國際私法選法理論的新思維－以信託法制之實體核心價值為中心

The New Epoch of Choice-of-Law Methodology-A Substantive Value Based Approach Focusing on Transnational Trusts

10.29722/TULR.200806.0004

許兆慶(Chao-Ching Hsu)

國際私法 ； 選法理論 ； 信託 ； 跨國信託 ； 實體價值 ； 核心價值 ； 法律衝突 ； 法律適用 ； 海牙信託公約 ； 第二新編 ； 當事人意思自主 ； 最密切牽連 ； 最重要關連 ； trusts ； transnational (international) trusts ； conflict of laws ； private international law ； choice-of-law, substantive (common, core) value ； justified intention ； Second Restatement ； The most significant relationship ； Hague Trusts Convention

東海大學法學研究

28期（2008 / 06 / 01）

139 - 216

繁體中文

國際私法選法理論歷經20世紀後半葉的革命性演進，涉外事件實體正義的重視似為一項重要趨勢，本文首以若干身分法律關係為例，說明實體法律核心價值與選法理論之牽連與交錯，藉以指出選法過程中實體考量之重要性與必要性；其次，本文即廣泛自學術論述、司法案例及國際公約等面向，歸納跨國信託法律關係之實體法律核心價值，藉由綜合觀察權威著作的論述內容，並擷取、頗析若干歐、美、澳等不同地點、在不同時期的司法案例，可知委託人創設信託關係之正當合法意願與期待應受尊重與落實，乃（意定）信託關係的共同核心價值；而此一核心價值，與海牙信託公約所隱含之精神亦正相符合。職是，本文即以觀察所得的信託法核心價值為基石，嘗試提出以實體法律核心價值為核心之國際私法選法理論，由實體價值理論內容的建構、實體價值理論的適用模式、以及實體價值理論與傳統及其他現代選法理論之比較等觀點，闡釋實體價值理論的可行性。本文亦主張在選法過程中，無論採行方法論模式或選法規則模式，均應以系爭事件實體核心價值做為選法之最高指導原則，若就跨國信託法領域而言，即為委託人創設信託之合法意願。

In the light of the criticisms of Cook, Lorenzen, Yntema, Cavers, and many others, the classical vested rights approach that Joseph Beale advocated and promulgated in the First Restatement is largely considered passé, mainly because its hard-and-fast conflicts rules constructed by predetermined connecting factors failed to take into account the substantial tenor of each law pattern during the choice-of-law process, thus produced unjust result inevitably. To pursue for justice with flexible functional alternatives, countless law periodicals that proposed new methodologies, such as Governmental Interests Analysis by Currie, Better Law Theory by Leflar, The Most Significant Relationship Test laid down in the Second Restatement by Reese, and Comparative Impairment Approach by Boxter, just to name a few, led to the modification of judicial precedent finally gave rise to the Conflicts Revolution.Winning the war with their flexible functional analyses, however, the modern theories create new battle, making the conflicts world much more chaotic than ever. Namely, modern approaches solved the unjust result said to be produced by the traditional rigid rules on the one hand, they sacrificed the certainty and predictability of legal system on the other. This article, therefore, attempts to promote a new thinking of choice-of-law methodology based on substantive values. For the sake of theoretical structuring, specific attention will be paid to the substantive core value of transnational trusts.Following a brief introduction of this article in Part I, Part II is a discussion of the inter-relationship between substantive value and choice-of-law theory. In Part III, the author induces the substantive value in transnational trusts as ”the fulfillment of the justified intention of the settler” by introducing opinions by several prestigious commentators from different countries, cornerstone cases by different tribunals, and the regulations in The Hague Trusts Convention. Based on the substantive core value in transnational trust, Part IV examines the methodology this author tries to advocate by means of explaining its application and comparing with both traditional and modern theories. And Part V is the conclusion of this article.

