J. (L 26 6). The consolidated version appears at 1998 0. J. (C 27) 34. On the legisla tive history, see Peter M. North, The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable t o Contractual Obligations (1980):Its History and Main Features, in PETER M. NORTH, ESSAYS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 23,29-34 (1993).
① Teun Struycken, Private Law Contracts to Which the European Community Is a P arty, in INTERCONTINENTAL COOPERATION THROUGH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: ES SAYS IN MEMORY OF PETER E. NYGH 385,393-94 (Talia Einhorn & Kurt Siehr eds. 2004); A.V. M. Struycken, Les consequences de 1'integration europeenne sur le developpement du droit international prive, in 232 ACADEMIE DE DROIT IN TERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 257,295,323-24(1992).
② PETER STONE, EU PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW-HARMONISATION OF LAWS 316-17(2006).
③ Richard Fentiman, Choice of Law in Europe,82 TUL. L. REV.2021,2024-27 (2 008).
④ Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I) (adopted June 6,2008).
⑤ 46. Commission Green Paper on Conflict of Laws in Matters Concerning Matrim onial Property Regimes, Including the Question of Jurisdiction and Mutual Re cognition, COM (2006) 400 final (July 17,2006).
⑥See Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing en hanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal se paration (OJ n. L 343, p.10 ff.).
⑦这些成员国分别为Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia
⑧ Proposal for a Council Regulation Amending Regulation (EC) No.2201/2003 as Regards Jurisdiction and Introducing Rules Concerning Applicable Law in Matr imonial Matters, COM (2006) 339 final (July 17,2006). Proposal for a Counci 1 Regulation on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions and Cooperation in Matters Relating to Maintenance Obligations, C OM (2005).649 final (Dec.12,2005). Commission Green Paper on Succession an d Wills, COM (2005) 65 final (Mar.1,2005); European Parliament Resolution with Recommendations to the Commission on Succession and Wills, EUR. PARL. D OC. P6.TA (2006)0496 (2006).
① GERHARD KEGEL, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 86 (6th ed.1987), note 27, at 139.
② Dennis Solomon, The Private International Law of Contracts in Europe:Advan ces and Retreats,82 TUL. L. REV.1709,1711 (2008).
③ Patrick Borchers, Categorical Exceptions to Party Autonomy in Private Intern ational Law,82 T, L. R.1645 (2008).
① Jan von Hein, Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Rome I I and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution,82 TUL. L. REV.1663 (2008).
② Symeon C. Symeonides, The American Revolution and the European Evolution in Choice of Law: Reciprocal Lessons,82 TUL. L. REV.1741 (2008).
③ Ralf Michaels, Three Paradigms of Legal Unification:National, Internationa 1, Transnational, in AM. SOC’ Y INT’L L., PROCEEDINGS OF THE 96TH ANNUAL ME ETING 333,333-36 (2002); see also Ulrich Drobnig, Unification of National L aw and the Uniformisation of the Rules of Private International Law, in THE INFLUENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES P I L M S 1,2 (P. Bourel et al. ed s.,1981).
① See Jiirgen Basedow, Specificite et coordination du droit international priv e communautaire, in DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE, TRAVAUX DU COMITE FRANCAIS DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE-ANNEES 2002-2004 at 275,283-84 (2005). See B ERNARD AUDIT, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE 50 (4th ed.2006).
② See JAN VON HEIN, DAS GUNSTIGKEITSPRINZIP IM INTERNATIONALEN DELIKTSRECH T 124-26 (1999); Christian von Bar, Environmental Damage in Private Internat ional Law, in 268 ACADEMIE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLL ECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 291,367-75 (199 9).
③ Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations ("ROME Ⅱ"), at 12, COM (200 3) 427 final (July 22,2003).
① See Walter G. Paefgen, Kollisionsrechtlicher Verbraucherschutz im Internationa len Vertragsrecht und europaisches Gemeinschaftsrecht,2003 ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EUROPAISCHES PRIVATRECHT [ZEUP] 266 (F. R. G.); Peter von Wilmowsky, Der int ernationale Verbrauchervertrag im EG-Binnenmarkt-Europarechtlicher Gestaltu ngsspielraum fur kollisionsrechtlichen Verbraucherschutz,1995 ZEUP 735.
② Richard Fentiman,Choice of Law in Europe,82 TUL.L. REV.2021,2024-27 (2008).
③ Lucia Serena Rossi, L'incidenza dei principi del diritto comunitario sul d iritto internazionale privato:dalla "comunitarizzazione" alla "constitu tionalizzazione," 40 RIV. DIR. INT. PRIV. PROC.63 (2004).
④See Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe,2004 O. J. (C310)1.
①2009年12月1日《里斯本条约》生效。
② Jurgen Basedow, Federal Choice of Law in Europe and the USA-A Comparative Account of Interstate Conflicts,82 TUL. L. REV.2119 (2008).
① See Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon),1979 E.C. R.649另可参见Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Procedures Relating to th e Application of Certain National Technical Rules to Products Lawfully Marke ted in Another Member State and Repealing Decision 3052/95/EC, COM (2007) 36 final (Feb.,14,2007).
② See Case C-76/90, Sager v. Dennemeyer & Co.,1991 E. C. R.1-4221,1-4243.
③ See Joined Cases C-267 & 268/91, Keck & Mithouard,1993 E. C. R.1-6097.
④ See, e.g., Erik Jayme & Christian Kohler, Europaisches Kollisionsrecht 2007: Windstille im Erntefeld der Integration,27 IPRAX 493 (2007).
⑤ See AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (Jiirgen Basedow & Toshiyuki Kono eds.,2006); Giesela Ruhl, Methods and Approaches in Choice of Law: An Economic Perspective,24 BERK. J. INT' L L.801 (2006); Giesela Ruhl, Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts:Transat lantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency, in CONFLICT OF LAWS IN A GLOBA LIZED WORLD 153 (Eckart Gottschalk, Ralf Michaels, Giesela Ruhl & Jan von He in eds.,2007).
⑥ Case C-411/03, SEVIC Sys. AG,2005 E. C. R.I-10,805; Case C-167/01, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v. Inspire Art Ltd.,2003 E. C. R.1-1 0,155; Case C-208/00, Uberseering BV v. Nordic Constr. Co. Baumanagement Gmb H (NCC),2002 E.C.R..1-9919; Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. v. Ehvervs-og Sels kabsstyrelsen,1999 E. C. R.1-1459.
① Onnig H. Dombalagian, Choice of Law and Capital Markets Regulation,82 TUL. L REV.1903 (2008).
② Jens Dammann, Adjudicative Jurisdiction and the Market for Corporate Charter s,82 TUL. L. REV.1869 (2008).
① Larry Cata Backer, The Private Law of Public Law:Public Authority as Shareho lders, Golden Shares, Sovereign Wealth Funds, and the Public Law Element in Private Choice of Law,82 TUL. L. REV.1801 (2008).
② Council Directive 89/552, On the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Dow n by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning t he Pursuit of Television Broadcasting Activities, arts.2,2a 19890. J. (L 2 98) 23, amended by Directive 97/36,19970.J. (L 202) 60; Directive 2000/31, On Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Ele ctronic Commerce, in the Internal Market ("Directive on Electronic Commerc e"), art.3,20000. J. (L 178) 1,9-10 [hereinafter Directive on Electronic Commerce].
③ Directive 2006/123, On Services in the Internal Market, art.16,2006 0. J. (L 376) 36,58-59;See Achim Kampf, EU-Dienstleistungsrichtlinie und Kollisi onsrecht,28 IPRAX 101,102-03(2008).
① See Wulf-Henning Roth, Methoden der Rechtsfindung und Rechtsanwendung im Eu ropaischen Kollisionsrecht,25 IPRAX 338,343 (2006).
②See Roberto Baratta, Problematic Elements of an Implicit Rule Providing for Mutual Recognition of Personal and Family Status in the EC,27 IPRAX 4,9-11 (2006).
③ Katharina Boele-Woelki, The Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships With in the European Union,82 TUL. L. REV.1949 (2008).
① Linda J. Silberman, Rethinking Rules of Conflict of Laws in Marriage and Di vorce in the United States:What Can We Learn from Europe?,82 TUL. L. REV 1999 (2008).
② Horatia Muir Watt, European Federalism and the "New Unilateralism," 82 TU L. L. REV.1983 (2008).
① See Pedro A. de Miguel Asensio, Conflictos de leyes e integration juridica: Estados Unidos y la Union Europea,5 ANUARIO ESPANOL DE DERECHO INTERNACION AL PRIVADO 43-102 (2005); Horatia Muir Watt, Choice of Law in Integrated and Interconnected Markets:A Matter of Political Economy,9 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 383 (2003).
② See Home Ins. Co. v. Dick,281 U.S.397,411-12 (1930); Mut. Life Ins. Co. o f N. Y. v. Liebing,259 U.S.209,213-14 (1922); N. Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S.357,373-74 (1918); EDWIN SCOTT FRUEHWALD, CHOICE OF LAW FOR AMERICAN COURTS:A MULTILATERALIST METHOD 12-14 (2001); John K. Beach, Un iform Interstate Enforcement of Ve s t ed Right s,27 YALE L. J.656,656-57 & n.5 (1918); P. E. Herzog, Constitutional Limits on Choice of Law, in 234 A CADEMIE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 234,239,260-66 (1992); G. W. C. Ross, Ha s the Conflict of Laws Become a Branch of Constitutional Law?,15 MINN. L. R EV.161,165 (1931).
③ Georg Haibach, The Mutual Recognition of Decisions in Civil and Commercial Matters in the European Union in the Light of the Full Faith and Credit Clau se of the U.S. Constitution,10 MAASTRICHT J. EUR.& COMP. L.291,291-300 (2003).
④ Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Indus. Accident Comm' n of Cal.,294 U.S.532,547-50 (1935); Pac. Employers Ins. Co. v. Indust. Accident Comm' n,306 U.S.493, 500-05 (1939); Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper,286 U.S.145,159-62 (1 932), overruled in part by Crider v. Zurich Ins. Co.,380 U.S.39 (1965).
①“卡斯德第戎原则”(CASSIS-DE-DIJON)来自于1979年欧洲法院(Europaischen Gericht shof)的一个判决。起因是德国Rewe贸易集团欲进口法国第戎的黑醋栗利口酒。但德国当局以该酒酒精含量不符合德国法律规定为由,禁止进口该酒。于是Rewe起诉到欧洲法院,并取得了这场诉讼的胜利。卡斯德第戎原则规定,在欧盟国家合法生产和销售的产品,应可自由地在欧盟国家流通。只有当该产品危及健康时,才会被禁止。
② See Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman,486 U.S.717,730-34 (1988);Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts,472 U.S.797,818-19 (1985);Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague,449 U.S.302,320 (1981) (plurality opinion).
③ See CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am.,481 U.S.69,93 (1987); Edgar v. MIT E Corp.,457 U.S.624,644-46 (1982). More explicit (for obvious reasons) is case law from the Delaware Supreme Court. See VantagePoint Venture Partners 196 v. Examen, Inc.,871 A.2d 1108,1115-18 (Del.2005); McDermott Inc. v. Lewis,531 A.2d 206,214-16 (Del.1987). See Deborah A. DeMott Perspectives on Choice of Law for Corporate Internal Affairs,48 LAW & CONTEMP.PROBS.1 61,183-90(1985).
④ Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt,538 U.S.488,499 (2003).
① Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello v. Etat Beige,2003 E. C. R.I-11,613关于此案的案情及分析,可以参见Johan Verlinden, European Court of Justice, Judgment of October 2,2003, Case C-148/02, Carlos Garcia Avello v. Etat Belge (the Sta te of Belgium),11 COLUM. J. EUR. L.705 (2005).
② Case C-96/04, Standesamt Stadt Niebull (Grunkin-Paul),2006 E. C. R.I-3561.此案在美国曾一度成为新闻。See Mary Jacoby, No Hyphens, Please:Germany Tells Parents To Keep Names Simple, WALL ST. J., Oct 12,2005, at Al.
① See Case C-353/06, Grunkin v. Grunkin-Paul (Apr.24,2008) (opinion of AG Sh arpston),available at http://curia.europa.eu.
② EC Treaty arts.12,17-18.
③ U.S. CONST, amend. XIV, § 1, cl.3 ("No State shall... deny to any pers on within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.").
④ See CHRISTIAN VON BAR & PETER MANKOWSKI, INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT 517-21 (2d ed.2003).
⑤ Ulrich Drobnig, Verstoβt das Staatsangehorig-keitsprinzip gegen das Diskrim inierungsverbot des EWG-Vertrages?,34 RABELSZ 636,636-62 (1970).
⑥ See Case C-323/95, Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH,1997 E. C. R.1-1711,1-1724; C ase C-122/96, Saldanha v. Hiross Holding AG,1997 E.C. R.1-5325,1-5342;Cas e C-43/95, Data Delecta Aktiebolag v. MSL Dynamics Ltd.,1996 E.C. R.1-4661, 1-4676; Case C-398/92, Mund v. Hatrex Int'1 Transport,1994 E. C.R.1-467, 1-481 to 82; Case C-20/92, Hubbard v. Hamburger,1993 E.C. R.1-3777,1-3793 to 94; Case 22/80, Boussac Saint-Freres SA v. Gerstenmeier,1980 E.C.R.342 7,3436.
⑦See Case C-430/97, Johannes v. Johannes, E. C. R.I-3475; Michael Bogdan, The EC Treaty and the Use of Nationality and Habitual Residence as Connecting Fa ctors in International Family Law, in INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW FOR THE E UROPEAN UNION 303,308-15 (Johan Meeusen et al. eds.,2007).
① Case C-96/04, Standesamt Stadt Niebull (Grunkin Paul),2006 E. C. R.1-3561 (o pinion of AG Jacobs); Case C-353/06, Grunkin v. Grunkin-Paul(opinion of AG Sharpston),paras.67-70, available at http://curia.europa.eu.
② Case C-148/02, Garcia Avello v. Etat Belge,2003 E. C. R.1-11,613,I-11,645 t o 46.
③ EC Treaty art.18. For an overview, see Flora Goudappel & Silvia Romein, Ev olving Legal Personality: The Case of European Union Citizenship,11 IUS GEN TIUM 1 (2005); Jo Shaw, E. U. Citizenship and Political Rights in an Evolvin g European Union,75 FORDHAM L. REV.2549 (2007).
④ U. S. CONST, amend. XIV, § 1, cl.2.
① See BRAINERD CURRIE, Unconstitutional Discrimination in the Conflict of Laws: Privileges and Immunities, in CURRIE, at 445,445-525; Douglas Laycock, Eq ual Citizens of Equal and Territorial States:The Constitutional Foundations. of Choice of Law,92 COLUM. L. REV.249,274-88 (1992).
② Case C-96/04, Standesamt Stadt Niebull (Grunkin-Paul),2006 E. C.R.I-3561 (o pinion of AG Jacobs) (citing Stjerna Case App. No. A280-B,37 Y. B. EUR. CONV ON H. R.278 (1994); Burghartz Case, App. No. A299-B,37 Y. B. EUR. CONV ON H. R.166 (1994)).
③Veerle van den Eeckhout, Promoting Human Rights within the Union:The Role o f European Private International Law,14 EUR. L. J.105,105-06 (2008).
