二十世紀美國國際私法選法理論之回顧與展望

American Conflicts Law in the 20(superscript th) Century: Review and Perspective

10.6199/NTULJ.2005.34.06.04

許兆慶(Chao-Ching Hsu)

國際私法 ； 衝突法學 ； 選法理論 ； 選法規則 ； 衝突法革命 ； 利益分析 ； 最重要關連 ； 較佳法則 ； 比較損害 ； 實體法價值 ； conflict of laws ； conflicts law ； choice of law ； conflicts revolution ； approach ； methodology ； interests analysis ； the most significant relationship ； better rule of law ； comparative impairment ； substantive value

臺大法學論叢

34卷6期（2005 / 11 / 01）

261 - 318

繁體中文

二十世紀美國國際私法選法理論的發展，依序可分爲三個時期，其一，傳統既得權理論時期；其二，衝突法革命時期；其三，後革命時期。形式主義轉趨唯實主義的法律思想變遷，使得傳統多邊主義、雙面法則架構下的選法規則受到極大的衝擊，繼之興起者，乃單面主義以及強調實體價值的選法方法論；因此，當代美國法界的國際私法選法理論，大致可歸納爲三大類別，即：單面主義理論、多邊主義理論及實體法理論。 本文以歷史的演進時序爲經，以學理基礎的更迭與判例法則的變革爲緯，說明美國選法理論的變遷過程。除前言外，第二部分介紹既得權時期傳統選法理論；第三部分引介美國衝突法革命及選法理論變革的背景因素；第四部分析述衝突法革命後美國選法理論的特色以及後革命時期選法理論的混亂局面與併合趨勢：第五部分闡釋現階段美國選法理論的挑戰；結論部分，嘗試爲美國現階段選法理論的亂象做一註解，並強調重視實體法價值乃達成選法理論穩定一致、妥當正義兩大目標所不可或缺。

American choice of law methodologies fall into three categories: (1) the multilateralist approach, (2) the unilateralist approach, and (3) the substantive approach. The traditional multilateralist approach, based on the d rights theory, emphasizing the importance of Territorialism, was the dominant theory before the so-called American Conflicts Revolution. Countless modem flexible approaches which contributed the said Revolution, and appeared mainly for the purpose of individual justice since 1950s, are either unilateralist approaches or substantive approaches. Modem approaches, generally speaking, do solve the question of injustice, however, certainty as well as predictability that traditional approach said to be contained are more often than not sacrificed simultaneously. As long as the substantive law approach has been pervading not only the United States but also the other side of the Atlantic, the author of this article is of the opinion that it has become impossible to comprehend current conflicts law without examining the substantive tenor, policy and value of each law-fact pattern during the choice of law process. An overview of this article will be illustrated in Part I. The traditional multilateralism will be expounded in Part II from both the theoretical and practical point of view Part Ill is an introduction of the American Conflicts Revolution, where the author reviews several influential modern methodologies and leading courts cases The phenomenon of hybrid approaches and chaos of conflicts decisions which most commentators criticized after the above-mentioned Revolution will be introduced in Part IV Part V is a detailed discussion of the difficulties American conflicts law scholars faced at the end of the 20(superscript th) century Finally, a brief review of this article and the conclusion as well as suggestion will appear in Part VI.