1. 許兆慶(2005)。二十世紀美國國際私法選法理論之回顧與展望。台灣大學法學論叢，34(6)，261。
   連結：
2. (1999).BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY.
3. A.L.L(1971).RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICT OF LAWS.
4. Albisinni, Perdinando,Gambino, Regina,John Glasson (ed.)(2002).The International Thust-Italy, in THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST
5. ANTOINE, ROSE-MARIE(2005).TRUSTS AND RELATED TAX ISSUES IN OFFSHORE FINANCIAL LAW.OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
6. Baxter, William F.(1963).Choice of Law and the Federal System.STAN. L. REV.,16,1.
7. BORCHERS, PATRICK J.,ZEKOLL, JOACHIM (eds.)(2001).INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF FRIEDRICK K. JUENGER.
8. CASTEL, J.-G.(1997).CANADIAN CONFLICT OF LAWS.
9. Cavers, David(1933).A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem.HARV. L. REV.,47,173.
10. Cheatham,Reese(1952).Choice of the Applicable Law.C0LUM. L. REV.,52,959.
11. Currie, Brainerd(1958).Merried Women's Contracts: A Study in Conflict-of-Laws Method.U. Cm. L. REV.,25,227.
12. CURRIE, DAVID P. ET AL(2006).CONFLICT OF LAWS-CASES, COMMENTS. QUESTIONS.
13. Danforth, Robert T.(2002).Rethinking the Law of Creditor s Rights in Trusts.HASTINGS L. J.,53,287.
14. Deneuville,Rosalind F. Atherton (ed.)(2001).French Attitude Towards Trusts, in THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF ESTATE AND TRUST LAW - SELECTED PAPERS 1997-1999.
15. DICEY & MORRIS(1980).THE CONFLICT OF LAWS.
16. DICEY & MORRIS(2000).THE CONFLICT OF LAWS.
17. DICEY & MORRIS(1975).THE CONFLICT OF LAWS.
18. Fox IV, Charles D.,Huft, Michael J.(2002).Asset Protection and Dynasty Trusts.REAL PROP. PROB. & TR. J.,37,287.
19. GRAY, JOHN CHIPMAN(2002).THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES.
20. Hay, Peter,Ellis, Robert B.(1993).Bridging the Gap Between Rules and Approaches in Tort Choice of Law in the United States: A Survey of Current Case Law.INT'L LAW,27,369.
21. Hirsch, Adam J.(2006).Trust Law In The 21st Century: Fear Not The Asset Protection Trust.CARD0zO L. REV.,27,2685.
22. Hirsch, Adam J.(1995).Spendthrift Trusts and Public Policy: Economic and Cognitive Perspectives.WASH. U. L. Q.,73,1.
23. Juenger, Friedrich K.(1993).Babcock v. Jackson revisited: Judge Fuld's Contribution to American Conflicts Law.ALa. L. REV.,56,727.
24. Juenger, Friedrich K.(1982).American and European Conflicts Law.AM. J. COMP. L.,30,117.
25. JUENGER, FRIEDRICK K.(1993).CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE.
26. JUENOER, FRIEDRICK K.(2005).CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE.