④ See Stefan Grundmann, Internal Market Conflict of Laws:From Traditional C onflict of Laws to an Integrated Two Level Order, in LES CONFLITS DE LOIS ET LE SYSTEME JURIDIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE, at 5; KATRIN SCHILLING, BINNENMARKTKO LLISIONSRECHT(2006).
① Karl Kreuzer, Zu Stand und Perspektiven des Europaischen Internationalen Pri vatrechts-Wie europaisch soll das Europaische Internationale Privatrecht se in?,70 RABELSZ 1,78-86(2006).
② IAN F. FLETCHER, CONFLICT OF LAWS AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LAW 44 (1982).
③ Case C-339/89, Alsthom Atlantique v. Sulzer,1991 E.C.R.1-107, para.15.
④ Ralf Michaels & Hans-Georg Kamann, Europaisches Verbraucherschutzrecht und I PR,52 JURISTEN ZEITUNG [JZ] 601,607 (1997) (F. R. G.); Luigi Fumagalli, E C Private International Law and the Public Policy Exception-Modern Feature s of a Traditional Concept,2004 Y. B. PRIVATE INT'L L.171,178-79; see Mar c Fallon, Les conflits de lois et de juridictions dans un espace economique integre-L' experience de la Communaute Europeenne, in 253 ACADEMIE DE DROI T INTERNATIONAL, RECUEIL DES COURS:COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 9,252-53 (1996).
⑤See Jurgen Basedow, Recherches sur la formation de 1'ordre public.europeen dans la jurisprudence, in LE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVE:ESPRIT ET METHODE S. MELANGES EN L'HONNEUR DE PAUL LAGARDE 55 (2005); Hans van Houtte, Fro m a National to a European Public Policy, in LAW AND JUSTICE IN A MULTISTATE WORLD, at 841,847-48,852-53; Savatier, at 252;IOANNA THOMA, DIE EUROP AISIERUNG UND DIE VERGEMEINSCHAFTUNG DES NATIONALEN ORDRE PUBLIC(2007).
①Hans-Jiirgen Sonnenberger, Zweites Kapitel, Internationales Privatrecht:Ein leitung, in 10 MUNCHENER KOMMENTAR BURGERLICHES GESETZBUCH:INTERNATIONALE S PRIVATRECHT 5, no.216, at 131-33 (4th ed.2006).
②Andreas Schwartze, Die Ermittlung und Anwendung des Vertragsrechts anderer E U-Staaten im deutschen ZivilprozeB nach § 293 ZPO-ein besonderer Fall, in RECHT IN EUROPA:FESTSCHRIFT FUR HILMAR FENGE 127,144 (Pelaya Yessiou-Fal tsi et al. eds.,1996); Oliver Remien, Iura novit curia und die Ermittlung f remden Rechts im europaischen Rechtsraum der Art.61ff. EGV-fur ein neues V orabentscheidungsverfahren bei mitgliedstaatlichen Gerichten, in AUFBRUCH NA CH EUROPA,75 JAHRE MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FUR PRIVATRECHT 617,625,630 (Jiirge n Basedow et al. eds.,2001).
③ FRANCOIS VIANGALLI, LA THEORIE DES CONFLITS DE LOIS ET LE DROIT COMMUNAUTA IRE 116-17 (2004);Klaus Schurig, Unilateralistische Tendenzen im europaisch en Gesellschaftskollisionsrecht, oder: Umgehung als Rechtsprinzip, in LIBER AMICORUM GERHARD KEGEL 199 (Hilmar Kruger et al. eds.,2002).
④ Erin Ann O'Hara & Larry E. Ribstein, Rules and Institutions in Developing a Law Market:Views from the United States and Europe,82 TUL. L. REV.2147 (2008).
① Case C-381/98, Ingmar GB Ltd. v. Eaton Leonard Techs.,Inc.,2000 E. C. R. I-9305.
② Case C-381/98, Ingmar GB Ltd. v. Eaton Leonard Techs.,Inc.,2000 E. C.R.1-9 305.
③ Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], Jan 30,1961,14 NEUE J URISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT [NJW] 1061 (F.R.G.); Cour de cassation [Cass com.] [highest court of ordinary jurisdiction], Nov.28,2000, Bull. civ. IV No.1 83 (Fr.) (basing its decision on the prevalent view in France; the decision came down two weeks after the Ingmar decision).
④ Ralf Michaels & Hans-Georg Kamann, Grundlagen eines allgemeinen gemeinschaft lichen Richtlinienkollisionsrechts- "Amerikanisierung" des Gemeinschafts-I PR?,12 EUROPAISCHES WIRTSCHAFTS-UND STEUERRECHT 301,311(2001).
①Case C-438/05, Int'1 Transport Workers'Fed'n v. Viking Line ABP,2007 EC J (Dec.11,2007), available at http://curia.europa.eu本案是英格兰和威尔士上诉法院于2005年向欧洲法院递交的案件。
② Case C-341/05, Laval un Partneri Ltd. v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareforbundet, 2007 ECJ (Dec.18,2007), available at http://curia.europa.eu.
③2008年6月17日欧洲议会和理事会联合发布的(Regulation (EC) No 593/20089(简称Rome Ⅰ)第8(2)条对1980年公约的第6(1)条作了修订,原文如下"To the extent th at the law applicable to the individual employment contract has not been cho sen by the parties, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country in which or, failing that, from which the employee habitually carries out h is work in performance of the contract. The country where the work is habitu ally carried out shall not be deemed to have changed if he is temporarily em ployed in another country."
④一般认为,"preliminary injunction"指司法程序中的“预先禁令”,也即起诉后、判决前由法院签发的禁令,禁止被告实施或继续某项行为。
⑤See Norbert Reich, Free Movement v. Social Rights in an Enlarged Union:The Laval and Viking Cases Before the European Court of Justice,9 GERMAN L.J. 125 (2008).
①See Marc Fallon, Le principe de proximitedans le droit de 1'Union europeenn e, in MELANGES LAGARDE, supra note 136,at 241,246.
② See Dieter Martiny, Die Anknipfung an den Markt, in FESTSCHRIFT FUR ULRIC H DROBNIG ZUM SIEBZIGSTEN GEBURTSTAG 389 (Jiirgen Basedow et al.ed.,1998).
③ See Jiirgen Basedow, European Private International Law of Obligations and In ternal Market Legislation-A Matter of Coordination, in LIBER MEMORIALIS AR EVI,at 13,21-24.
①Case C-346/06,Ruffert v.Land Nieder sachsen,2008 ECJ(Apr.3,2008),avail able at http://curia.europa.eu.
②See Directive 96/71,Concerning the Posting of Workers in the Framework of t he Provision of Services,1997 0.J.(L 18)1.
③See Ruffert,2008 ECJ(opinion of AG Bot),paras.10-12,available at http:/ /curia.europa.eu.
④See Judgment of Nov 11,2002,Case C-208/00,Uberseering BV v.Nordic Const ruction Company Baumanagement GmbH(NCC).
① See Wulf-Henning Roth, From Centros to Ueberseering:Free Movement of Compan ies, Private International Law, and Community Law,52 International and Comp arative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) 177-208,180-193 (2003).
② See Bundesgerichtshof, July 1,2002,2002 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJ W),3539= 23 Praxis des International Privatrechts (IPRax) 62, note Kin dler p.41;cf. Stefan Leible & Jochen Hoffmann, Vom "Nullum" zur Pers onengesellschaft Die Metamorphose der Scheinauslandsgesellschaft im deuts chen Recht,2002 Der Betrieb (DB),2203.
③See Judgment of Sep 29,1988, Case C-81/87, The Queen v. Daily Mail and Gene ral Trust plc, [1988] E. C. R.5483, no.19
① See Judgment of March 9,1999, Case C-212/97, Centros Ltd. V. Ehvers-og Sel skabsstryelsen, [1999]ECR 1-1459.
② See Daniel Zimmer, Ein internationales Gesellschaftsrecht fur Europa,67 Rabels Zeitschrift fur auslandisches und internationales Privatrecht (Rabels Z) 298-317,299-306 (2003).
③ See Klaus Schurig, Unilateralistische Tendenzen im europaischen Gesellschaf tskollisionsrecht, oder:Umgehung als Rechtsprinzip, in: Liber amicorum Ger hard Kegel,199-221 (Munich: Beck,2002).
④See Axel Flessner Schiffbruch der Interpreten und Statuten,8 Zeitschrift fii r Europaisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 1 (2000);See also Harald Halbhuber, Limit ed Company statt GmbH? Europarechtlicher Rahmen und deutscher Widerstand (Ba den-Baden: Nomos,2001);Halbhuber, National doctrinal structures and Europe an company law,38 Common Market Law Review (CMLR) 1385-1419 (2001), with an analysis of German comments on Daily Mail and Centros;contra Flessner: Schurig (supra n.11),201 f:at least registration is an issue of private international law.
① See Bundesgerichtshof, March 3,2000,2000 DB 114;cf. Wulf-Henning Roth, Di e Sitzverlegung vor dem EuGH,2000 ZIP 1597.
② See Judgment of Nov 11,2002, Case C-208/00, Uberseering BV v. Nordic Constr uction Company Baumanagement GmbH (NCC).
③ See Harald Kallmeyer, Tragweite des Uberseeringurteils des EuGH vom 05.11. 2002 zur grenzuberschreitenden Sitzverlegung,2002 Der Betrieb (DB),2521-2 522;Helmut Heiss, Uberseering ":Klarschiff im internationalen Gesellsch aftsrecht?,44 Zeitschrift fur Rechtsver-gleichung (ZfRV), Issue 2, sub I V (2003);see also Roth (supra n.9) 196,198 ff,207;Eva Micheler, Re cognition of Companies Incorporated in other EU Member States,52 ICLQ 521-5 29,526 (2003).
④See Christian Joerges, On the Legitimacy of Europeanising Europe's Private Law,10 (EUI Working Paper No.2003/3).
① See Stefan Leible & Jochen Hoffmann, "Uberseering " und das (vermeintliche) Ende der Sitztheorie,48 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW),925-936,930 ff. (2002);Wulf-Henning Roth, Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht nach Uberseering,23 Praxis des Internationalen Privatrechts (IPRax),117-1 27,126 f. (2003).
② See Jurgen Basedow, Der kollisionsrechtliche Gehalt der Produktfreiheiten im europaischen Binnenmarkt:favor offerentis,59 Rabels Zeitschrift fur aus landisches und internationales Privatrecht. (RabelsZ),1-55 (1995);Peter Mankowski, Das Herkunftslandprinzip als Interna-tionales Privatrecht der e-commerce-Richtlinie:100 ZvglRWiss 137-181 (2001);Stefan Grundmann, Das In ternationale Privatrecht der E-Commerce-Richtlinie was ist kategorial and ers im Kollisionsrecht des Binnenmarkts und warum?,67 RabelsZ 246-297(200 3).
③ See Joseph Story, Conflict of Laws,§19, p.13 (3rd ed., Boston:Little & B rown, and London:Maxwell & Son,1846) (The first edition dates from 1834). For Story's influence on Savigny (and thereby on European conflicts thinki ng) see Gerhard Kegel, Wohnsitz und Belegenheit bei Story und Savigny,52 R abelsZ 431 (1988); see also Gerhard Kegel, Story and Savigny,37 Am. J. of Comp. L.39-66 (1989). Ironically (or perhaps tellingly), while the name "p rivate international law" was imported to Europe through Foelix and Schaef fner and became dominant (Internationales Privatrecht, Diritto internazional e privato, droit international prive, derecho internacional privado), in the common law world and most notably in the United States the name is still us ually "conflict of laws". See Zitelmann, Der Name IPR, in 27 Zeitschri ft fur internationales Recht 177-196 (1918).
①See Swift v. Tyson,41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1,10 L. Ed.865 (1842). This decisio n was overruled by Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,304 U.S.64,58 S. Ct.817, 82 L.Ed.1188 (1938) (arguing, amongst others, that no law exists without s ome definite state authority behind it).
② See Peter Behrens, Die Bedeutung des Kollisionsrechts fur die "Globalisie rung" der Wirtschaft, in: Aufbruch nach Europa,381-398 (J. Basedow et al. eds., Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck,2001); Pedro de Miguel Asensio, El Derecho i nternacional privado ante la globalizacion, I Anuario Espanol de Derecho Int ernacional Privado,37-87 (2001); Robert Wai, Transnational Liftoff and Jur idical Touchdown: The Regulatory Function of Private International Law in an Era of Globalization,40 Col. J. of Transnat'1 L.209-274 (2002);J.C. G onzales. Globalizacion y Derecho internacional privado (Murcia,2002Admitte dly, there is more readiness to accept Europeanization of the field. See, m ost recently, M. Wilderspin & X. Lewis, Les relations entre le droit communa utaire et les regles de conflits de lois des Etats membres,91 Revue critiqu e de droit international prive,1-37,289-313 (2002).
③ See Klaus Giinther & Shalini Randeria, Recht, Kultur und Gesellschaft im Proz eβ der Globalisierung,21 f. (Bad Homburg: Werner Reimers Stiftung,2001).
① See Erik Jayme & Christian Kohler, Europaisches Kollisionsrecht 2002:Zur Wiederkehr des Internationalen Privatrechts,22 IPRax 461-471 (2002); K. B oele-Woelki & R. H. vaon Ooik, De ingrijpende communautarisering van het inte rnationaale privaatrecht,2002 Sociaal-economische wetgeving (SEW),394-407 (2002);Hans Ulrich Jessurun d'Oliveira, The EU and a Metamorphosis of Priv ate International Law, in: Reform and Development of Private International L aw Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North,89-110 (James Fawcett, ed., Oxfo rd: Oxford Univ. Press,2002).
②See Joost Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law (Cambridge, 2003).
③ See Ralf Michaels & Hans-Georg Kamann, Grundlagen eines allgemeinen geme inschaftlichen Richtlinienkollisionsrechts "Amerikanisierung" des Gemei nschafts-IPR,12 EWS 301-311,311 (2001).
④ See Friedrich K. Juenger, The Problem with Private International Law, in:P rivate Law in the International Arena Liber amicorum Kurt Siehr,289-309 (Jiirgen Basedow et al., eds.,2000).
① See Gerhard Kegel, The Crisis'of Conflict of Laws,112 Recueil des Cours, 91-268 (1964-Ⅱ); See already Heinrich Kronstein, Crisis of "Conflict of L aws",37 Geo. L. J.483 (1949).
② See Daniel Zimmer, Savigny und das Internationale Privatrecht unserer Zeit, in Festschrift fur Fritz Sturm zum siebzigsten Geburtstag,1709 (1999);see also Paul Volken, How Common are the General Principles of Private Interna tional Law? America and Europe Compared, in I Yearbook of Private Internatio nal Law (supra n.30),85-102 (1999).
③关于对萨维尼冲突法理论体系的评价,据笔者查考所得的外文文献主要有(1) Jan K ropholler, Internationales Privatrecht,15 (4th ed.,2001);(2) Bernard Au dit, A Continental Lawyer Looks at Contemporary American Choice-of-Law Prin ciples,27 Am. J. Comp. L.,589-613 (1979);(3) Klaus Schurig, Kollisionsno rm und Sachrecht (1980).