1. (1998)。國際私法之理論與實踐（一）－劉鐵錚教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集。學林文化事業有限公司。
2. (1998)。國際私法之理論與實踐（二）－劉鐵錚教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集。學林文化事業有限公司。
3. A. L. I.(1934).Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws.
4. A. L. I.(1971).Restatement (Second) of the Law of Conflict of Laws.
5. A.L.I(1994).Complex Litigation Project - Proposed Final Draft (April 5, 1993), 54 La. L. Rev. 881.
6. Arick, Carmen L(1987).Conflict if Laws-Multistate Tort-Arkansas Relies on Choice-Influencing Considerations and the “Better Rule of Law”, 10 U. Ark. Little Rock L. J. 511.
7. Baxter, William F(1963).Choice of Law and the Federal System, 16 Stan. L. Rev. 1.
8. Beale, Joseph(1935).A Treaties on the Conflict of Laws.
9. Bodenheimer, Edgar(1977).The Need for a Reorientation in American Conflicts Law, 29 Hastings L. J. 731
10. Borchers, Patrick(1992).The Choice-of-Law Revolution; An Empirical Study, 49 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 359
11. Borchers, Patrick J(1994).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1992: Observations and Reflections, 42 Am. J. Comp. L. 125.
12. Borchers, Patrick J.,Zekoll, Joachim(2001).International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millenium: Essays in Honor of Friedrick K. Juenger.
13. Brilmayer, Lea(1989).Rights, Fairness, and Choice of Law, 98 Yale L. J.
14. Brilmayer, Lea(1995).Conflict of Laws-Cases and Materials.
15. Brilmayer, Lea(1985).Governmental Interest Analysis: A House Without Foundations, 46 Ohio St. L. J. 459.
16. Brilmayer, Lea(1980).Interest Analysis and the Myth of Legislative intent, 78 Mich. L. Rev. 392.
17. Carson, Lynn Darrow(1990).Choice of Law Issues in Mass Tort Litigation, 56 J. Air L. & Corn. 222.
18. Cavers, David(1933).A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem, 47 Harv. L.Rev. 173.
19. Cheatham,Reese(1952).Choice of The Applicable Law, 52 Colum. L. Rev. 959.
20. Cook, Walter Wheeler(1924).The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws, 33 Yale L. J. 457
21. Currie, Brainerd(1963).Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws.
22. Currie, Brainerd(1958).Merried Women`s Contracts: A Study in Conflict-of-Laws Method, 25 U. Chi. L. Rev. 227.
23. Currie, Brainerd(1959).Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws, 1959 Duke L. J. 171.
24. Fruehwald, Edwin Scott(2001).Choice of Law for the American Courts: A Multilateralist Method.
25. Griffith, Lawrence K(1982).Conflict of Laws-The Supreme Court Deal Death Blow to “Vested Rights” Doctrine, 57 Tul. L. Rev. 178.
26. Hanotiau, Bernard(1982).The American Conflicts Revolution and European Tort Choice-of Law Thinking, 30 Am. J. Comp. L. 73
27. Hay, Peter(1999).From Rule-Orientation to “Approach” in German Conflicts Law: The Effect of the 1986 and 1999 Codification, 47 Am. J. Comp. L. 633.
28. 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, 27 Int`l Law. 369.
29. Horowitz, Harlod W(1974).The Law of Choice of Law in California - A Restatement, 21 UCLA L. Rev. 719
30. Juenger, Friedrich(1984).Conflict of Laws: A Critique of Interest Analysis, 32 Am. J. Comp. L. 4.
31. Juenger, Friedrich(1993).Babcock v. Jackson Revisited: Judge Fuld`s Contribution to American Conflicts Law, 56 Alb. L.Rev. 727.
32. Juenger, Friedrich(1985).Course on Private international Law, 193 Recueil des Cours 157.
33. Juenger, Friedrich K(2000).A Third Conflicts Restatement?, 75 md. L. J. 403.
34. Juenger, Friedrick(1993).Choice of Law and Multistate Justice.
35. Kay, Herma Hill(1980).The Use of Comparative Impairment to Resolve True Conflicts: An Evaluation of the California Experience, 68 Cal. L. Rev. 577The Use of Comparative Impairment to Resolve True Conflicts: An Evaluation of the California Experience, 68 Cal. L. Rev. 577,未出版
36. Kay, Herma Hill(1983).Theory into Practice: Choice of Law in the. Courts, 34 Mercer L. Rev. 521
37. Korn, Harold L(1983).The Choice-of-Law Revolution: A Critique, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 772