27. Kramer, Larry(1991).On the Need for a Uniform Choice of Law Code.MICH. L. REv.,89,2134.
28. Leflar, Robert(1977).Choice of Law: A Well-Water Plateau.LAW & C0NTEMP. PROBS,41,10.
29. Leflar, Robert(1966).Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflict of Law.N.Y.U. L. REV.,41,277.
30. MARTIN WOLFF(1950).PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.
31. Paton, Andrew G.,Grosso, Rosanna(1994).The Hague Convention on the Law Applcable to Trusts and on Their Recognition: Implementation in Italy.INT'L & C0MP. L. Q.,43,654.
32. Posnak, Bruce(1989).Choice of Law - Rules v.s. Analysis: A More Workable Marriage Than the (Second) Restatement; A Very Well-Curried Leflar Over Reese Approach.MERCER L. REV,40,869.
33. Reese, Willis(1983).The Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws Revisited.MERCER L. REV.,34,501.
34. Reese, Willis(1987).Statutes in Choice of Law.AM. I. C0MP. L.,35,395.
35. Reese, Willis(1972).Choice of Law: Rules or Approach.CORNELL L. REV.,57,322.
36. Rémy, Ph.,D.J. Hayton et al (eds.)(1999).National Report for France, in PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN TRUST LAW.
37. Rosenberg, Maurice(1981).The Comeback of Choice-of-Law Rules.COLUM. L. REV.,81,946.
38. Rothschild, Gideon,Alon Kaplan et al. (eds.)(2000).Asset Protection Trusts, in TRUSTS IN PRIME JURISDICTIONS.
39. Rubin, Daniel S.,Blattmachr, Jonathan G.(1999).Self-Settled Spendthrift Trusss: Should a Few Bad Apples Spoil the Bunch?.VAND. J. TRANSNA'LL.,32,763.
40. Sedler, Robert(1977).Rules of Choice of Law Versus Choice-of-Law Rules.TENN. L. REV.,44,975.
41. Sedler, Robert A.(1994).Interest Analysis, Party Expectations and Judicial Method in Conflicts Torts Cases: Reflections on Cooney v. Osgood Machinery.BROOK. L. REV.,59,1323.
42. SEDLER, ROBERT A.(1989).ACROSS STATE LINES.
43. Sedler, Robert A.(2001).Interest Analysis, Multistate Policies, and Considerations of Fairness in Conflicts Torts Cases.WIu&twrTE L. REV.,37,233.
44. Sterk, Stewart B.(2000).Asset Protection Trusts Trust Law's Race to the Bottom?.CORNELL L. REV.,85,1035.
45. SYME0NIDES, SYMEON C.(2006).THE AMERICAN CHOICEOFLAW REVOLUTION: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE.MARTINUS NIJHOFF.
46. Symeonides, Symeon C.(2001).American Conflicts Law at the Dawn of the 21st Century: Introduction American Choice of Law at the Dawn of the 21st Century.WILLAMETTE L. REV,37,1.
47. Tansill, Frederick J.(2003).Asset Protection Trusts (Apts): Non-Tax Issues.ALI-ABA,27,291.
48. Veit, Jeremy M.(1999).Self Settled Spendthrift Trusts and The Alaska Trust Act: Has Alaska Moved Offshore?.ALASKA L. REV.,16,269.