④托马斯·库恩在《科学革命的结构》中提出“范式”的概念。库恩对科学发展持历史阶段论,认为每一个科学发展阶段都有特殊的内在结构,而体现这种结构的模型即“范式”(PARADIGM)。
①See Eugen Ehrlich, Internationales Privatrecht,126 Deutsche Rundschau 419-4 32,425 (1906); Arthur T. von Mehren, The Significance of the State for Choi ce of Law, in Festschrift fur Konrad Zweigert zum 70. Geburtstag,287-306 (H. Bernstein et al., eds.,1981);See Gerhard Kegel & Klaus Schurig, Internatio nales Privatrecht (8th ed., Munich: Beck),7-22 (2000).
② See Ulrike Seif, Savigny und das Internationale Privatrecht des 19. Jahrhu nderts,65 RabelsZ 492-512 (2001). ean-Louis Halperin, Entre nationalisme juridique et communaute de droit,47-66 (Paris,1999).
③ See Max Gutzwiller, Internationalprivatrecht:Die drei GroBen des 19. Jahrhu nerts, in:Festschrift fur Frank Vischer zum 60. Geburtstag,131-140 (Pete r Bockli et al. ed., Zurich, Schulthess,198.3).
④ See Pasquale Stanislao Mancini, Della nazionalita come fondamento del diritt o delle genti (E. Jayme, ed., Torino: Giappichelli,1994);Mancini, De 1'u tilite de rendre obligatoires pour tous les Etats, sous la forme d' un ou de plusieurs traites internationaux, un certain nombre de regles generales du D roit international prive pour assurer la decision uniforme des conflits en tre les differentes legislations civiles et criminelles,1 J. dr. int. priv e(Clunet) 221-239,285-304 (1874).
①See Martin van Creveld, The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge:Cambri dge University Press 1999); for Europe Hagen Schulze, Staat und Nation in der europaischen Geschichte (Munich:Beck,1995).
②Georg Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre 394-434. (3th ed., Berlin:Springer, 1914); see most recently Jens Kersten, Georg Jellinek und die klassische S taatslehre (2000).
① See Global Law Without a State (Gunther Teubner, ed., Aldershot et al.,199 7).
② See Politik und neuere Legislationen Materialien zum Geist der Gesetzge bung " (H. Akamatsu & J. Riickert, eds.,2000).
③ See Savigny, I System des heutigen Romischen Rechts (1840),§ 13 (pp.38-44).
④ Savigny, I System § 9, pp.25-27; Dieter Strauch, Recht, Gesetz und Staat b ei Friedrich Carl von Savigny,100 (2nd ed., Bonn 1963).
⑤ See Carl Ludwig v. Bar, Das internationale Privat-und Strafrecht,58 (186 2).
⑥ Savigny, I System § 9 (p.23):"Vielmehr wird jedes Volk, sobald es als so lches erscheint, zugleich als Staat erscheinen, wie auch dieser gestaltet se yn moge. ",§10 (p.29):mussen wir wiederholt behaupten, daβ der Staat urspriinglich und naturgemaβ in einem Volk, durch das Volk, und fur das Volk entsteht. " (emphases in original). See already Savigny, Juristische Methode nlehre nach der Ausarbeitung des Jakob Grimm,14 (Wesenberg, ed.,1951); cf. Strauch (supra n.52)20-22,98).
① See Okko Behrends, Geschichte, Politik und Jurisprudenz in F. C. v. Savig nys System des heutigen romischen Rechts, in:Romisches Recht in der europai schen Tradition Symposion aus AnlaB des 75.Geburtstages von Franz Wi eacker,257-321,266 ff. (Behrends et al., eds., Ebelsbach: Gremer,1985).
② Savigny, I System § 6 (p.12). For the question of contract as a source of law in Roman law see Zoltan Vegh, Ex pacto ius Studien zum Vertrag als R echtsquelle bei den Rhetoren,110 SavZ/Rom,184-295 (1993). Savigny was also opposed to social contract theories of the state, see Savigny, I System § 10, p.29.
③ "Les conventions legalement formees tiennent lieu de loi a ceux qui les ont faits."
④ Savigny, I System § 9.
⑤ See Savigny, Uber den Zweck dieser Zeitschrift [Zeitschruft fur geschichtli che Rechtswissenschaft]; in Thibaut und Savigny,261-268,264.
⑥ See Claudio Cesa, Sulle idee politiche della scuola storica,16 Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa:Classe di Lettere e Filosofia,83-106 (19 86).
⑦ See Joachim Riickert, The Unrecognized Legacy:Savigny's Influence on German Jurisprudence after 1900,37 Am. J. Comp. L.121-137,136 (1989); Ruckert, Savignys Konzeption von Jurisprudenz und Recht, ihre Folgen und ihre Bed eutung bis heute,61 Tijdschrift voor rechtsgeschiedenis 65-95,82 f. (1993). Savigny's depoliticization of choice of law has been emphasized frequently; see only critically JEJ. Th. Deelen, De blinddoek van von Sav igny (Amsterdam,1966); Hans Ulrich Jessurun d'Oliveira, De ruine van een paradigma: de konfliktregel (Deventer,1976);Joerges (supra n.51),9f. (1971).
① Savigny, Ⅷ System,26,130.
② See Horst Muller, Der Grundsatz des wohlerworbenen Rechts im international en Privatrecht (Hamburg,1935);Max Keller & Kurt Siehr, Allgemeine Lehren d es internationalen Privatrechts (Zurich, Schulthess,1986),418-426;for cri ticism see Jan Kropholler, Internationales Privatrecht,§ 21.I, pp.141-144 (4th ed.,2001). Antoine Pillet, La theorie generale des droits acquis,8 Re cueil des Cours,485-538 (1925-Ⅲ).
③另一种解决方法是以外国法律制度为模型由法官临时创造自己的“临时性规范”(Ad Hoc Rule),适用于个案。这是一种拟制的方法。萨维尼(Savigny)并不看好这种方法,为他所抛弃,但后来为美国的“本地法说”(Local Law Theory)以及意大利的“成立地法说”(Incorporation Theory)。在美国的判例,可以参见Guinness v. Miller,291 Fed.769 (S. D. N. Y.1923), aff' d,299 Fed.538 (2d Cir.1924), aff' d sub no m, Hicks v. Guinness,269 U.S.71 (1925) per J. Hand; Walter Wheeler Cook, T he Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws (Cambridge, Mass.:Harvar d Univ. Press 1942; cf. David F. Cavers, The Two "Local Law" Theories,63 Harv. L. Rev.822-832 (1950), reprinted in Cavers, The Choice of Law,45-55(1985).意大利学者的论述,可以参见Santi Romani, L' ordinamento giuridico (1 918); Bernardini, Produzione di norme giuridiche mediante rinvio (Milan,196 6).
①国内学者的通说认为是戴西创立了此一理论。本文认为戴西只是此一理论的传播者,并非创立者。戴西的这一著名论述的英文原文现摘录如下：”[T]he courts, e. g. of En gland, never in strictness enforce foreign law; when they are said to do so, they enforce not foreign laws, but rights acquired under foreign laws. " See Albert Venn Dicey, A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Con flict of Laws,11 (2d ed.1908).
② Restatement, First Conflict of Laws (1934); Joseph Beale, Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (1935); see also Soater v. Mexican National Railroad Co. 194 U.S.120,126,24 S. Ct.581,582,48 L.Ed.900, per J. Holmes (1904).
③ See Perry Dane, Vested Rights, "Vestedness", and Choice of Law.96 Yale L. J.1191-1275 (1987).
④ Carl Georg von Wachter, Ueber die Collision der Privatrechtsgesetze verschie dener Staaten (Fortsetzung),25 Archiv fur die civilistische Praxis (AcP) 1-9. On Wachter see Nadelmann, Wachter's Essay on the Collision of Private Laws of Different States,13 Am. J. Comp. L.414-428 (1964); Sandmann, Gru ndlagen und Enfluss der internationalpivatrechtlichen Lehre Carl Georg von W achters (1797-1880) (Diss. Munster,1979); see also Paul Volken, Wenn Wachte r mit Story, in: Private Law in the International Arena (supra n.29),815-8 28.
⑤主张礼让说的学者有Voet, Huber, Dicey, Story, F lix, Vareilles-Sommieres.
① Savigny, Ⅷ System, § 348, p.28:"freundliche Zulassung"
② Savigny, VIII System, § 348, p.25; see also Seif (supra n.38) 509.
③ Paul Neuhaus, Savigny und die Rechtsfindung aus der Natur der Sache,15 Ra belsZ 364,376 (1949/50).
④ Savigny, VIII System,§ 346, p.17斯托里(Story)当时已经将基督教教法与异教之法区别开来。See Story (supra n.) § 25, p.36.
⑤ Paul Neuhaus, Savigny und die Rechtsfindung aus der Natur der Sache,15 Rabe l sZ 364,366 (1949/50).
①Savigny,I System,1-3；cf.Schurig(supra n.35)115 f.
②Kegel＆Schurig(supra n.37)165 f.
③See Paul Heinrich Neuhaus,Abschied von Savigny?,46 Rabel sZ 1-25(8 f.).
④See Eugene F.Scoles,Peter Hay et al.,Confl ict of Laws,§2.9,pp 25-38 (2011).
⑤Savigny,Ⅷ System, § 349,p.32
⑥Savigny,Ⅷ System,§ 349.
⑦Savigny,Ⅷ System,§ 349,p.34 f.
①Savigny § 346,p.18萨维尼将相关问题界定为：“怎样的领土之法才是个案中应 当予以适用的法律?”
① Ⅷ System,108,120.
② See Max Gutzwiller, Der EinfluB Savignys auf die Entwicklung des Internation alprivatrechts (1923); Leo Raape & Fritz Sturm, I Internationales Privatrech t 410 (Munich, Vahlen,1977).
③ Wilhelm Peter Schaeffner, Entwicklung des internationalen Privatrechts,40 (1841). On Schaeffner, See Stefan Wagner, Wilhelm Peter Schaeffner,17 Praxi s des Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax) 73-76 (1997).
④ Savigny, Ⅷ System,.§361, p.120 f.
① Savigny, VIII System, § 346, p.16 f.
② Savigny, VIII System, §§ 350-359, pp.39-106关于萨维尼的住所原则的评价,可以参见Gerhard Kegel, Wohnsitz und Belegenheit bei Story und Savigny,52 Ra belsZ 431-465,437-442 (1988).
③ Savigny himself wrote about the medieval principle; see his Geschichte des r omischen Rechts im Mittelalter,115 ff. (2nd ed.,1834). See, more recently, Simeon L. Guterman, The Principle of the Personality of Law in the Early M iddle Ages:A Chapter in the Evolution of Western Legal Institutions and Ideas,21 U. of Miami L. Rev.259-348 (1966/67);Guterman, The principle of the personality of law in the Germanic kingdoms of western Europe from the fifth to the eleventh century (Peter Lang,1990); Max Keller & Kurt Siehr, Allgemeine Lehren des internationalen Privatrechts §§ 2-3, pp.11-20 (198 6).
① Savigny, VIII System § 346, p.17.
① Savigny, VIII System § 346, p.17. Cf. Jiirgen Basedow, The Effects of Globa lization on Private International Law, in Legal Aspects of Globalization, 1-10,8 f. (Basedow & Kono, eds., The Hague et al.2000).
② Savigny, Stimmen fur und wider neue Gesetzbiicher,3 Zeitschrift fur geschich tliche Rechtswissenschaft,1-52, reprinted in Savigny und Thibaut (supra n.) 231-254,241:Vollends die Juden sind und bleiben uns ihrem innern Wese n nach Fremdlinge.
③ Thomas Henne & Carsten Kretschmann, Der christlich fundierte Antijudaismus S avignys und seine Umsetzung in der Rechtspraxis,119 Zeitschrift fur Rechtsg eschichte germanistische Abteilung (SavZ/Ger) 250-315(2002).
①Savi gny,Ⅷ System, § 349,p.36普鲁士法律中禁止犹太人取得土地权利的条款同样适用于外国犹太人
① Georg Jellinek, Allgemeine Staatslehre 394-434. (3th ed., Berlin:Springer, 1914);see Jens Kersten, Georg Jellinek und die klassische Staatslehre (200 0).
② EC Treaty, Art.61-69.
③ Ralf Michaels, Privatautonomie und Privatkodifikation,62 RabelsZ 580-626 (5 97).
④ See Gunther Teubner, The King's Many Bodies:The Self-Deconstruction of Law' s Hierarchy.31 Law & Soc. Rev.763,768 (1997).
⑤ See Dennis Solomon, Das vom Schiedsgericht in der Sache anzuwendende Recht n ach dem Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Neuregelung des Schiedsverfahrensrechts, 43 Recht der inter-nationalen Wirtschaft (RIW) S.981-990(1997).
① See Ralf Michaels, Territorial Jurisdiction after Territoriality, in:Essays on Globalization and Jurisdiction (Piet-Jan Slot, ed.. The Hague:Kluwer,2 004).
① Savigny § 347, p.22.
② see Bernhard Grossfeld, Zur Geschichte der Anerkennungsproblematik bei Aktie ngesellschaften,38 RabelsZ 344-371 (1974).
① Albert Farnsworth, The Residence and Domicil of Corporations (London,1939).
② Philippe-Emmanuel Partsch, cited after Markus Rehberg, Internationales Gesel lschaftsrecht im Wandel:Das Uberseering-Urteil des EuGH und seine Folgen (T agungsbericht),23 IPRax 175-181,176 f. (2002).
① Ⅷ System § 348, p.29.
② EC Regulation 44/2001, Art.33 (1); U.S. Constitution, Art. IV Sec.1 ("Ful 1 Faith and Credit").
③ Scoles, Hay et al. (supra n.90), § 23.2, p.1106 (2000); Daily Mail, no.1 9.
① See Dermott McCann, Small States in Globalizing Markets:The End of Economic Sovereignty?,34 Int'1 Law & Politics,281-297 (2001).
② See Ralf Michaels, My Own Private Switzerland,7 Zeitschrift fur Europaische s Privatrecht 197-199 (1999).
③ See Behrens, Das internationale Gesellschaftsrecht nach dem Centros-Urteil d es EuGH,19 IPRax,323-33,326 (1999); Schurig (supra n.11) 206.
④ See Steindorff, Centros und das Recht auf die giinstigste Rechtsordnung,54 J uristenzeitung (JZ),114-1143 (1999); Eva-Maria Kieninger, Niederlassungsfre iheit als Rechtswahlfreiheit,28 Zeitschrift fur Unternehmens und Gesells chaftsrecht (ZGR),724-749(1999).
① See Heinrich Kronstein, The Nationality of International Enterprises,52 Colu m. L. Rev.983 (1952); Comment, The "Nationality" of International Corporati ons Under Civil Law and Treaty,74 Harv. L. Rev.1429-1451 (1961).
② Ohio & Mississippi R. R. v. Wheeler,66 U.S. (1 Black) 286 (1862).
③ Savigny, Ⅷ System,§ 346, p.17.
④ U. S. C. A.§ 1332 (c); see Moore & Weckstein, Corporations and Diversity of Ci tizenship:A Supreme Court Fiction Revisited,77 Harv. L. Rev.1426 (1964).
⑤ Johnson & Johnson v. Picard,282 F.2d 386 (6th Cir.1960).
⑥ See Eugene F. Scoles, Peter Hay et al., Conflict of Laws,§ 2.9, pp 25-38 (2000).
