国际私法证成法律选择方法的正当取向考量

  本文关键词：国际私法证成法律选择方法的正当取向考量，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。

        法之所立，必伴其议；议之所终，止于可受。国际私法为一门独立的法律学科自不待言，然而，关于该法律科学所要达到的目标及其采用的方法，却众说纷纭，莫衷一是。究竟应以何种方法解决涉外法律问题为宜，天才的法学家们提出五彩缤纷、蔚为壮观的方法、学说和理论，但概念复杂、匮乏说服力。故此，不确定性弥漫四野，君临一切。然则，，国际私法有无认识之客观性？国际私法之真理性何在？国际私法应如何证成法律选择方法？如果世人涉足国际民商事交往之际不能正确地解答国际私法领域中这些带有根本性的问题，那么国际私法学说理论深处不确定性境地的状态就不会从根本上得以改变；那么国际私法实务运作应以何种方法解决涉外法律问题为宜的困惑就不会得到圆满地解决。故而，在国际私法真理性检验的维度上，应如何证成法律选择方法以适当解决法律冲突和法律适用问题亦已构成本文思考之初衷、探索之目标和研究价值之所在。为达至探索之目标和兑现研究之价值，因循思考之初衷，本文将分为五章对上述关键性问题加以顺次研讨：第一章为导论，该章研究分析了全文所涉及的基本理论问题。首先，关于国际私法中的可接受性问题，实则关乎国际私法的真理性认识。因为国际私法的正确性只能依赖于乃至决定于攸关国际民商事关系调整利益之各方的可得接受状态。因而这种性质的可接受性，实际表征着国际私法的真理性品质以及标志着国际私法所为证成任务的完成。其次，关于可接受性所涉及的主体问题，实则明晰国际私法中可接受性源来之主体。国际民商事社会公众、国际民商事主体、立法者和司法者皆置身解决跨国法律问题之中，皆为受其中之事影响抑或为其中之事所涉及。因而国际私法的可接受性实来自置身其中之人的切身感知、适当满足、自觉承认以及躬身实践。再次，关于国际私法中的法律选择问题，实则关系证成法律选择方法的核心内容要素。从解决法律冲突的途径而言，冲突法规范承载着单边和多边主义方法，统一实体法规范则承载着诸国缔结之国际条约。冲突法规范是一种间接调整方法，统一实体法规范是一种直接调整方法，而实体法方法则是一种中间过渡调整方法。最后，关于基于证成的取向必备正当性问题，实则确定考量国际私法证成法律选择方法的向度。从可接受性所涉及的主体角度视之，逻辑向度、程序向度、适用向度和实效向度，实乃国际私法为完成和实现证成任务和目标而应予顺次关注的证成取向。这些立基于证成的取向分别从普遍的基础证成意义、理性的策略意义、形式正义意义和实质正义意义等四个方面为置身其中之人所接受为正当，从而担当起重要的考量向度的角色。第二章为国际私法的逻辑向度考量，该章为置身其中之人评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了逻辑证成有效性的考量向度。首先，无论是从已知到未知地提出解决涉外法律问题的方法，还是从两种或两种以上相互矛盾的陈述中发现最佳答案以便解决涉外法律问题,国际私法所为的证成所应做出的理性考虑必须符合逻辑思考的基本规范，必须具备有效的推理形式亦即逻辑证成的有效性。其次，逻辑证成的有效性在国际私法所为证成中，将通过国际私法立法者的宣示、司法者的操作和国际民商事主体的实践，反馈、传导并感染国际民商事社会之公众这种普通人的意识和普通人的确信。而普通人的这种对于逻辑力量的意识和确信乃具有国际私法普遍的基础证成法律选择方法的意义。第三章为国际私法的程序向度考量，该章为诸国立法者评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了商谈程序理性的考量向度。首先，商谈程序机制之安排和商谈程序规范之介入为法律选择中的商谈程序注入了理性内涵，亦即前者彰显了依循商谈程序证成法律选择方法的理性策略；后者则在证成法律选择方法中保障了共同商谈的理性运作以及理性策略的实现。其次，单边主义方法和多边主义方法，既持续强化着国际私法的学说法特质，又不断彰显着国际私法学术气息的浓厚及其实践封闭性的严密。在解决涉外法律适用问题的过程中，借由此两种法律选择方法中任意一种，只会使圈外之人难以涉足。因而，通过程序向度考量，此两种法律选择方法均已遍尝败绩，诸国立法者对于此两种方法的可接受性程度之低应足已显见，国际私法于此向度欲证成此两种方法均为殊难完成之任务。最后，实体法方法为国际民商事社会公众和国际民商事主体参与和决定切身利益与负担之筹划安排提供了实践机会；因为实体法方法能够为置身其中之人提供了一种极具程序理性的可能达成与产生共识确认和潜在认同的程序，并且这种程序天然包含有保障置身其中之人理性参与商谈实践的程序性规范。因而实体法方法显然禁得起诸国立法者于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。第四章为国际私法的适用向度考量，该章为诸国司法者评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了适用结果可普遍化的考量向度。首先，适用结果的可普遍化，亦即适用结果的确定性、可预测性与一致性，是一种符合形式正义的因而也是公正合理的诉求。并且根本上系于法律选择方法的确定性。法律选择方法的统一性是实现法律选择方法确定性的前提性步骤，而法律选择方法的可行性是实现法律选择方法确定性的实质性步骤。其次，单边主义方法和多边主义方法，无论是否将适用结果的可普遍化视为基本的追求目标，都将无法通过适用向度考量。因为此两种法律选择方法中任意一种，均无法在解决涉外法律适用问题的过程中始终保证其所承载的法律选择方法的确定性，因而均无助于实现国际私法证成法律选择方法的目标。最后，实体法方法在价值导向方面着眼于创立一种真实而有效的新实体规范，从而真实地和有效地回应涉外民商事交往的跨国性本质需求。从因应跨国性的出发点和渐趋良善法治境地的过程而言，其方法将有助于实现法律选择方法的可行性和统一性。因而实体法方法显然禁得起诸国司法者于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。第五章为国际私法的实效向度考量，该章为国际民商事主体评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了调整实效适当正义的考量向度。首先，跨国民商事交往对公正而持久地权衡、调停与协调置身其中之人的利益关系的需求，以及在此综合平衡进程中对适当满足国际民商事主体的利益诉求与期望的需求，就是正视实体方面有关实质正义的务实考虑。并且这种实质正义的发掘与实现充分体现在法律选择中如何适当地调整与国际民商事主体密切相关的数对至关重要的利益关系的调整实效之中。其次，实体法方法以创立新实体规范为其方法的核心内容，不仅真实地回应涉外民商事交往的跨国性本质需求，而且有效地置国际民商事主体的利益诉求与期望于国际民商事社会第一需要的地位。其运作过程必然将调整国际民商事主体相互之间及其与立法者和司法者之间利益关系作为其创立新实体法规范的焦点内容。因而实体法方法显然禁得起国际民商事主体于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。最后，单边主义方法往往可归结为一种法院地法至上主义，多边主义方法则往往以冲突法正义为其首要原则，此两种方法均未将因应涉外交往跨国属性的国际民商事主体利益保障置于其方法的首要原则地位。因而于实效向度上此两种方法缺失实质正义性，难为国际民商事主体接受为正当。