38. Kozyris, P. John(1988).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1987: An Overview, 36 Am. J. Comp. L. 547.
39. Kozyris, P. John,Symeonides, Symeon C(1990).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1989: An Overview, 38 Am. J. Comp. L. 601.
40. Kramer, Larry(1991).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1990: Trends And Developments, 39 Am. J. Comp. L. 465.
41. Kuhn, Thomas(1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolution.
42. Leflar, Robert(1966).Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflict of Law, 41 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 277.
43. Leflar, Robert(1968).American Conflicts Law.
44. Leflar, Robert(1966).Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing Considerations, 54 Cal. L. Rev. 1584.
45. Lorenzen, Ernest(1924).Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws, 33 Yale L. J. 736
46. Martin, James(1976).Constitutional Limitations on Choice of Law, 61 Cornell L. Rev. 185.
47. Maslechko, William S(1986).Revolution and Counter-Revolution, 44 Toro. L. Rev. 57.
48. Miller, Leigh Anne(1993).Choice-of-Law Approaches in Torts Actions, 16 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 859.
49. Nadelmann, Kurt(1957).Full Faith and Credit of Judgments and Public Acts: A Historical Analytical Reappraisal, 56 Mich. L. Rev. 33.
50. Note(1982).Comparative Impairment Reformed: Rethinking State interests in the Conflict of Laws, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 1079.
51. Peter Hay(1988).An Introduction to United States Law(台北敦煌書局發行).
52. Peterson, Courtland H(1982).A Response to the Hague Symposium: Particularism in the Conflict of Laws, 10 Hofstra L. Rev.
53. Posnak, Bruce(2000).The Restatement (Second): Some Not So Fine Tunning for a Restatement (Third): A Very Well - Currie Leflar over Reese with Corn on the Side (Or is it Cob?), 75 Ind. L. J
54. Posnak, Bruce(1989).Choice of Law - Rules vs. Analysis: A More Workable Marriage Than the (Second) Restatement; A Very Well- Curried Leflar over Reese Approach, 40 Mercer L. Rev. 869.
55. Prosser, William L(1952).Interstate Publication, 51 Mich. L. Rev.
56. Reese, Willis(1972).Choice of Law: Rules or Approach, 57 Cornell L. Rev. 322.
57. Reese, Willis(1834).Cases and Materials on Conflict of Laws.
58. Reese, Willis(1983).The Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws Revisited, 34 Mercer L. Rev. 501
59. Reppy, William A(1983).Eclecticism in Choice of Law: Hybrid Method or Mishmash?, 34 Mercer L. Rev. 645.
60. Reppy, William A(2000).Codifying Interests Analysis in the Torts Chapter of a New Conflicts Restatement, 75 Ind. L. J. 591.
61. Rosenberg, Maurice(1967).Two Views on Kell v. Henderson: An Opinion for the New York Court of Appeals, 67 Colum. L. Rev
62. Scoles, Eugene F,Hay, Peter(1992).Conflict of Laws.
63. Sedler, Robert A(2000).Choice of Law in Conflicts Torts Cases: A Third Restatement or Rules of Choice of Law?, 75 Ind. L. J. 615.
64. Sedler, Robert A(1994).Interest Analysis, Party Expectations and Judicial Method in Conflicts Torts Cases: Reflections on Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc., 59 Brook. L. Rev. 1323.
65. Simson, Gary J(2000).Leave Bad Enough Alone, 75 Ind. L.J. 649.
66. Solimine, Michael(1993).The Impact of Babcock v. Jackson: An Empirical Note, 56 Alb. L. Rev. 773
67. Solimine, Michael(1992).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1991, 40 Am. J. Comp. L. 951.
68. Story, Joseph(1834).Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws.
69. Sumner, James D. Jr(1955).The Full-Faith-and-Credit-Clause: Its History and Purpose, 34 Qr. L. Rev. 224
70. Symeonides, Symeon C(1994).The All`s Complex Litigation Project: Commencing the National Debate, 54 La. L. Rev. 843`
71. Symeonides, Symeon C(2000).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1999: One More Year, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 143.