①孟西尼(Mancini,1817-1888)是19世纪中期意大利的一位大政治家,也是著名的国际法和国际私法学家。他在其著名的演说《国籍乃国际法的基础》(Nationality as the Foundation of the Law of Nations)中指出,不论何种法律关系,其法律适用原则上都应以国籍作为连结因素。参见李双元主编：《国际私法》(第三版),北京大学出版社,2012年3月,第48页。
② See Ruffert,2008 ECJ(opinion of AG Bot), paras.10-12, available at http:/ /curia.europa.eu.
① See Christian Joerges, The Challenges of Europeanization in the Realm of Pri vate Law: A Plea for a New Legal Discipline,14 DUKE J. COMP.& INT' L L.1 49,178-79(2004).
② See Helene Gaudemet-Tallon, Quel droit international prive pour 1'Union Eur opeenne?,in INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS,at 317,329-38.
① See William F. Baxter, Choice of Law and the Federal System,16 STAN. L. REV 1,23 (1963); Elliott E. Cheatham, A Federal Nation and Conflict of Laws, 22 ROCKY MT. L. REV.109,111 (1950); Harold W. Horowitz, Toward a Federal Common Law Choice of Law,14 UCLA L. REV.1191,1193 (1967);Robert H. J ackson, Full Faith and Credit-The Lawyer's Clause of the Constitution,45 COLUM. L. REV.1,26 (1945);Laycock, at 333.
② See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co.,313 U.S.487,496-98 (1941).
③ Larry Kramer, On the Need for a Uniform Choice of Law Code,89 MICH. L. REV.21 34,2134-49(1991).
① See Friedrich K.Juenger, Conflict of Laws:A Critique of Interest Analysis, 32 AM. J. COMP. L.1,44 (1984) ("The mountains labored mightily only to g ive birth to a mouse.").
② THOMAS S. KUHN, THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS 92 (2d ed.1970).
① See Gerhard Kegel,Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Lawsa nd the American Reformers,27 AM. J. COMP. L.615,633 (1979).
② See Erik Jayme, The American Conflicts Revolution and the Impact on European Private International Law, in FORTY YEARS ON:THE EVOLUTION OF POSTWAR PRI VATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EUROPE 15,15-27 (1990); Frank Vischer, New Develo pments in European Conflict of Laws and the Influence of the U.S. Doctrine-A Short Survey, in LAW AND JUSTICE IN A MULTISTATE WORLD: ESSAYS IN HONOR 0 F ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN 459 (James A. R. Nafziger & Symeon C. Symeonides eds. 2002).
③ See Ralf Michaels, American Law (United States), in ELGAR ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COMPARATIVE LAW 66,70 (Jan M. Smits ed.,2006);see Mathias Reimann, Domes tic and International Conflicts Law in the United States and Western Europe, in INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM-ESSAYS IN HONOR OF FRIEDRICH K. JUENGER 109,113 (Patrick Borchers & Joachim Zekoll eds.,2001).
④ BRAINERD CURRIE, The Verdict of Quiescent Years, in BRAINERD CURRIE, SEL ECTED ESSAYS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 584,613(1963).
① See Kurt Siehr, General Problems of Private International Law in Modern Codi fications-De Lege Lata and De Lege Europea Ferenda,2005 Y. B. PRIVATE INT' L L.17,26-29 (summarizing the recent development of escape clauses in Euro pe).
② See Ralf Michaels, EU Law as Private International Law? Reconceptualising t he Country-of-Origin Principle as Vested-Rights Theory,2 J. PRIVATE INT' L L.195,216-20,226-27 (2006).
③ See W. W. COOK, The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws (1942).
④ See B. CURRIE, Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws (1963).
① See D. CAVERS,The Choice-of-Law Process (1965); id., The Choice of Law:Sel ected Essays 1933-1983 (1985).
② See W. F. BAXTER,'Choice of Law and the Federal System', in:16 Stan. L. Rev.1 (1963).
③ See A. A. EHRENZWEIG,'The Lex Fori-Basic Rule in the Conflict of Laws' in:58 Mich. L. Rev.637 (1960).
④ See R. B. LEFLAR,'Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law', in: 41 NYU L. Rev.367 (1966); id.,'More on Choice Influencing Considerations' in:54 Cal. L. Rev.1584 (1966).
⑤ See A. T. VON MEHREN & D. TRAUTMAN, The Law of Multistate Problems (1965).
⑥ See 191 N. E.2d 279 (N. Y.1963); republished, e.g., in H. SCHACK, Hochstricht erliche Rechtsprechung zum Internationalen Privat-und Verfahrensrecht (2d e d.2000) case no.21, p.89.
① See K. SIEHR,'Revolution and Evolution in Conflicts Law', in:60 La. L. R ev.1353 (2000).
② See S. C. SYMEONIDES, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present a nd Future (2006) 9-35. The book is a revised version of S. C. SYMEONIDES, Th e American Choice-of-Law Revolution in the Courts:Today and Tomorrow,298 R ec. des cours 1 (2003).
③ See S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Conflict of Laws Bibliography: U.S. Sources,2005-20 06', in:54 Am. J. Comp. L.789 (2006);id.,'Private International Law Bi bliography 2007-08: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English', in:57 Am. J. Com p. L.331-346 (2009).
④See K. KNOP, R. MICHAELS & A. RILES,'Foreword: Transdisciplinary Conflicts of Law', in:K. KNOP et al. (note*) 1,3.
⑤ See S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2009:Twenty-Third Annual Survey', in:58 Am. J. Comp. L.227(2010).
① See J. VON HEIN,'Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Ro me Ⅱ and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution', in:82 Tul. L. Rev.1663 (2 008); D. SOLOMON,'The Private International Law of Contracts in Europe:Ad vances and Retreats', in:82 Tul. L. Rev.1709 (2008); S. C. SYMEONIDES,'T he American Revolution and theEuropean Evolution in Choice of Law:Reciproca 1 Lessons', in:82 Tul. L. Rev.1741-91 (2008).
② See R. MICHAELS,'Die europaische IPR-Revolution: egulierung, Europaisieru ng, Mediatisierung', in: estschrift J. Kropholler (2008),151-173;English version as 'The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution', in:82 Tul. L. Rev. 1607-1644 (2008).
① See R. MICHAELS,'Die europaische IPR-Revolution: Regulierung, Europaisieru ng, Mediatisierung', in: Festschrift J. Kropholler (2008),151-173; English version as 'The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution', in:82 Tul. L. Rev. 1607-1647 (2008).
② See A. RILES,'A New Agenda for the Cultural Study of Law:Taking on the Te chnicalities', in: 53 Buff. L. Rev.973 (2005),1018-21.
③据本文作者考证,迄今美国有关《第三次冲突法重述》的探讨的文献主要有'Sympos ium: The Silver Anniversary of the Second Conflicts Restatement', in:56Mar yland L. Rev.1193 (1997);'Symposium: Preparing for the Next Century A New Restatement of Conflicts', in:75 Indiana L. J.399-686 (2000);S. C. SY MEONIDES,'A New Conflicts Restatement:Why Not?', in:5 J. Pr. Int. L.38 3-424 (2009); see also M. TRAYNOR,'The First Restatements and the Vision o f the American Law Institute, Then and Now', in:32 So.Ill.U. L. J.145 (2 007).
① See K. H. NADELMANN,'Marginal Remarks on the New Trends in American Confli cts Law', in:28 Law & Contemp. Probs.860 (Autumn 1963), cited in F. K. JU ENGER, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice 6(1993).
① Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,798 N. E.2d 941 (Sup.Jud. Ct.Mass. 2003).
② In re Marriage Cases,183 P.3d 384 (Sup. Ct. Cal.2008).
③ Kerrigan v. Commr. of Pub. Health,957 A.2d 407 (Sup. Ct. Conn.2008).
④ Varnum v. Brien,763 N. W.2d 862, (Sup. Ct. Iowa 2009).
⑤ 15 Vermont Statutes Annotated § 8, as amended by 2009 Vermont Laws No.3 (S. 115).
⑥ An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom, 2009 Maine Legislative Service Ch.82 (S.P.384) (L. D.1020)该法明文承认在外州缔结的同性婚姻。
⑦ New Hampshire Revised Statutes § 457:1-a.
① D. C. Code § 46-401.01, as amended by the Religious Freedom and Civil Marria ge Equality Amendment Act of 2009, L18-110, effective March 3,2010
② Proposition 8 (2008) added sec.7.5 to Art.1 of the State Constitution.
③ 19-A Maine Revised Statutes Annotated § 650.
④ New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill, New York Times,3 Decemb er 2009, p. Al; New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill, New York Times, 8 January 2010, p. A18.
⑤有关同性婚姻的冲突法问题的辩论,可以参见A. KOPPELMAN, Same Sex, Different St ates. When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines, Yale Univ. Press 2006; an e xcellent brief survey is P. HAY,'Recognition of Same-Sex Legal Relationshi ps in the United States', in:54 Am. J. Comp. L.257 (2006).
① R. MICHAELS,'Die europaische IPR-Revolution:Regulierung, Europaisierung, Mediatisierung', in: Festschrift J. Kropholler (2008),151-173;English ver sion as 'The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution', in: 82 Tul. L. Rev.1 607-1644 (2008).
②美国宪法上的“充分信任条款”的英文表述如下'Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manne r in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effe ct thereof’
③ See D.E. ENGDAHL,'The Classic Rule of Faith and Credit', in:118 Yale L. J. 1584 (2009); S. E. SACHS,'Full Faith and Credit in the Early Congress' in:95 Va. L. Rev.1201 (2009).
① See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague,449 U.S.302 (1981);Sun Oil v. Wortman, 486 U.S.717 (1988);Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt,538 U.S.4 88 (2003). The current interpretation of the clause is summarized in R. U. W HITTEN,'Full Faith and Credit for Dummies', in: 38 Creighton L. Rev.465 (2005).
②See E.g. L. KRAMER,'Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and the Unconstit utional Public Policy Exception', in:106 Yale L.J.1965 (1997);cf. R. U. WHITTEN,'The Original Understanding of the Full Faith and Credit Clause an d the Defense of Marriage Act', in:32 Creighton L. Rev.255 (1998);S. E. COX,'Nine Questions About Same-Sex Marriage Conflicts', in: 40 New Eng. L. Rev.361(2006),377-84.
③ See Wilson v. Ake,354 F. Supp.2d 1298 (M. D. Fla.,2005).
④ See Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair,22 N. J. Tax 166 (N. J. Tax 2005); Fund erburkev. New York State Dep't of Civ. Servs.,822 N. Y.S.2d 393 (Nassau Cou nty Sup. Ct.2006). See Funderburke v. State Dept. of Civil Service,854 N.Y. S.2d 466 (2d Dep't 2008)); Lane v. Albanese,2005 WL 896129 (Conn. Super.,20 05).
① See Martinez v. County of Monroe,850 N. Y. S.2d 740 (N. Y. App. Div.4th Dep't 2008), leave to appeal dismissed,889 N.E.2d 496 (2008);see also Godfrey v. DiNapoli,866 N. Y. S.2d 844 (New York Sup. Ct.2008).
② See E.g. Opinion of the Attorney-General of Connecticut,2005 WL 2293060 (C onn A. G.).
③ See California 2009 Legislative Service Ch.625 (S. B.54), amending Section 308 of the Family Code.
④ See Hernandez v. Robles,855 N. E.2d 1 (N. Y.2006).
⑤ See Godfrey v. Spano,13 N. Y.3d 358 (New York Court of Appeals 2009).
⑥有关纽约州长此番行政指令的合宪性问题(Constitutionality)已经获得通过。See G olden v. Paterson,877 N. Y.S.2d 822 (N.Y.Sup.,2008).
⑦有关纽约州的立法动态,See Arthur S. Leonard,'New York Recognition of Legal S tatus for Same-Sex Couples:A Rapidly Developing Story', in:54 N. Y. L. Sch. L. Rev.479 (2010).
① D. C. Codet § 46-405.01, as amended by the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, L 18-9 effective July 7,2009.
② In re J. B. (District Court of Texas,302nd Judicial District.2009),2009 WL 3316580.
③ See Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L.104-199, Sept.21,1996,110 Stat. 2419).
④ See I U. S.C. Sec.7“为了确定国会任何文件、裁决、条例的含义以及美国各个行政机关的解释意见的含义,‘婚姻’(marriage)仅指一男一女、一妻一夫的合法的结合(a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife);‘配偶’(spouse)一词仅指异性之人,或为夫或为妻(a person of the opposite sex who i s a husband or a wife) 。"
⑤ See 29 U.S.C. Sec.1738“美国任何一个州、领土或属地、印第安部落,都不得被要求承认另一个州、领土或属地、印第安部落所作出的任何有关同性婚姻效力的公共法案、档案记录、司法程序,也不得被要求承认从此类同性婚姻关系中获得的权利(right)或声索(claim)."
⑥ See Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co.,448 U.S.261,272 n.18 (U.S. Sup. Ct.1980)：“虽然国会显然有权增大一个州可能给予另一州的法律、判决以充分的信任与尊重的分量,但至少有一个问题：它也可能削减此类信任与尊重的分量”
①See L. D. WARDLE,'Non-Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage Judgments under DOMA and the Constitution', in:38 Creighton L. Rev.365(2005).
② See Th. B. COLBY,'The Federal Marriage Amendment and the False Promise of Originalism', in:108 Colum. L. Rev.529 (2008).
③ See W. SINGER,'Same Sex Marriage, Full Faith and Credit, and the Evasion o f Obligation', in:1 Stan. Civ. Rts. Civ. Liberties J.1 (2005) 46显然,此一修正案若获得通过,它将授权各州自由决定拒绝承认在州外缔结的同性婚姻。See H. WILKINSON Ⅲ,'Gay Rights and American Constitutionalism:What's a Consti tution For?', in:56 Duke L. J.545(2006),553-57.
④ See J. RENSBERGER,'Interstate Pluralism:The Role of Federalism in the Sam e-Sex Marriage Debate', in:B.Y.U.L. Rev.1703 (2008).
① See T. WOLFF,'Interest Analysi s in Interjuri sdictional Marriage Disputes' in:153 U.Penn.L.Rev.,2215-50.(2005).
②See H. Y. LEVIN,'Resolving Interstate Conflicts Over Marriage, Martiage-Li ke,and Marriage-Lite Relationships'(2009),available at
① See K. KNOP, R. MICHAELS & A. RILES,'International Law in Domestic Courts: A Conflict of Laws Approach'(2009) at 10, available at
② See K. KNOP,'Citizenship, Public and Private', in:71/3 Law & Cont. Prob s.309 (Summer 2008).
③ See M. CONSTABLE,'Afterword: Conflicts as a Law of Laws?', in:71/3 Law & Contemp. Probs.343 (Summer 2008).
④ R. POSNER,'The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline:1962-1987', in: Harv. L. Rev.100 (1987) 761,769-70;see also his fundamental criticism in Kaczmarek v. Allied Chemical Corp.,836 F.2d 1055 (7th Cir.1987).
① See Law & Contemp Probs 71/3 (Summer 2008):'Transdisciplinary Conflicts' (K. KNOP, R. MICHAELS & A. RILES, special eds.).