49. von Overbeck(1986).Alfred E., Explanatory Report on the Law Applicable to Trusts and cm Their Recognition.INT'L LEGAL MATERIALS,25,593.
50. von Overbeck,Permanent Bureau of Hague Conference on Private International Law (ed.)(1985).Alfred E., Explanatory Report, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTEEN SESSION.TRUSTS-APPLICABLE LAW AND RECOGNITION,II,370.
51. WEINTRAUB, RUSSEL J.(1986).COMMENTARY ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS.
52. Weintraub, Russell J.(2001).Getting the Conflict of Laws Y2K-Ready.WILLAMETTE L. REV.,37,157.
53. Weintraub, Russell J.(1993).An Approach to Choice of Law that Focuses on Consequences.ALB. L. REV.,56,701.
54. WILLIS REESE ET AL.(1990).CONFLICT OF LAWS-CASES AND MATERIALS.
55. 司法院編印(2002)。司法院涉外民事法律適用法研究修正資料彙編（一）。
56. 吳光平(2002)。論最密切牽連關係理論之立法化。法學叢刊，47(4)，97。
57. 吳光平(2004)。重新檢視即刻適用法－源起、委展，以及從實體法到方法的轉變歷程。玄奘法律學報，2，147。
58. 李宗德、馬漢寶主編(1984)。國際私法論文選輯（下）。五南。
59. 李後政(1994)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺灣大學法律研究所。
60. 李浩培、湯宗舜譯(1988)。國際私法。法律出版社。
61. 李訓民(1985)。國際私法專題研究（一）。文翔圖書公司。
62. 林益山(1994)。消費者保護法。五南。
63. 柯澤東(1993)。從國際私法方法論探討契約率據法發展新趨勢－並略評兩岸現行法。台灣大學法學論叢，23(1)，16。
64. 柯澤東(1999)。國際私法。柯澤東。
65. 柯澤東(1999)。邁向新紀元把握新潮流－國際私法之演進與修法。月旦法學雜誌，46，5。
66. 馬漢寶(1984)。談國際私法案件之處理。軍法專刊，28(11)，1。
67. 馬漢寶(1990)。國際私法總論。馬漢寶。
68. 高鳳仙(1990)。美國國際私法之發展趨勢。台灣商務印書館。
69. 梅伸協(1990)。國際私法新論。三民。
70. 許兆慶(2001)。國際私法上「最重要關連原則」之理論與實際。東海大學法學研究，16，153。
71. 許兆慶(2002)。最高法院幼年度臺上字第1207號民事判決評析－國際私法離婚效力與親子關係準據法之理論與際。法官協會雜誌，4(2)，125。
72. 許兆慶(1996)。國際私法上「即刻適用法則」簡析。軍法專刊，42(3)，16。
73. 許兆慶(2000)。國際私法連繫因素實體化初論。法律評論，66(4-6)，2。
74. 許兆慶(2005)。海牙信託公約簡析。財產法暨經濟法創刊號，95。
75. 許兆慶(1995)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。東海大學法律研究所。
76. 許兆慶(1999)。美國現代選法理論簡析－政府利益分析理論。法律評論，65(1-3)，7。
77. 陳長文(1984)。國際私法方法論之回顧與展望（上）。法今月刊，35(6)，8。
78. 陳長文(1989)。國際私法上規避法律問題。法令月刊，40(7)，13。
79. 陳隆修(1987)。美國國際私法新理論。五南圖書公司。
80. 陳隆修(1989)。比較國際私法。五南。
81. 陳隆修(1986)。國際私法契約評論。五南。
82. 陳隆修(1984)。國際私法的共同基礎（The Universally Shared Principles in Conflict of Laws）。輔仁法學，3，417。
83. 陳隆修(2005)。以實體法方法論為選法規則之基礎（下）。東海法學研究，22，307。
84. 陳隆修(2004)。以實體法方法論為選法規則之基礎（上）。東海法學研究，21，185。
85. 陳隆修(1984)。國際私法上契約之難題。東海法學研究，創刊號，76。
86. 陳榮傳(2002)。國際私法立法的新思維－衝突規則的實體正義。月旦法學，89，50。
87. 曾陳明汝(1995)。美國現代選法理論之剖析與評估。法律評論，61(1-2)，13-23。
88. 曾陳明汝(1996)。國際私法原理續集－衝突法論。曾陳明汝。
89. 楊仁壽(1986)。最高法院法律叢書。
90. 臺輔東。國際私法實例題研究法。司法周刊，68
91. 劉甲一(2001)。國際私法。三民。
92. 劉鐵錚(1991)。國際私法論叢。三民。
93. 劉鐵錚、陳榮傳(2000)。國際私法論。三民。
94. 賴來焜(2001)。當代國際私法學之構造論。賴來焜。
95. 賴來焜(1992)。博士論文(博士論文)。國立政治大學法律研究所。
96. 賴來焜(2001)。當代國際科法學之基礎理論。賴來焜。
97. 賴來焜(2002)。國際私法中「最重要牽連關係原則」之研究。法學叢刊，47(3)，1。
98. 賴來焜(1984)。國立政治大學法律研究所。
99. 謝哲勝(2000)。受託人權利義務及責任。月旦法學雜誌，65，114。
100. 謝哲勝(2002)。信託的存續期間。律師雜誌，268，53。

1. 陳榮傳(2023)。涉外生前信託的定性與準據法。臺大法學論叢，52(2)，477-536。