    Justification of law must be accompanied by discussion and the discussion will be ended by acceptability. It goes without saying that private international law is an independent legal discipline. However, there are divergent views on the goal and the method of the legal discipline. Genius jurists have proposed all kinds of spectacular methods, doctrines and theories on which method is the best way to solve foreign-related legal issues, but the concept is complex and unconvincing. Therefore, the uncertainty has diffused across and controlled the legal discipline. Now then, is there objectivity of cognition in private international law? What is the truth of private international law? How should private international law justify law-selecting approach? If people can’t correctly answer these fundamental questions of private international law when they are involved in international civil and commercial exchanges, it will not be changed fundamentally that theories of private international law are in the state of uncertainty, and it will not be satisfactorily solved that how to correctly solve foreign-related legal issues in practices of private international law. Therefore, in the view of dimension of testing the truth of private international law, it is the original intention of thinking, the exploration target and the research value of the paper that how to justify law-selecting approach to solve the problems of conflict and application of law.The paper is mainly consisted of five chapters as follows:Chapter one:introduction. This part studies the basic theory issues of the paper.Firstly, the problem on acceptability of private international law is indeed related to the cognition of the truth in private international law. The correctness of private international law only depends on and is determined by the state accepted by all parties whose interests are relevant to the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations. Therefore, the acceptability is characterizing the truth of private international law and marking the consummation of justification of law-selecting approach of private international law.Secondly, the problem on the bodies involved in acceptability indeed makes it clear who is the source of acceptability of private international law. International civil and commercial public, international civil and commercial subject, legislators and judiciary, they are all involved the transnational legal issues and all effected by them or all relevant to them. Therefore, acceptability of private international law come from their immediate perception, proper satisfaction, conscious recognition and bowed practice.Thirdly, the problem on choice-of-law of private international law is indeed related to the core content of justification of law-selecting approach. As far as the way to solving the conflict of laws, conflict rules carry unilateral method and multilateral method, while uniform substantive rules carry international treaties. Conflict rules are an indirect adjustment method and uniform substantive rules are a direct adjustment method, while substantive law approach is an intermediate adjustment method.Finally, the problem on the justice of orientation focusing on justification indeed determines the dimensions considering law-selecting approach. In the view of the bodies involved in acceptability, logic dimension, procedure dimension, application dimension and effectiveness dimension are the justification orientation on which private international law should focus in succession for the consummation of justification of law-selecting approach. Based on universal basic justification significance, rational strategic significance, formal justice significance and material justice significance, the justification orientation above-mentioned is accepted as justice by people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations, and then plays an important role of consideration dimension.Chapter two:consideration of private international law in logic dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of validity of logic justification for people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.Firstly, when proposing the method to solve foreign-related legal issues by means of inferring an unknown fact