② E.O'HARA (ed.), The Economics of Conflict of Laws, Elgar Publishing-(2007).后来他又作了综述,可以参见E.O' HARA & L. E. RIBSTEIN, Conflict of Laws and Choice of Law (2009), available at
③174 F.3d 842,845 (7th Cir.1999). S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Choice of Law in the American Courts 1999:One More Year', in:48 Am. J. Comp. L.143,150-52.波斯纳法官(Judge Posner)多次在多个案件中对此案中总结的原则予以援引,最近是在2009年的两个案件Abad v. Bayer Corp.,563 F.3d 663,669 (7th Cir.2009) and in Kamelgard v. Macura, WL 3400953 at *6 (7th Cir.2009)侵权行为地法在该案中未被扩大适用于侵害名誉(Defamation)的冲突法案件。
① See J. L. GOLDSMITH & A.0. SYKES,'Lex loci del ictus and global economic w elfare: Spinozzi v. ITT Sheraton Corp.', in:120 Harv. L. Rev. (2007) 1137.
②关于WTO法对冲突法的冲击的一般性研究,参见M. KRAUS, Die Auswirkungen des Welt handelsrechts auf das Internationale Kol1isionsrecht (2007).
③ See R. MICHAELS,'Two Economists Three Opinions? Economic Models for Privat e International Law Cross-Border Torts as Example', in:J. BASEDOW & T. KONO (eds.), An Economic Analysis of Private International Law (2006)143.
④ See E.O'HARA & L. E. RIBSTEIN,'From Politics to Efficiency in Choice of Law', in:67 U. Chi. L. Rev.1151 (2000).
① See E.O' HARA & L. E. RIBSTEIN, The Law Market (2009).
② See J. TRACHTMAN, The Economic Structure of International Law (2008).
③ See J. P. TRACHTMAN,'Economic Analysis of Prescriptive Jurisdiction', in: 42 Va. J. Int'1 L.1 (2001); J. P. TRACHTMAN,'Conflict of Laws and Accur acy in the Allocation of Government Responsibility', in: 26 Vand. J. Transn at'1 L.975 (1994).
④ See K. ROOSEVELT, Conflict of Laws (2010) 39-41.
① L. BRILMAYER,'Rights, Fairness and Choice of Law', in:98 Yale L. J.1277 (1989).
② A.-M. SLAUGHTER,'Liberal International Relations Theory and International Economic Law', in:10 Am. U. J. Int'1 L.&. Pol'y 717 (1995) 730.
③ A.-M. SLAUGHTER, A New World Order (2004).
④ M. E. SOLIMINE,'An Economic and Empirical Analysis of Choice of Law', in: 24 Ga. L. Rev.49 (1989); P. J. BORCHERS,'The Choice-of-Law Revolution: An Empirical Study', in: 49 Wash.& Lee L. Rev.357 (1992); S. E. THIEL, 'Choice of Law and the Home Court Advantage: Evidence', in:2 Am. L.& Ec on. Rev.291 (2000),305; H. Y. LEVIN,'What Do We Really Know About the Am erican Choice-of-Law Revolution?', in: 60 Stan. L. Rev.247 (2007).
① C. A. WHYTOCK,'Myth of Mess? International Choice of Law in Action', in: 84 N. Y. U. L. Rev. (2009) 719.
② C. A. WHYTOCK,'Domestic Courts and Global Governance', in:84 Tulane Law Review 2009. See also T. PUTNAM,'Courts Without Borders:Domestic Sources of U.S. Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere', in:63 International Organiza-tion 459-490 (2009).
③ See R. MICHAELS,'Global Legal Pluralism', in: 5 Annual Review of Law 243 (2009).
④ See P. S. BERMAN,'Towards a Cosmopolitan Vision of Conflict of Laws:Redef ining Governmental Interests in a Global Era', in:153 U. Pa. L. Rev.1819 (2005);P. S. BERMAN,'The New Legal Pluralism', in:5 Annual Review of La w and Social Science 225 (2009),234-36.
⑤See N. HATZIMIHAIL,'On Mapping the Conceptual Battlefield of Private Inter national Law', in:13 Hague Y. B. Int'1 L.57 (2000).
⑥ See R. MICHAELS,'The Re-Statement of Non-State Law, The State, Choice of L aw, and the Challenge from Global Legal Pluralism', in:51 Wayne L. Rev.12 09 (2005).
①See A.RILES,'Cultural Conflict s',in:71/3 Law&Contemp.Prob s.273(S ummer 2008).
① See F. BUCKLEY & L. E. RIBSTEIN,'Calling a Truce in the Marriage Wars',i .n:U.Ill. L. Rev.561 (2001).
② See E.O'HARA & L. E. RIBSTEIN, The Law Market (2009). at 165-66.
③ See B. COSSMAN,'Betwixt and Between Recognition:Migrating Same-Sex Marria ges and the Turn Toward the Private', in 71/3 Law & Contemp. Probs.153-68 (Summer 2008).
④反过来也是如此：拒绝承认此类婚姻意味着离婚是不可能的,因此,婚姻也就继续存在。See D. JOHNSON,'Same-Sex Divorce Jurisdiction:A Critical Analysis of Chambers v. Ormiston and Why Divorce is an Incident of Marriage That Should Be Uniformly Recognized Throughout the States', in:50 Santa Clara L. Rev. 225 (2009).
① An Economic Analysis of Private International Law (J. BASEDOW & T. KONO eds. 2006); G. RUHL,'Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contra cts:Transat-lantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency', in:Essays In Mem ory of A. T. von Mehren (2007); G. RUHL,'Methods and Approaches in Choice o f Law:An Economic Perspective', in:24 Berkeley J. Int'1 L.801 (2006); H. MUIR WATT,'Choice of Law in Integrated and Interconnected Markets:A Matt er of Political Economy', in:9 Colum. J. Eur. L.383 (2003); H. MUIR WATT, 'Aspects economiques du droit international prive', in:25 Rec. des cours 307 (2004).
① See Jack L. Goldsmith, Against Cyberanarchy,65 U. CHI. L. REV.1199 (1998).
② See David Johnson& David Post, Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspa ce,48 STAN. L. REV.1367,1376 (1996).
① LEA BRILMAYERm, JACK GOLDSMITH,ERIN 0'HARA O' CONNOR, CONFLICT OF LAWS xix (6TH ED.2011).
① See John &Post, Law and Borders-The Rise of Law in Cyberspace,48 Stan. L. R. ev.1367,1370-1376(1996).
① See Hanson v. Denkla,357 U. S.235,250-251,1958.
① See Cybersell,Inc. v. Cybesell,Inc.130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir.1997).
② See Hanson v. Denkla,357 U.S.235,1958.
① CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson,89 F.3d 1257 (6th cir.,1996). Bensusan Restaur ant Corp. v. King,937 F. Supp.295 (S. D. N. Y.1996), aff' d,126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir.1 997).
① Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King,937 F. Supp.295 (S. D. N. Y.1996), aff' d,126 F. 3d 25 (2d Cir.1997).
② See Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,952 F. Supp.1119,1124 (W. D. Pa.1997).
③ See Inset System, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc.,937 F. Supp.161 (D. Conn.1996).
① See Heroes, Inc. v. Heroes Found.,958 F. Supp.1 (D. D. C.1996).
② See Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,952 F. Supp.1119,1124 (W. D. Pa.1997).
① See Calder v. Jones,465 U.S.783,1984.
② See Core-vent Corp. V. Nobel Industries,11 F.3D 1482(9th.),1993.
① See International Shoe Co. v. Washington,326 U.S.310,1945.
① See Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC,190 F.3d 333,336 (5th Cir.1999). Cybersell,130 F.3d at 418.
② See Panavision Int'1 L. P. v. Toeppen,141 F.3d 1316,1322(9th Cir.1998).
① See Telco Communication Group,Inc. v. An Apple a Day, inc.977 F. Supp.404 (E. D. Va.1997).
① See Bailey v. Turbine Design, Inc.,86 F. Supp.2d 790 (W. D. Tenn.2000).
② See CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson,89 F.3d 1257 (6th cir.,1996).
③ See Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,952 F. Supp.1119,1124 (W. D. Pa.1997).
④ See Blumenthal v. Drudge,992 F.Supp.44 (D.D.C.1998).
① See Tech Heads,inc. v. Desktop Serv. Center,Inc.,105 F. Supp.2d 1141,1150 (D. Or.2000).
② See Millennium Enterprises, Inc. v. Millennium Music, L. P,33F. Supp.2d 907,922 (D. ORE.1 999).
① See Andrea Slane, Tales, Techs, and Territories:Private International Law, Globalization, and the Legal Construction of Borderlessness on the Internet, 71 LAW & CONTEMP. PROB.129,130 (2008).
① See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown,180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011).
② See Michael H. Hoffheimer, General Personal Jurisdiction after Goodyear Dunl op Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown, at 3-4, available on ssrn at http://ssrn. com/abstract=1919208.
③ See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,444 U.S.286 (1980).
① See Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Service, Ltd.,562 N.W.2d 466 (Mich.199 7).
② See Ralph U. Whitten, U.S. Conflict-of-Laws Doctrine and Forum Shopping, Int ernational and Domestic (Revisited),37 TEX. INT'L L J.559,573-74 (2002)
③ See Motenko v. MGM Dist., Inc.,921 P.2d 933,935 (Nev.1996).
④ See Foster v. Leggett,484 S.W.2d 827,829 (Ky.1972)
①这类国际案件包括Chang v. Baxter Healthcare,599 F.3d 728 (7th Cir.2010)(现代时效问题)；Bakalar v. Vavra,619 F.3d 136 (2d Cir.2010) (适用纽约州的混合方法)；Naghiu v. Inter-continental Hotel Group,165 F. R.D.413 (D. Del.1996)(适用第二次冲突法重述的方法)；D'Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson 628 A.2 d 305 (N. J.1993) (运用政府利益分析的方法),Nedlloyd Lines B. V. v. Superior Court(评估是否赋予法律选择条款以法律效力),834 P.2d 1148 (Cal.1992);Catal ano v. Catalano,170 A.2d 726 (Conn.1961)(适用第一次冲突法重述的方法)。
② See Christopher A. Whytock, Myth or Mess?International Choice of Law in Act ion,84 N. Y. U. L. REV.719,723 (2009)由于地区法院的法官在国际法律选择案件中坚持平等立场,所以,对有效的全球治理,颇有贡献。
① See Licra and UEJF v. Yahoo! Inc., Tribunal de Grade Instance de Paris, May 22,2000. See also Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Lingue Contre le Racisme et 1'Antis emtisme,169 F.Supp.2d 1181 (N.D. Ca 2001), rev'd en banc on other grounds, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.2006).
② See Yulia A. Timofeeva, Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Cont ent Controversies:A Comparative Analysis,20 CONN. J. INT'L L.199,206-20 7(2004-2005).
③一个英特网视频共享网站。
④ See Adam Liptak, When Free Worlds Collide, N. Y. TIMES, FEB.28,2010, sec.WK, p.1.
⑤ See [2002] HCA 56 (High Court of Australia 2002).
① See Lewis v. King, [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1329, [31], [34] (Eng.).
② See Bangoura v. Washington Post (2004),235 D.L.R.4th 564,571 (Can. Ont. Su p. Ct. J.2004).
③ See re Moshe D. (Court of Cassation, Italy, Dec.27,2000), http://www.cdt.or g/speech/international/001227italiandecision.pdf).
④ See Yulia A. Timofeeva, Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Cont ent Controversies:A Comparative Analysis,20 CONN. J. INT'L L.199,210-21 0 (2005)).
⑤See Silverlit Toys Manufactory, Ltd. v. Absolute Toy Marketing, Inc.,2007 W. L.521239 (N. D. Cal.).
①范式的概念和理论是美国著名科学哲学家托马斯·库恩阐述的,指常规科学所赖以运作的理论基础和实践规范,是从事某一科学的研究者群体所共同遵从的世界观和行为方式。“法律范式”这一说法是借用的概念,指的是法律研究者们普遍适用的研究方法和方式。
② See Paul Schiff Berman, The Globalization of Jurisdiction,151 U. PA. L. REV. 311,322 (2002); See Paul Schiff Berman, Toward a Cosmopolitan Vision of Co nflict of Laws:Redefining Governmental Interests in the Global Era,153 U. PA. L. REV.1819,1857,1875-1876 (2005).
①See Derek E.Bambauer,01wel l's Armchai r,_CHI.L.REV.__(2012),avai la ble at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1926415.
②Licra and UEJF v.Yahoo!Inc.,Tribunal de Grade Instance de Paris,May 22, 2000.
③英文词汇"Libel tourism"最初是由英国著名法哲学家吉奥弗雷.罗伯逊(Geoffrey R obertson)创造的,意指在诽谤诉讼中的“挑选法院现象”(forum shopping for libe 1 suits)。中文作者一般直译为“诽谤旅游”,也就是说,由于美国等其它司法管辖区为发表诽谤言论之人提供了较多的抗辩理由,原告难以胜诉。于是,外国人会跑到英国法庭起诉那些在其他地方不会胜诉的诽谤案件。
① See Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Lingue Contre le Racisme et 1'Antisemtisme,169 F. Su pp.2d 1181,1192 (N. D. Ca.2001), rev'd en banc on other grounds,433 F.3 d 1199 (9th Cir.2006).
② See "The Funny Formula," WIRED MAGAZINE, May 2011,137-157.
③在这里,社会媒介平台指的是“博客”(blogs)、“我的空间”(MySpace)以及其它社会性媒介手段。这些媒介手段在互联网世界广泛应用。
①See John McCormick, "Obama's Top 2012 Fundraiser Prefers Farming to Huntin g for Money,"BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK,(Sept.22,2011,5:07 AM),http://www. businessweek.com/news/2011-09-22/obama-s-top-2012-fundrai ser-prefer s-farming-to-hunting-for-money.html,and"Obama campaign email subject lines,"CBS NEWS(Sept.30,2011,6:53 PM),http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544-162-2011 4153-503544.html.
②See Gregory S.Cooper.A Tangled Web We Weave:Enforcing International Speec h Restrictions in an Online World,8 PITTSBURGH J.TECH.L.& P.2,15-18 (2007).
③"Mashup Culture Goes Viral"(October 7,2011),available at http:///www.iol. co.za/scitech/technology/internet/mash-up-culture-goes-viral-1.1153007.
④混聚(Mashup)是一种基于Web Services资源元数据规范等技术的网络应用开发技术,它可以将不同站点或应用程序的数据、资源、API加以混聚来构建新的业务流程,满足新的用户需求。混聚的思想最早启迪于艺术领域,现已作为一种网络应用开发模式为世人所熟知。
⑤Horatia Muir Watt,Cyberage Conflict s Law: Yahoo!Cyber-Colli sion of Culture s:Who Regulates?,24 MICH.J.INT'L L.673,692-692(2003).
①See William Ho1lingworth, "'Scanllator s freely translating 'manga''ani me,'"THE JAPAN TIMES ONLINE(Mar.10,2009),ht tp://search.japantimes.co. jp/cgi-bin/nn20090310f2.html；
②1984年12月3日凌晨,设在印度中央邦首府博帕尔的美国联合碳化物公司的一家农药厂发生异氰酸甲酯(MIC)毒气泄漏事件,直接导致3150人死亡,5万多人失明,2万多人受到严重毒害,近8万人终身残疾,15万人接受治疗,受这起事件影响的人口多达150余万,约占博帕尔市总人口的一半。
①吴琼.监管跨国公司侵犯人权案的新突破—美国《外国人侵权法令》介评[J].比较法研究,2009,(05)：102-108.
②International Litigation and The Reworking of the Conflict of Laws[J].Law Q uarterly Review,2004,(120):580.