72. Symeonides, Symeon C(2000).The Need for a Third Restatement (And a Proposal for a Tort Conflicts), 75 Ind. L. J. 437
73. Symeonides, Symeon C(2004).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2003: Seventeenth Annual Survey, 52 Am. J. Comp. L. 9.
74. Symeonides, Symeon C(1999).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1998: Twelfth Annual Survey, 47 Am. J. Comp. L. 327.
75. Symeonides, Symeon C(2000).Private International Law at the End of the 20tI Century: Progress or Regress.
76. Symeonides, Symeon C(1989).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1988, 37 Am. J. Comp. L. 457. 561.
77. Symeonides, Symeon C(1996).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1995: A Year in Review, 44 Am. J. Comp. L. 181.
78. Symeonides, Symeon C(1997).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1996: Tenth Annual Survey, 45 Am. J. Comp. L.
79. Symeonides, Symeon C(1998).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1997, 46 Am. J. Comp. L. 233.
80. Symeonides, Symeon C(1995).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1994: A View From the Trenches, 43 Am. J. Comp. L. 1.
81. Symeonides, Symeon C(2003).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2002: Sixteenth Annual Survey, 51 Am. J. Comp. L. 9.
82. Symeonides, Symeon C(1994).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 1993 (And in The Six Previous Years), 42 Am. J. Comp. L.
83. Symeonides, Symeon C(2002).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2001: Fifteenth Annual Survey, 50 Am. J. Comp. L. 1.
84. Symeonides, Symeon C(2001).Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2000: As the Century Turns, 49 Am. J. Comp. L. 1.
85. Symeonides, Symeon C.(1997).The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A Mixed Blessing, 56 Md. L. Rev. 1248
86. Vitta, Edoardo(1982).The impact in Europe of the American “Conflicts Revolution “, 30 Am. J. Comp. L. 1
87. Weintraub, Russell(1993).An Approach to Choice of Law that Focuses on Consequences, 56 ALB L. REV. 701.
88. Weintraub, Russell J.(2000).The Restatement Third of Conflict of Laws: An idea Whose Time Has Not Come, 75 Ind. L. J. 679
89. Westbrook, James E(1991).Dealing with Missouri`s Choice of Law Mess, 56 Mo. L. Rev. 1, 7.
90. Yntema, Hessel(1928).The Hornbook Method and the Conflict of Laws, 37 Yale L. J. 468
91. Yntema, Hessle(1957)....
92. Zaphiriou, George A(1980).Basis of the Conflict of Laws: Fairness and Effectiveness, 10 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 301.
93. 司法院(2002)。司法院涉外民事法律適用法研究修正資料彙編（一）。司法院。
94. 司法院與國立政治大學法律研究所(1986)。美國法律整編－國際私法。司法院。
95. 吳光平(2002)。論最密切牽連關係理論之立法化。法學叢刊，47(4)，97-116。
96. 李後政(1994)。臺灣大學法律研究所。
97. 李訓民(1985)。國際私法專題研究（一）。文翔圖書公司。
98. 林世宗(1983)。英美法判例選圓輯。
99. 科恩、程樹德、傅大為、王道還、錢永祥(2004)。科學革命的架構。遠流出版公司。
100. 馬漢寶(1991)。國際私法總論。
101. 高鳳仙(1990)。美國國際私法之發展趨勢。臺灣商務印書館。
102. 許兆慶(1995)。東海大學法律研究所。
103. 許兆慶(1999)。美國現代選怯理論簡析－政府利益分析理論。法律評論，65(1)，7-16。
104. 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，16，153-190。
105. 許兆慶(1998)。美國國際私法選法理論之變遷－以紐約州法院涉外侵權行為判例（決）為中心。軍法專刊，44(1)，34-48。
106. 許兆慶(1998)。美國聯邦最高法院對國際私法新理論之影響。法學叢刊，170，84-94。
107. 陳隆修(1987)。美國國際私法新理論。五南圖書公司。
108. 陳隆修(1983)。美國國際私法（The Conflict of Laws in the United States)。輔仁法學，2，327-328。
109. 陳隆修(2004)。以實體法方法論為選法規則之基礎（上）。東海大學法學研究，21，185-242。
110. 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，89，50-61。
111. 曾陳明汝(2003)。國際私法原理（上集）－總論篇。學林文化事業有限公司。
112. 曾陳明汝(1996)。國際私法原理續集－衝突法論一。
113. 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)，13-23。
114. 楊仁壽(1986)。闡釋法律之方法論。最高法院法律叢書。
115. 劉鐵錚(1989)。國際私法論叢。三民書局。
116. 劉鐵錚、陳榮傳(2004)。國際私法論。三民書局。
117. 賴來焜(1992)。國立政治大學法律研究所。
118. 賴來焜(1986)。國立政治大學法律研究所。
119. 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)，1-61。
120. 賴來焜(2001)。當代國際私法學之構造論。
121. 韓世祺(2001)。輔仁大學法律研究所。

1. 陳隆修(2006)。父母責任、管轄規則與實體法方法論相關議題評析。東海大學法學研究，25，191-323。
2. 許兆慶(2008)。國際私法選法理論的新思維—以信託法制實體核心價值為中心—。東海大學法學研究，28，139-216。
3. (2006)。歐洲國家法律適用法則之變遷。軍法專刊，52(5)，79-93。
4. (2011)。法人屬人法適用範圍之研究─以內部事物原則為中心。華岡法粹，51，175-197。