from a known fact or finding the best answer to foreign-related legal issues from two or more contradictory statements, rational thinking of justification of private international law must obey logic rules and must have a valid form of reasoning, that is validity of logic justification.Secondly, validity of logic justification will feed back to, conduct and infect the consciousness and the confident of international civil and commercial public by means of declaration of legislators, operation of judiciary and practice of international civil and commercial subject. Therefore, the consciousness and the confident coming from logic power have universal basic justification significance of private international law.Chapter three:consideration of private international law in procedure dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of procedural rationality of discussion for legislators in various countries evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.Firstly, arrangements of procedural mechanisms of discussion and interventions of procedural norms of discussion inject rational connotation into the discussion procedure in choice of laws, that is the former highlights the rational strategy of justification of law-selecting approach following discussion procedure and the latter ensures rational operation of common discussion and realization of the rational strategy in justification of law-selecting approach.Secondly, unilateral method and multilateral method constantly strengthen the doctrine law peculiarity of private international law and highlight denseness of academic atmosphere and tight closure of practice of private international law. Solving foreign-related legal issues by any method above-mentioned should make persons who are outside of the academia find it difficult to get involved in the problem-solving process. Therefore, the two methods above-mentioned have been all failed by consideration in procedure dimension. It is clear that the degree is low that legislators in various countries accept the two methods. So it is a difficult task that private international law purposes justifying the two methods in the dimension.Finally, substantive law approach provides opportunities for international civil and commercial public and international civil and commercial subject to take part in and decide the planning and the arrangement for their vital interests and burdens. The approach not only can provide the rational procedure for people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations to reach and produce the consensus recognized and the potential recognition, but also the procedure naturally contains procedural norms that ensure that people above-mentioned can rationally participate in the discussion practice. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from legislators in various countries.Chapter four:consideration of private international law in application dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of universal of applicable results for judiciary in various countries evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.Firstly, universal of applicable results, that is certainty, predictability and consistency of applicable results, is a fair and reasonable demand that is in compliance with formal justice. What’ more, it is fundamentally determined by certainty of law-selecting approach. Because the unity of law-selecting approach is a premise step of achieving its’certainty and the feasibility of law-selecting approach is a substantial step of achieving its’certainty.Secondly, whether universal of applicable results is regarded as a basic goal or not by unilateral method or multilateral method, they all can’t withstand the consideration of