①Irene Khan.20 Year s After Bhopal:Multinational and Human Rights-Free Zone s[J].http:.//www.ipster raviva.net／tv／wsf2005／pdf／29.pdf,2005-03-23／2012-02-28.
②2000年1月30日晚上10点多钟,罗马尼亚一个小城镇巴亚马雷的一个黄金矿的尾矿池溃坝,导致大量含有氰化物和重金属的废水污染了周边几个国家的河流,直至黑海。这次事故造成的环境、健康和经济损失直到现在也难以估量。
③Alexander Szakats.Cross Border Pollution-Private International Law Problem s in Claiming Compensat ion[J].Victoria,University of Willington Law Review, 2001,(32):609.
① Angus Johnston and Edward Powles. The Kings of the World and their Dukes'Dil emma: Globalisation, Jurisdiction and the Rule of Law [A], in Piet Jan Slot an d Mielle Bulterman Ed. Globalisation and Jurisdiction[C]. Netherlands:Kluwer Law International,2004,p.21.
①所谓公司面纱理论,即公司作为法人必须以其全部资产独立地对其法律行为和债务承担责任,公司的股东以其出资额为限对公司承担有限责任的理论。参见朱慈蕴.公司法人格否认法理研究[M].法律出版社1998：141-142.
① Richard Meeran. "Process" Liability of Multinationals:Overcoming the Forum Hurdle [J]. Journal of Personal Injury Litigation,1995,(05):170.
②择地行诉与法律选择和法院选择不同。一般认为,择地行诉是在国际民事纠纷发生后,原告无须与对方当事人协商,自主地选择对他有利的法院提起诉讼的行为。
①See Appeals for the Second Circuit,January 14th,1987.
①传统的国际民事诉讼理论认为,在国际民事诉讼活动中,由于原告可以自由选择一国法院而提起诉讼,他就可能选择对自己有利而对被告不利的法院。该法院虽然对案件具有管辖权,但如审理此案将给当事人及司法带来种种不便之处,从而无法保障司法的公正,不能使争议得到迅速有效的解决。此时,如果存在对诉讼同样具有管辖权的可替代法院,则原法院可以自身属不方便法院为由,依据职权或根据被告的请求作出自由裁量而拒绝行使管辖权。此种传统意义上的不方便法院理论具有一定的合理性,但它毕竟充斥着过大的随意性,易被滥用。参见李双元谢石松.国际民事诉讼法概论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：314.
①Mary Keyes. Jurisdiction in International Litigation[M]. Sydney:The Federation Press,2005:66-67.
②Upendra Baxi.Valiant Victims and Lethal Litigation[M]. Bombay: N. M. Tripathi P vt.Ltd.,1990:56.
①See Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 145.
② See S. A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense v. Boeing Co.,641 F.2d 746, 749 (9th Cir.1981).
① Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Service, Ltd.,562 N. W.2d 466,471 (Mich.199 7).
② Fu v. Fu,733 A.2d 1133,1138 (N. J.1999).
③柯里教授最早在1963年出版的《冲突法论文集》中提出了“利益分析”或“政府利益分析”方法论。柯里极力反对通过冲突规范来选择法律,认为“最好是抛掉冲突法规则”,而采用他的“利益分析(interest analysis)"方法去就有关国家的实体法规则直接作出选择。柯里的利益方法与传统的法律选择方法的显著区别,在于他透过法律冲突的表象,去分析背后的利益冲突,然后根据利益冲突的情况决定法律的适用。此一理论具有一定的合理性。但是,他的学说在司法实践中的运用引起了较多的批评。因为如果采用柯里所述的解决利益冲突的方法,常常会导致各国许多国际私法学家一直反对的法院地法优先适用的结果。尽管柯里认为依利益分析方法选择法律是合理的,而实际上法院总会在案件中找出理由认为自己州的利益是优先的。应该说,这是他的理论中一个不可避免的矛盾。关于柯里理论的评述,可以参见李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武 汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：317-321.
①See Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 145.
① See Philips Petroleum,472 U.S. at 816.
②本案的原告是两个美国公民,起诉前他们在土耳其遭绑架。
③ Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic,398 F. Supp.2d 131,139-40 (D.D.C.2005).
④ See Bano v. Union Carbide Corp.,2003 WL 1344884 at*3 (S. D.N.Y.)后来上诉至第二巡回法院,一审的部分判决结论被推翻。
①参见前引菲利普石油公司案。
② See Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., No. C 99-02506 SI,2006 WL 2455761 (N. D. Cal.2 006).
③ Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., No. C 99-02506 SI,2006 WL 2455761 (N.D. Cal.200 6).
① See Doe v. Unocal, No. BC 23.7980 and BC 237679, at 8 (Cal. Super. Ct.2003).
②缅甸法在该案中被视为事实,由原告举证证明缅甸法的存在及其内容。原告的缅甸法专家对之举证。该案的承办法官卡尼于2007年发表文章,对缅甸法的实际状况作了有趣的解释,可以参见Andrew Huxley.Case Note: Comparative Law Aspects of the Doe v. Unoca 1 Choice of Law Hearing [J].J. Comp. L.,2007 (1):219, available at http://www.thejcl. com/pdfs/huxley. pdf,2007-01-10/2012-01-23.
③ See Wyatt,398 F. Supp.2d at 139.
④ See Wyatt,398 F. Supp.2d at 139.
①李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：112-113.
②李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：129.
③(苏)乌.姆.柯列斯基.英美国际私法的理论与实践,转引自李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：130.
① See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp,2006 WL 516744, at 2 (D. D. C.2006).
② See Doe v. Unocal, No. BC 237980 and BC 237679, at 5,6 (Cal. Super. Ct.200 3).
① See Unocal, No. BC 237980 and BC 237679, at 10 (citing Wong v. Tenneco, Inc. 39 Cal.3d 126,135 (1985)).
②公共政策例外,又称公共政策,在大陆法系的冲突法著作中称公共秩序保留,一般是指在依法院国自己的冲突规则本应适用某一外国法,而因其适用会危及法院国的重大社会或公共利益或法律与道德的基本原则即可排除其适用的一种保留制度。关于公共政策例外对排除外国法适用的功能分析,可以参见李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：262.
③ See Friends For All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.,587 F. Supp.18 0,191 (D. D. C.1984).
① See 587 F. Supp. at 191,citing Friends For All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Ai rcraft Corp.,717 F.2d 602,609-10 (C. A. D. C.1983).
② See Marsh v. Burrell,805 F. Supp.1493,1498 (N. D. Cal.1992).
① See Michael Anderson. Transnational Corporations and Environmental Damage:Is Tort Law the Answer? [J]. Washburn L.J.,2002,(41):399,402.
① See Michael D. Ramsey. The Power of the States in Foreign Affairs:The Origin al Understanding of Foreign Policy Federalism[J]. Notre Dame L. Rev.,1999,(7 5):341,344.
① See Mujica,381 F. Supp.2d at 1187-88.
② See Am. Ins. Ass'n v. Garamendi,539 U.S.401,409 (1999).
① See Crosby v. Nat'1 Foreign Trade Council,530 U.S.363,366,379-80 (2000).
② See Sinan Kalayoglu. Correct ing Mujica: The Proper Application of the Foreign Affairs Doctrine in International Human Rights Law[J]. Wis. Int'1 L. J.2007, (24):1045.
③ See Celeste Pozo.Foreign Affairs Doctrine Wanted Dead or Alive: Reconciling One Hundred Years of Preemption Case[J]. Val. U. L. Rev.2006 (41):591,617.
④ See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,2006 WL 516744, at*3 (D.D.C.2006).
① See Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,2006 WL 516744, Docket No.38(letter from U.S. Dept. of State Legal Adviser William H. Taft, Ⅳ dated August 1,2002).
② See Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.,381 F. Supp.2d 1164,1169.
① J. KROPHOLLER & J. VON HEIN,'From Approach to Rule-Orientation in American Tort Conflicts, in Law and Justice in a Multistate World', in: Essays in H onor of A. T. von Mehren (2002),317.
② See G. SIMSON,'The Neumeier-Schultz Rules:How Logical a 《Next Stage in th e Evolution of the Law》 after Babcock?', in: 56 Alb. L. Rev.913 (1993).
③See J.A. R. NAFZIGER,'Oregon's Conflicts Law Applicable to Contracts', in: 3 Yb. Pr. Int. L. (2001),391 (republished in 38 Willamette L. Rev.397 (2 002)); S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Codifying Choice of Law for Contracts:The Orego n Experience', in:67 RabelsZ 726 (2003);S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Oregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract Conflicts:An Exegesis', in: 44 Wil lamette L. Rev.205-52 (2007).
① See G. J. SIMSON,'Beyond Interstate Recognition in the Same-Sex Marriage D ebate', in:40 U. C. Davis L. Rev.313 (2006).
② See W. M. RICHMAN,'A New Breed of Smart Empirically Derived Conflicts Rul es:Better Law than
《Better Law》 in the Post-Tort Reform Era: Reviewing Symeon C. Symeonides,'The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future (2006)', in:8 2 Tul.L. Rev.2181 (2008).
③ See S. C. SYMEONIDES, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution:Past, Present a nd Future (2006) 9-35塞氏的这本著作是根据其2003年的一本书修订而成的：S. C. SYMEONIDES, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution in the Courts:Today and Tomorrow,298 Rec. des cours 1 (2003).
①[美]埃德加·博登海默.邓正来译.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004：466.
②这里所指的古典国际私法是与现代国际私法相对称的,特指1945年第二次世界大战结束以前的国际私法及其理论。当然,以时间为标志来界定国际私法的古典与现代性质可能有失精准,但是第二次世界大战结束以来的国际社会一个明显的特征是民主和人权、和平与发展成为了世界政治的主流,相应的,国际民商事活动的范围日益扩大,以私法为手段调整国内和国际民事关系成为普遍现象。国际私法的性质与功能定位较之此前有着根本的变化。参见李双元.李金泽.世纪之交对国际私法性质与功能的再考察[J].法制与社会发展,1996,(03)：34-35.
③13世纪意大利半岛上诞生的法则区别说系由注释法学派集大成者巴托鲁斯(Bartolus,1314-1357)所创立,因其根据法则本身的物法、人法性质而确定其域内、域外效力而得名。
①萨维尼.现代罗马法体系(第8卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：216.
①萨维尼.现代罗马法体系(第8卷)[M].北京：北京法律出版社,转引自李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉武汉大学出版社,2002：117.
①李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉武汉大学出版社,2002：310.
②See Kegel,The Crisis of Conflict of Laws[J].Recueil des Cours,1964,(112):184-185.
①erhard Kegel. Paternal Home and Dream:Traditional Conflict of Laws and the A merican Reformers [J]. Am. I. Comp. L,1979,(27):617-621.
①参见沃尔夫.国际私法[M],1950：123.转引自李双元国际私法正在发生质的飞跃——试评《20世纪末的国际私法：进步抑或倒退》一书的总报告[A].李双元.法律趋同化问题的哲学考察及其他[C].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006：415.
②李双元国际私法正在发生质的飞跃——试评《20世纪末的国际私法：进步抑或倒退》一书的总报告[A].李双元.法律趋同化问题的哲学考察及其他[C].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006：415.
③李双元国际私法正在发生质的飞跃——试评《20世纪末的国际私法：进步抑或倒退》一书的总报告[A].李双元.法律趋同化问题的哲学考察及其他[C].长沙：湖南人民出版社,2006：415.
④李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2002：108.
①李良才.欧盟区域国际私法统一化的新成果——2009年《扶养之债条例》之评介[J].湖北社会科学,2010,(07)：142-143.
①See Cavers.A Critique of the Choice of Law Problem [J]. Harv. L. Rev.,1933, (4 7):173.
①Symeon C.Symeonides.Material Justice and Conflict s Justice in Choice of Law [A].in P.Borchers & J. Zekoll, ed s.International Conflict of Laws for the T hird Millennium:Essays in Honor of Frjedrich K.Juenger[C].New York:Transn ational Publi sher s,2001,pp.125-140.
①徐冬根.国际私法趋势论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005：481.
①李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉武汉大学出版社,2002：713.
② See Austrian PIL Act Art.30; Hungarian PIL Act Art.26(2);Italian PIL Act Art.48;Polish PIL Act Art.35;Portuguese Civ. Code Art.65.1;Swiss PIL A ct Art.93; EGBGB Art.26; Yugoslav PIL Act Art.31.
③See Louisiana Civ. Code Art.3529; Austrian PIL Act §30.
④Greek Civ. Code Art.11; Spanish Civ. Code Art.11(1);Italian Civ. Code 1942 (Prel.Disp.)Art.26.
①Art.11 of the Hague Convention for the Law Applicable to the International S ales of Goods (1985); EGBGB Art.11; Swiss PIL Act Art.124. See also id. Ar t.56 (formalities of matrimonial agreements).
② See Greek Civ. Code Arts.7,9; Spanish Civ. Code Art.10(8);Peruvian Civ. Code Art.2070; Portuguese Civ. Code Art.28(1);Hungarian PIL Act Art.15(2) (3).
③ See La. Civ. Code Art.3539.
④ See Rome Convention Art.11; EGBGB Art.12; Swiss PIL Act Art.36; Italian P IL Act Art.23(2) (3); Quebec Civ. Code art 3086.
① See Russell J. Weintraub. Commentary on the Conflict of Laws[M]. New York:Tra nsnational Publishers,1986:397.
②See Cavers. The Choice of Law Process[M]. New York:Transnational Publishers 1965:180.
③关于以事后婚姻的方式给予私生子以准正的类似规则,可以参见《德国国际私法》第21条的规定。另外,《奥地利国际私法》(Austrian PIL Act)第21条也规定：若配偶双方分属不同的属人法管辖,应当适用更有利于子女准正的那个属人法。还有《法国民法典》(French Civil Code)第311-16.1条的规定。
①see Chin Kim.New Japanese PIL:The 1990 Horei[J].Am. J.Comp.L.,1992,(40):28-32.
②See Swiss PIL Art.72.
③See Swiss PIL Act Arts.72-73.
①关于婚姻形式有效性的规范,可以参见《意大利国际私法》(Italian PIL Act)第28条的规定：符合婚姻举行地法(lex loci celebrationis)、配偶任何一方的本国法或者共同居所地法的,即为有效。
②See Spaht & Symeonides. Covenant Marriage and the Law of Conflict of Laws[J].C reighton L. Rev.,1999,(32):1085,1102-1107.
③是否适用德国法取决于原告是否具备德国的公民资格——无论是婚姻缔结之时或者起诉离婚之时。
①徐冬根.国际私法趋势论[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2005：152.
①Cavers. Choice-of-Law Process,1965.326.
① Brainered Currie.selected essays on the conflict of laws[]M.,1963.126.
②关于对美国冲突法革命过程中发生的“规则”与“无规则”的对立关系的评价,参见李双元.国际私法正在发生质的飞跃——试评<20世纪末的国际私法：进步抑或倒退?>一书的总报告.国际法与比较法论丛》(第五辑).北京：方正出版社,2003.394-406.
③See Johan Meeusen. Instrumentalisation of Private International Law in the Eu ropean Union:Toward a European Conflicts Revolution?[J]. EUR. J. MIGR.& L. 2007, (9):287.
④See REGULATION (EC) NO 864/2007 ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO NON-CONTRACTUALOB L IGATIONS,0. J. (L 199) 40.
