由歐盟經驗論中國式國際私法之建立

陳隆修

中文摘要

綜觀法制史,當今國際私法之發展似乎已陷入困境。二個主要的法域均有其缺陷:美國龐雜而混亂,歐盟急躁於統一而不顧個案正義。首先;美國國際私法選法理論無疑的為上個世紀法學界中最引起爭議的學科之一。雖然時至今日,歐洲各國及國際公約皆不約而同的採納第二新編的「最重要關連說」,但在美國本土並不認為革命已經結束;事實上自第一個指標性的案例Babcock v. Jackson 以來,美國法院就有將各種選法理論混合使用的傾向。只是早期操作技巧不純熟,通常將利益說與最重要關連說分別敘述,而這種分別使用的技巧,到後來已經純熟到不必分別使用,而渾然一體變成大雜燴式的使用。面對如此混亂的情況,American Law Institute 於困難的complex litigation 就曾建議以利益說為基準,而於利益說無法解決之真衝突時,再輔以最重要關連之州之法為解決真衝突之依據,但似乎未能改善美國選法規則之龐雜紛亂。 另一方面,致力於法制整合的歐盟於歐體條約第65 條授權歐盟於有爭議之制度(例如國際私法)採取因應步驟,但這應解為只是為了『促進各國法規的和諧』而已,不能視為將各國法規一致化。可惜的是實際操作之結果,處處可見歐盟致力於壓抑歧異的各國法制,急躁於統合法制,英國判例法的禁訴令即為一例。不僅英國學者痛批為「不必要的歐盟化」(unnecessary Europeanization),甚至連法國也有學者抗議歐盟法制干擾法國的內國法。本文建議應研究發展中國式國際私法,方能擺脫目前的困境。

 

A Future Chinese Private International Law ─ Based on the Experience of the EU

Long-Sjue Chen

abstract

Observe the legal history; the development of private international law seems to go into predicament. There are some flaws we can point out in both two major jurisdictions; the US conflict of law once drew criticism for “multifarious and disorderly” by many commentators, the EU was impatient to unify legal system between all member state instead of to preserve justice cases. For example, the anti-suit injunction of English common law system was prohibited by European Court of Justice. Not only English scholars criticized for “unnecessary Europeanization” but also French commentators object to the interference of French legal system. This essay suggest that the research and development of Chinese-style private international law is the only way to escape from the predicament.