application dimension. Any one of the two methods can’t ensure certainty of law-selecting approach carried in the process of solving foreign-related legal issues. Therefore, they all can’t help to achieve the goal of justifying law-selecting approach of private international law.Finally, substantive law approach focuses on the creation of true and effective new substantive norms in value-oriented, and then truly and effectively responds to the nature of transnational demand in international civil and commercial exchanges. As far as responding to the transnational demand as starting point and becoming to the situation of ruling of good law, the approach can help to achieve the feasibility and the unity of law-selecting approach. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from judiciary in various countries.Chapter five:consideration of private international law in effectiveness dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of proper justice of adjustment effectiveness for international civil and commercial subject evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.Firstly, the demands of justly and lastingly balancing, mediating and coordinating interest relationship of people involved in international civil and commercial exchanges, and the demands of properly satisfying interest demands and expectations of international civil and commercial subject in the comprehensive balancing process, are facing up to the pragmatic considerations of material justice in substantive aspects. What’s more, exploring and achieving the material justice is reflected in the adjustment effectiveness that how to properly adjust several vital interest relationships related to international civil and commercial subject.Secondly, substantive law approach takes the creation of new substantive norms as the core content of the approach. It not only responds truly to the nature of transnational demand in international civil and commercial exchanges, but also places effectively interest demands and expectations of international civil and commercial subject in the first need of international civil and commercial society. The operational process must take several vital interest relationships among international civil and commercial subject, legislators and judiciary as the focus content of the creation of new substantive norms. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from international civil and commercial subject.Finally, unilateral method often may be summed up as lex fori supremacism and multilateral method often may take conflict justice as the overriding principle. The two methods all don’t take interests of international civil and commercial subject responding to the transnational nature of international exchanges as the overriding principle of the methods. Therefore, the two methods are lack of material justice in effectiveness dimension and it is very difficult that international civil and commercial subject accepts the two methods as justice.

国际私法证成法律选择方法的正当取向考量

中文摘要4-8Abstract8-13第1章 导论16-45    1.1 国际私法中的可接受性问题16-20    1.2 可接受性所涉及的主体问题20-33    1.3 国际私法中的法律选择问题33-41    1.4 基于证成的取向必备正当性41-45第2章 国际私法的逻辑向度考量45-70    2.1 法律选择中逻辑证成的有效性46-59    2.2 法律选择中逻辑向度的正当性考量59-68    2.3 小结68-70第3章 国际私法的程序向度考量70-104    3.1 法律选择中商谈程序的理性71-79    3.2 单边主义方法与程序向度的正当性考量79-89    3.3 多边主义方法与程序向度的正当性考量89-95    3.4 小结：实体法方法的修正95-104第4章 国际私法的适用向度考量104-155    4.1 法律选择中适用结果的可普遍化105-118    4.2 单边主义方法与适用向度的正当性考量118-136    4.3 多边主义方法与适用向度的正当性考量136-143    4.4 小结：实体法方法的修正143-155第5章 国际私法的实效向度考量155-183    5.1 法律选择中调整实效的适当正义156-169    5.2 实体法方法与实效向度的正当性考量169-178    5.3 小结：单边、多边主义方法的实质正义性缺失178-183结论183-186参考文献186-198作者简介及科研成果198-199后记199

  本文关键词：国际私法证成法律选择方法的正当取向考量，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。