①例如,2007年度美国各州的和联邦的法院处理了4000多宗冲突法案件。See Symeon C. S ymeonides,Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007:Twenty-First Annual Survey [J]. AM. J. COMP.L.,2008, (56):128.
① See preface to Rome Ⅱ,2007.
②这里的“欧美冲突法”特指美国的冲突法与主要欧洲国家的冲突法,为了描述的方便,故采“欧美冲突法”的简称。
③塞缪尼德斯指出,所谓的“冲突正义”是与“实质正义”或“实体正义”并列的称谓,指的是这样一种观念：国际私法对选择“正确的”国家更有兴趣(也即与案件有实际联系的正确的国家),而非追求实体的正确结果。对于这些概念的辨析,可以参看Symeon C. Symeonides,Material Just ice and Conflicts Justice in Choice of Law[A] in P. Borchers & J. Zekoll, eds. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS FOR THE THIRD M ILLENNIUM: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF FRIEDRICH K.JUENGER[C].London:Macmillan,200 0,pp.125-40.
①塞缪尼德斯指出,“选择主义(Selectivism) "又称“冲突法主义(conflictualism) "描述的是这样一种观念：冲突法案件应当通过选择并适用所涉国家之一的内国法而不是通过创设实体法规范适用于特定的冲突法个案予以解决。第二种方法称为“实体法方法(s ubstantivism)"。关于这些概念的界定,See Symeon C. Symeonides, American Choi ce of Law at the Dawn of the 21st Century [J]. WILLAMETTE L. REV.,2001 (01):39.“单边方法(Unilateralism) "和“双边方法(bilateralism) "是选择主义的两种主要方法。一般而言,在涉及多个国家或州的冲突法案件中,各国或州竞相“要求”适用自己的法律于当前案件中,此种“诉求”即为确立单边方法的基础。双边方法(bi lateralism)或多边方法(multilateralism)则是根据事先界定的中立的标准,不以所涉国家或州的诉求为转移而进行准据法的选择。See Symeon C. Symeonides, Accommod ative Unilateralism as a Starting Premise in Choice of Law[A], in H. Rasmusse n-Bonne, R. Freer, W. Luke & W. Weitnauer.,eds. BALANCING OF INTERESTS:LIB ER AMICORUM PETER HAY[C]. New York: West,,2005, p.417.
② See AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE,RESTATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS(1933).
③ See Symeon C. Symeonides, The First Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes o f Old: As Bad as Its Reputation? [J]. SO. ILL. U. L. J.,2007,(32):39,57-59.
①巴迪福.国际私法各论.pp.255-265,转引自李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：584.
① Richard Fentiman. English Private International Law at the End of the 20th Ce ntury: Progress or Regress?[J]. in SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES ed. PRIVATE INTERNATI ONAL LAW AT THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURY:PROGRESS OR REGRESS?[C]. New York:K luwer Law International,1999,pp.165,169.
② Erik Jayme. The American Conflicts Revolution and Its Impact on European Priv ate International Law [A]. in FORTY YEARS ON: THE EVOLUTION OF POSTWAR PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN EUROPE[C]. Amsterdam:Centrum voor Buitenlands Recht en Internationaal Privaatrecht Universiteit van Amsterdam,1992, pp.246-249.
③ See Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 8 November 1995(c.42)§12.关于此一立法的文本,可以参见李双元、欧福永、熊之才.国际私法教学参考资料选编(上册)[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2002：453-456.
①See BENELUX UNIFORM LAW. art.14.
①See Willis Reese.Explanatory Report to the Hague Products Liability Conventi on, ACTS AND DOCUMENTS OF THE TWELFTH SESSION[J]. 1972(08):251,268.
①See Herma H. Kay.Conflict of Laws: Foreign Law as Datum [J]. CALIF. L. REV.,1 965,(04):47,53.
②See Commission Proposal,art.13 (2003).
①[美]埃德加·博登海默.邓正来译.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2004：466.
②萨维尼.李双元等译.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：1-2.
①See Lawrence Collins with Speciali st Editors.Dicey,Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws[M].London:Sweet＆Maxwell,2006:1918-1919.
① Jan von Hein. Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Rome Ⅱ and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution[J]. TUL. L. REV.,2008 (04):278-279.
② Explanatory Report, art.7, p.19-20.
① See EGBGB art.42; BELGIAN PIL CODE art.101; cf. AUSTRIAN PIL ACT, § 35.
② See SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, WENDY C. PERDUE & ARTHUR T. VON MEHREN. CONFLICT 0 F LAWS: AMERICAN, COMPARATIVE, INTERNATIONAL[J]. New York:Transnational Publ ishers,2003:110-111.
① See Symeon C. Symeonides. Oregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract C onflicts:An Exegesis [J]. WILLAMETTE L. REV.,2007, (44):205,223-226.
②See LA. CIV. CODE art.3540(协议之债)；OR. REV. STAT.81.120(合同权利义务)。
③See Symeon C. Symeonides. Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2002:Sixtee nth Annual Survey [J]. AM. I. COMP. L.,2003, (51):67-68.
①See ROME Ⅱ,Art s.6(4),8(3).
②See ROME Ⅱ.art.14(1)(b).
①See ROME Ⅱ.art.4(3).
①See BENELUX UNIFORM LAW,art.14.
②See ENGLISH PIL ACT§12.
①陈卫佐.中国国际私法立法的现代化———兼评《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》的得与失[J].清华法学,2011,(02)：101.
①[美]约翰·罗尔斯.何怀宏等译.正义论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988：85-86.
① See Tito Ballarino & Andrea Bonomi.The Italian Statute on Private Internati onal Law of 1995 [A] in Yearbook of Private International Law[C].New York:Tran snational Publishers,2000,p.111.
② See Cavers, D. F. A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem[J]. Harv. L. Rev.193 3, (47):173.
③陈卫佐.中国国际私法立法的现代化———兼评《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》的得与失[J].清华法学,2011,(02)：101.
④姜茹娇.国际私法中损害赔偿法律适用问题研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2006：150.
①普拉诺编著.胡杰译.政治学分析词典[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1986：128.
② "Habitual Residence"这一英文表述也可以翻译成“习惯居所”,但我国绝大多数学者倾向于翻译成汉语“惯常居所”。为遵循约定俗成的翻译学原理,本文亦采“惯常居所”的说法。
③英文全称是"the Hague Conference on Private International Law Convention o n the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction",以下简称《海牙公约》。《海牙公约》提到的“诱拐(Abduction) "一般是指儿童监护争议：父母之一方违背另一方的真实意愿将被监护的儿童从监护人身边诱走,并非使用暴力实施绑架的情形。See Mozes v. Mozes,239 F.3d 1067,1069-1070(2001).
①42 U.S.C.§§11601 (2006＆Supp.2010).
②See U.S. Dep't of State, Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Enters i nto Force,http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2008/April/2008040117 1712xjsnommis0.189541.html,2008-04-01/2012-03-23.
③See L. (T.I.),V.F. (J.L.), [2001]153 Man.R.2d 241 at 19.
①See Jeffrey Schoenblum.Choice of Law and Succession to Wealth: A Critical An alysis of the Ramifi cations of the Hague Convention on Succession to Deceden ts' Estates,[J].Va.J.Int l,L.,1991,(32):83,86-126.
②See Gadi Zohar,HABITUAL RESIDENCE:AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE COMMON LAW CONCEPT OF DOMICILE?available at:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1352964,2011-06-01/2-12-02-23.
③Pennoyer v.Neff,95 U.S.714(1877).
① Mitchell v. U.S.,88 U. S.350,352 (1874).
② Fong Yue Ting,149 U.S.698,732 (1893).
③ Fong Yue Ting,149 U.S. at 737-738.
① 490 U.S.30,48(1989).
② Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary [M].New York:West,2004:523.
③ 379 F.3d 631 (9th Cir.2004).
① See Hall v. Fall,379 F.3d at 634.
② See Coggins v. Carpenter,468 F. Supp.270,278 (E. D. Pa.1979).
② Mozes,239 F.3d at 1072-1073 (quoting C v. S, [1990] 3 W. L. R.492,504).
① See Knight v. C.I. R.,552 U.S.181,184 (2008).
② See Mozes,239 F.3d at 1076,1081.
①Mozes,239 F.3d at 1082.
②Robert,507 F.3d at 993-994(cit ing 42 U.S.C. §11603(e)(1)).
①Ruiz,392 F.3d 1247.
① Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield,490 U.S.30,48 (1989).
② See 28 C.J.S. Domicile § 23 (2008).
③ See Holyfield,490 U.S. at 48.
④ Black's Law Dictionary 523 (Bryan Garner ed.,8th ed. West 2004).
⑤ Intl. Shoe Co. v. Wash.,326 U.S.310 (1945).
⑥ See David Carl Minneman. Significant, connection jurisdiction of court under § 3(a)(2) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Par ental KIdnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)[R].28 U. S. C. § 1738a (c) (2) (b),5 A. L. R.5th 550,§22-24(1992).
①Gaudin,379 F.3d 631.
②Mozes,239 F.3d at 1078(若要建立新的习惯居所就必须有地理位置的改变).
①李双元,欧福永,熊之才.国际私法教学参考资料选编[Z].北京：北京大学出版社,2002：627.
②刘益灯.惯常居所：属人法趋同化的必然选择[J].中南工业大学学报(社会科学版),2002,(03)：304.
③Pilkington M P.Illegal Re sidence and the Acqui sition of Domicile of Choi ce [J].The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,1984,(33):890.
① ANTHONY. T.KRONMAN, Contract Law and the State of Nature [J].J. L. Econ. Org.,1985, (01):5-32.
②JAMES M. BUCHANAN. Private International Trade in the Shadow of the Territor iality of Law: Why Does It Work? [J]. S. Econ. J.,1991, (58):329-338.
③普通法国家通常所讲的决定准据法的条款指的就是法律选择规范。它们被看作广义冲突法的一个部分,包括管辖权规范、外国判决承认与执行规范。民法法系国家,对比之下,确定准据法的条款指的是国际私法。不过,也有学者将国际私法与冲突法混着使用的。See SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES &WENDY COLLINS PERDUE & ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHRE N, Conflict of Laws:American, Comparative, International [J]. S. Econ. J.,2003, (01):3,6.
①这种分析方法多为法律与经济分析学者们所用且用来对冲突法进行法律经济分析。See ANDREW T. GUZMAN. Choice of Law:New Foundations [J]. Geo. L. J.,2002, (90): 3-940.
① JURGEN BASEDOW, Lex Mercatoria and the Private International Law of Contrac ts in Economic Perspective [A]. in JURGEN BASEDOW & TOSHIYUKI KONO (ed.) Econ omic Analysis of Private International Law[C].Urbana:University of Illinois Press,2006,pp.125-140.
②See FRIEDRICH K. JUENGER. A Page of History [J].Mercer L.Rev.,19S4,(35):420-42 2.
① HESSEL E. YNTEMA. The Historic Bases of Private International Law[J].Am.J. C omp. L.,1953,(2):297,299-303.
② See ALEXANDER N. SACK. Conflicts of Laws in the History of the English Law[A]. in WILLIAM A. REPPY (ed.). Law:A Century of Progress[C].1937,(03):342-454.
③ See Mostyn v.Fabrigas[Z].E. R.,1774,(98):1021,1030.
④ See JOEL P. TRACHTMAN. Economic Analysis of Prescriptive Jurisdiction[J]. Va. J. Int'l. L.,2001,(42):1-79.
① See ERIN A.O' HARA & LARRY E. RIBSTEIN. From Politics to Efficiency in Choice of Law[J]. U. Chi. L. Rev.,2000(67):1151-1232.
② ERIN A.O' HARA & LARRY E. RIBSTEIN, Conflict of Laws and Choice of Law[A] i n BOUDEWIJN BOUCKAERT & GERRIT DE GEEST (ed.), Encylopedia of Law and Econom ics[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,2000, pp.631-660.
③ ERIN A.O' HARA, Economics, Public Choice, and the Perennial Conflict of Law s [J]. Geo. L. J.,2002,(90):941-956.
④ See ERIN A.O' HARA & LARRY E. RIBSTEIN. Interest Groups,Contracts and Inter est Analysis[J]. Mercer L. Rev.,1997,(48):765-774.
⑤ See BRAINERD CURRIE. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham: Duke University Press,1963:128.
① See HERMA HILL KAY, A Defense of Currie's Governmental Interest Analysis[J]. J. COMP. L.,1989,(01):19-204.
② NITA GHEI & FRANCESCO PARISI,Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Forum Sho pping: Conflicts Laws as Spontaneous Order [J]. Cardozo L.Rer.,2004, (27):1372-1373.
① STUART E. THIEL. Choice of Law and Home-Court Advantage:Evidence[J]. Am. L.& Ec on. Rev.,2000, (02):291-317.
② See WILLIAM H. ALLEN & ERIN A.0' HARA, Second Generation Law and Economics of Conflict of Laws:Baxter's Comparative Impairment and Beyond[J]. Stan. L. R ev.,1999, (51):1011-1048,1023.
③ See KIMBERLY A. MOORE & FRANCESCO PARISI. Rethinking Forum Shopping in Cybers pace[J]. Chi.-Kent. L. Rev.,2002,(77):1328-1329.
④ See FRANCESCO PARISI & ERIN A.0' HARA. Conflict of Laws[A]. in PETER NEWMAN (ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law I[C].Urbana:Univ ersity of Illinois Press,1998,pp.387-395.
①See JOSEPH H. SOMMER. The Subsidiary: Doctrine Without a Cause?[J].Fordham L. Rev.,1990,(59):227-281,254-255.
②See STEWART E. STERK, The Marginal Relevance of Choice of Law[J].U. Pa. L. Re v.,1989,(142):949-1031,1015.
① See KIMBERLY A. MOORE. Forum Shopping in Patent Cases:Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation? [J]. N. C. L. Rev.,2001, (79):889-938,925.
② See Council Regulation 2001/44/EC of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and th e Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, O. J. L.,2001(01):12.
① See DANIEL J. DORWARD, The Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine and the Judicial Pro tection of Multinational Corporations From Forum Shopping Plaintiffs[J]. U. P a. Int'1. Econ. L.,1998,(19):141-168.
① See MICHAEL J. WHINCOP & MARY KEYES, Economic Analysis of Conflict of Laws i n Torts Cases:Discrete and Relational Torts [J]. Melb. U. L. Rev.1998, (22):3 70-395.
② See MARY GARVEY ALGERO.In Defense of Forum Shopping: A Realistic Look at Sel ecting a Venue [J]. Neb. L. Rev.1999,(78):79-112.
① See Council Regulation 2001/44/EC of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction and Re cognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,0. J. L,2001,(01):12.
② See ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN. Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority i n Private International Law: A Comparative Study of the Doctrine,Policies an d Practices of Common-and Civil-Law Systems[M]. Urbana:University of Ill in ois Press,2003,pp.250-256.
① See ROGER VAN DEN BERGH.Economic Criteria for Applying the Subsidiarity Prin ciple in the European Community: The Case of Competition Policy[J]. Int'1. Re v. Law.& Econ.,1995,(16):363,366.
② See LUCIAN ARYE BEBCHUK, Federalism, and the Corporation: The Desirable Limi ts on State Competition in Corporate Law[J].Harv. L. Rev.,1992,(105):1437.
③ See PETER DODD & RICHARD LEFTWICH, The Market for Corporate Charters:"Unhea lthy Competition" Versus Federal Regulation [J].J. Bus. L.,1980, (53):259.
④ See LARRY RIBSTEIN, From Efficiency to Politics in Contractual Choice of Law [J]. Ga. L. Rev.,2003,(37):363-471.
① See RICHARD A. POSNER, Economic Analysis of Law[M].New York:Kluwer Pulisher, 2002,pp.602-603.
② See RALF MICHAELS, Two Economists, Three Opinions? Economic Models for Private International Law of Tort Cross-Border Torts as Example[A]in JURGEN BASED OW & TOSHIYUKI KONO(ed.), Economic Analysis of Private International Law[C].N ew York:Kluwer Pulisher,2006,pp.239-246.
①YMEON C.SYMEONIDES. American Choice of Law at the Dawn of the 21st Century [J]. Willamette L. Rev.,2001,(37):1-87.
① See Potinger v. Wightman, E. R.,1893:29-31.
② ALBERT V. DICEY. A Digest of the Law of England With Reference to the Conflic t of Laws[M]. London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd.,1896:102.
① JOSEPH H. BEALE. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws[M]. London: Stevens and S ons,Ltd.,1935:128.
② The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws(193 4).
③ LUTHER L. MCDOUGAL. Toward Application of the Best Rule of Law in Choice of L aw Cases [J]. Mercer L. Rev.,2006,(01):483-533.
①FRIEDRICH CARL VON SAVIGNY,System des heutigen Romischen Rechts(1849),Volume 8.
①D EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome Convent ion),0. J. L.,1980:1-19.
①See MATHIAS REIMANN. Savigny's Triumph? Choice of Law in Contracts Cases at th e Close of the Twentieth Century [J]. Va. J. Int'l.L.,1999,(39):586.
① See HANS-BERND SCHAFER.Legal Rules and Standards[J].German Working Papers i n Law and Economics[C]. Hamburg:University of Hamburg,2002, (02):106.
② See WILLIS L.M.REESE, Choice of Law:Rules or Approach [J]. Cornell L.Q.,1972 (57):315,320-322.
①特征履行说原来认为乃瑞士法学家施尼译所首倡,但根据瑞士弗赖堡大学法学博士张明杰先生考证,认定为1902年由哈伯格(J.Harburger)在研究双务合同时便提了出来,到1955年海牙国际私法会议于有体动产买卖的冲突法中正式被采用。李双元.国际私法》(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：540.
①Information according to the STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT(FEDERAL STATISTICAL OF FICE),available at http://www.destatis.de/basis/d/bevoe/bevoetab4.php,2010-01-21/2012-03-23.
①See WILLIAM L.PROSSER, Interstate Publication[J]. Mich. L. Rev.,1953,(51):959-1000,971.
[1]韩德培.国际私法问题专论[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2003：93.
[2]韩德赔.中国冲突法研究[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,1993：66.
[3]李双元.国际私法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2012：78.
[4]黄进.国际私法[M].北京：法律出版社,2005：68.
[5]李双元.中国与国际私法统一化进程[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,1998：126.
[6]李双元.国际私法(冲突法篇)[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2001：317-321.
[7]邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派(修订版)[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006：20.
[8]李广辉.国际私法[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2010：101.
[9]徐东根,薛凡.中国国际私法完善研究[M].上海：上海社会科学院出版社,1998：301.
[10]赵相林.国际民商事案件司法协助制度研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2008：40.
[11]赵相林.中国国际私法立法问题研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003：55.
[12]赵相林.国际私法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2007：55.
[1]韩德培.国际私法的晚近发展趋势[J].中国国际法年刊,1998(04)：96.
[2]肖永平.晚近欧洲冲突法之发展[J].中国法学,2004(05)：121.
[3]徐崇利.规则与方法——欧美国际私法政策的比较及其对我国的启示[J].法商研究,2001(01)：122.
[4]徐崇利.冲突规则的回归：美国现代冲突法理论与实践的一大发展趋势[J].法学评论,2000(05)：108.
[5]袁发强.人权保护对冲突法发展的影响[J].时代法学,2004(06)：78.
[6]蒋新苗等.“和平崛起”时代国际私法的定位[J].法学家,2004(06)：68.
[7]邹国勇.克格尔和他的国际私法“利益论”[J].比较法研究,2004(05)：74.
[8]黄世席.全球化与国际私法发展的新趋势[J].学术交流,2003(01)：56.
[9]姜茹娇、王娇莺.论国际私法中法律选择方法的价值追求——兼论最密切联系原则的勃兴与修正[J].比较法研究,2002(03)：26.
[10]宣增益、朱子勤.论20世纪西方国家国际私法学的发展[J].比较法研究,2000(02)：98.
[11]肖永平.美国冲突法革命之后的法律选择方法[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2000：56.
[12]焦燕.论既得权理论对当代冲突法的影响[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2002：78.
[13]刘益灯.论国际私法中的惯常居所[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2002：45.
[14]肖永平、王承志.第三次冲突法重述：美国学者的新尝试[J].武汉大学学报(哲社版),2004(01)：45.
[15]徐伟功.博弈论与中国区际法律冲突[J].武汉大学学报,2002(01)：76.
[16]徐唐棠.国际私法法律适用的确定性与灵活性之间的张力关系[J].当代法学,2002(11)：75.
[17]肖永平.国外国际私法的新发展与中国国际私法学的发展方向[J].中国法学,1996(01)：98.
[18]何易.中国法院审理涉外民商案件法律适用实证分析[A].中国涉外商事海事审判指导与研究[C],2001(01)：121.
[19]徐东根.论法律直接适用理论及其对当代国际私法的影响[J].中国国际法年刊,1994(02)：76.
[20]车英,胡永庆.国际问题交往中法律选择方法的最新走向[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,1999(01)：85.
[1][美]伯尔曼,贺卫芳等译.法律与革命—西方法律传统的形成[M].北京：中国大百科全书 出版社,1993：178.
[2][英]莫里斯,李双元等译.戴西和莫里斯伦冲突法[M].北京：中国大百科全书出版社,1999：268.
[3][德]萨维尼,李双元等译.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：128.
[4][美]罗斯科.庞德,唐前宏等译.普通法的精神[M].北京：法律出版社,2001：18-20.
[5][美]博登海默,邓正来译.法理学——法律哲学与法律方法[M].北京：法律出版社,1999：102.
[6][罗马]查士丁尼,张企泰译.法学总论—法学阶梯[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：400.
[7][德]卡尔.拉伦茨,陈爱娥译.法学方法论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2004：123.
[1][美]西蒙尼德斯,宋晓译,黄进校.20世纪末的国际私法——进步还是退步?[A].民商法论丛[C].,2002(24)：389.
[2][英国]莫里斯,李东来等译.法律冲突法[J].中国对外翻译出版公司,1990：483.
[1]EUGENE F. SCOLES & PETER HAY & PATRICK J. BORCHERS & SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, Conflict of Laws[M]. London: Macmillan,2004:1-2.
[2]Bryan A. Gamer.Black's Law Dictionary[M].New York:West,2004:5-23.
[1]Karen Knop, Ralf Michaels,& Annelise Riles, International Law in Domestic Courts:A Conflict of Laws Approach [J].4, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1413189 (2009).
[2]White House, International Strategy for Cyberspace:Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World[J].(May 2011), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/de fault/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for__cybe rspace.pdf.
[3]W. M. RICHMAN,'A New Breed of Smart Empirically Derived Conflicts Rules:Better Law than 《Better Law》 in the Post-Tort Reform Era: Reviewing Symeon C. Symeonides,'The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future (2006)'[J]., in:82 Tul. L. Rev. 2181 (2008).
[4]G. J. SIMSON,'Beyond Interstate Recognition in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate'[J], in:40 U.C. Davis L. Rev.313 (2006).
[5]S. C. SYMEONIDES,'Oregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract Conflicts:An Exegesis'[J], in: 44 Willamette L. Rev.205-52 (2007).
[6]Sinan Kalayoglu.Correcting Mujica:The Proper Application of the Foreign Affairs Doctrine in International Human Rights Law[J]. Wis. Int'l LJ.2007,(24):1045.
[7]Celeste Pozo.Foreign Affairs Doctrine Wanted Dead or Alive:Reconciling One Hundred Years of Preemption Case[J].Val. U. L. Rev.2006(41):591,617.
[8]Symeon C. Symeonides, Private International Law at the End of the 20th Century:Progress or Regress[A].in International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millennium:Essays in Honor of Friedrich K. Juenger[C]. New York:West.1999:46,60.
[9]Symeon C. Symeonides, Material Justice and Conflicts Justice in Choice of Law[A], in P. Borchers & J. Zekoll, eds.,International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millennium:Essays in Honor of Friedrich K. Juenger[C]. New York:Transnational Publishers.2001:125-140.
[10]Derek E. Bambauer, Olwell's Armchair, [J]._ CHI. L. REV._ (2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstracr=1926415.
[11]Rochelle Dreyfuss, The ALI Principles on Transnational Intellectual Property Disputes:Why Invite Conflicts? [J]. Brook. J. Intl. L.,2005,(30):819,828.
[12]John McCormick, "Obama's Top 2012 Fundraiser Prefers Farming to Hunting for Mo ney," BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK, (Sept.22,2011,5:07 AM),http://www.busines sweek.com/news/2011-09-22/obama-s-top-2012-fundraiser-prefers-farming-to-hunting-for-m oney.html. and "Obama campaign email subject lines," CBS NEWS (Sept.30,2011, 6:53 PM), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20114153-503544. html.
[13]Horatia Muir Watt, Cyberage Conflicts Law: Yahoo! Cyber-Collision of Cultures: Who Regulates? [J].,24 MICH. J. INT'L L.673,692-692 (2003).
[14]SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES & WENDY COLLINS PERDUE & ARTHUR TAYLOR VON MEHREN, Conflict of Laws:American, Comparative, International[J].Am.J.Comp. L.,2003,(01):297,299-303.
[15]Spaht & Symeonides, Covenant Marriage and the Law of Conflict of Laws[J], Creighton L. Rev.,1999,(32):1085,1102-1107.
[16]Gregory S. Cooper, A Tangled Web We Weave: Enforcing International Speech Restrictions in an Online World[J].,8 PITTSBURGH J. TECH. L.& P.2,15-18 (2007).
[17]Alexandra Reeve.A New Strategy for Regulating AmericanCorporations That Commit Human Rights Abuses Abroad[J].Colum. Bus. L. Rev.,2008(01):387-422.
[18]Symeonides, The Need for a Third Conflicts Restatement (And a Proposal for Tort Conflicts[J]), Ind. L. Rev.,2000,(75):437,450-451,472-474.
[19]Michael Anderson, Transnational Corporations and Environmental Damage:Is Tort Law the Answer? [J], Washburn L. J.,2002,(41):399,402.
[20]Michael D. Ramsey, The Power of the States in Foreign Affairs:The Original Understanding of Foreign Policy Federalism [J], Notre Dame L. Rev.,1999,(75):341,344.
[21]Sinan Kalayoglu, Correcting Mujica:The Proper Application of the Foreign Affairs Doctrine in International Human Rights Law[J], Wis. Int'l L.J.,2007,(24):1045.
[22]Celeste Pozo, Foreign Affairs Doctrine Wanted Dead or Alive: Reconciling One Hundred Years of Preemption Cases[J], Vol. U. L. Rev.,2006,(41):591,617.
[23]Johan Meeusen, Instrumentalisation of Private International Law in the European Union:Toward a European Conflicts Revolution? [J]. EUR. J. MIGR.& L.,2007,(9):287.
[24]SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, THE AMERICAN CHOICE-OF-LAW REVOLUTIO N:PA ST, PRESENT AND FUTURE[J].AM. J. COMP. L.,2006(54):236.
[25]Symeon C. Symeonides, Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007:Twenty-First Annual Survey[J]. AM. J. COMP. L,2008,(56):226.
[26]R. MICHAELS,'Global Legal Pluralism'[J]., in:5 Annual Review of Law 243 (2009).
[27]Symeon C. Symeonides, Material Justice and Conflicts Justice in Choice of Law[A].in P. Borchers & J. Zekoll, eds. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM:ESSAYS IN HONOR OF FRIEDRICH K. JUENGER[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,2000,pp.125-140.
[28]Symeon C. Symeonides, Accommodative Unilateralism as a Starting PremiseChoice of Law[A].in H. Rasmussen-Bonne, R. Freer, W. Luke & W. Weitnauer., eds.BALANCING OF INTERESTS:LIBER AMICORUM PETER HAY[C]. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005,p.417.
[29]Symeon C. Symeonides, The First Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes of Old:As Bad as Its Reputation? [J]. SO. ILL. U. L.J.,2007(01):39,57-59.
[30]Symeon C. Symeonides, Territoriality and Personality in Tort Conflicts [A] in T. Einhorn & K. Siehr, eds. INTERCONTINENTAL COOPERATION THROUGH PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF PETER NYGH[C], Urbana: University of Illinois Press,2004,p.401.
[31]Richard Fentiman, English Private International Law at the End of the 20th Century:Progress or Regress? [A].in SYMEON C. SYMEONIDES, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AT THE END OF THE 20TH CENTURY:PROGRESS OR REGRESS?[C]. Urbana:University of Illinois Press,1999,pp.165,169.
[32]C. A. WHYTOCK,'Myth of Mess? International Choice of Law in Action'[J]., in: 84 N.Y.U. L. Rev. (2009)719.
[33]C. A. WHYTOCK,'Domestic Courts and Global Governance'[J]., in:84 Tulane Law Review 2009.
[33]T. PUTNAM,'Courts Without Borders:Domestic Sources of U.S. Extraterritoriality in the Regulatory Sphere'[J]., in:63 International Organiza-tion 459-490 (2009).
[34]P. S. BERMAN,'The New Legal Pluralism'[J]., in:5 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 225 (2009),234-36.
[35]B. COSSMAN,'Betwixt and Between Recognition:Migrating Same-Sex Marriages and the Turn Toward the Private', in 71/3 Law & Contemp. Probs.153-68 (Summer 2008).
[36]Jan von Hein.Something Old and Something Borrowed, but Nothing New? Rome Ⅱ and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution[J].TUL. L. REV.,2008,(02):124.
[37]D. JOHNSON,'Same-Sex Divorce Jurisdiction:A Critical Analysis of Chambers v. Ormiston and Why Divorce is an Incident of Marriage That Should Be Uniformly Recognized Throughout the States'[J]., in:50 Santa Clara L. Rev.225 (2009).
[38]Symeonides. Codifying Choice of Law for Contracts:The Oregon Experience[J].in RABELS ZEITSCHRIFT FUR AUSLANDISCHES UND INTERNATIONALES PRIVATRECHT[C].London:Macmillan,2003,pp.726,737.
[39]Symeon C. Symeonides, Oregon's Choice-of-Law Codification for Contract Conflicts:An Exegesis[J], WILLAMETTE L. REV.,2007,(44):205,223-226.
[40]LEA BRILMAYER, JACK GOLDSMITH, ERIN O'HARA O'CONNOR, CONFLICT OF LAWS xix (6THED.2011).
[41]G. RUHL.'Party Autonomy in the Private International Law of Contracts:Transat-lantic Convergence and Economic Efficiency', in:Essays In Memory of A.T. von Mehren (2007).
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |