一、國(guó)際私法概述

1、國(guó)際私法Private International Law明月 E-mail: mingyue_一、教材及學(xué)者韓德培：國(guó)際私法新論（上、下） 章尚錦，徐青森：國(guó)際私法（第三版） 李雙元，歐福永等著：中國(guó)國(guó)際私法通論 （第三版）課程要求考試課平時(shí)：20%，期末：80%平時(shí)成績(jī)構(gòu)成：出勤10%，課堂表現(xiàn)30%，兩次平時(shí)測(cè)驗(yàn)60%；關(guān)于考試 第一章第一章 國(guó)際私法概述國(guó)際私法概述 第二章第二章 國(guó)際私法發(fā)展史國(guó)際私法發(fā)展史 第三第三章章 國(guó)際私法主體國(guó)際私法主體 第四第四章章 沖突規(guī)范與準(zhǔn)據(jù)法沖突規(guī)范與準(zhǔn)據(jù)法 第五章第五章 沖突規(guī)范的沖突規(guī)范的 運(yùn)用運(yùn)用 第一編第一編 總論（總論（General T

2、heories）第一章 國(guó)際私法概述 國(guó)際私法概述國(guó)際私法的概念國(guó)際私法的范圍和性質(zhì)國(guó)際私法的淵源國(guó)際私法的調(diào)整對(duì)象法律沖突調(diào)整方法國(guó)際私法的定義國(guó)內(nèi)法淵源國(guó)際法淵源國(guó)內(nèi)立法國(guó)內(nèi)判例司法解釋國(guó)際公約國(guó)際慣例 中國(guó)西安某進(jìn)出口公司有一批電纜。1998年5月15日向老客戶美國(guó)公司發(fā)出要約，規(guī)定15日內(nèi)承諾有效。美國(guó)公司5月27日以郵政快件形式承諾。由于郵政部門工作失誤，將“西安”誤作“西寧”，致使該郵件遲至6月1日才到達(dá)西安進(jìn)出口公司。 該西安公司已于5月31日將該電纜授予一家中日合資企業(yè)。美國(guó)公司起訴西安進(jìn)出口公司，要求其承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任。理由是：依照美國(guó)法律，承諾一經(jīng)發(fā)出，即產(chǎn)生法律效力，合同就正

3、式成立。西安公司將貨物轉(zhuǎn)售他人，顯屬違約行為。西安進(jìn)出口公司抗辯稱：要約規(guī)定的15天承諾期限應(yīng)至5月30日屆滿。依照貿(mào)易慣例，5月30日之前未收到承諾，該承諾即失效，合同尚未成立，更談不上違約問(wèn)題。 問(wèn)題：根據(jù)本案，回答國(guó)際私法的調(diào)整對(duì)象是什么？ 案例：美國(guó)公司訴西安公司國(guó)際貨物買賣合同糾紛案一、調(diào)整對(duì)象一、調(diào)整對(duì)象 （P3）(一一) 國(guó)際民商事法律關(guān)系國(guó)際民商事法律關(guān)系 (International Civil & Commercial Legal Relations)/涉外民涉外民商事法律關(guān)系商事法律關(guān)系 （Civil Legal Relations with Foreign Fa

4、ctors）1、國(guó)際、國(guó)際/涉外（特殊：港澳臺(tái)）涉外（特殊：港澳臺(tái)） 2、民、民商商事法律關(guān)系：主體、客體和法律事法律關(guān)系：主體、客體和法律事實(shí)事實(shí)3、特征、特征 ：國(guó)際性、廣泛性、沖突性：國(guó)際性、廣泛性、沖突性 （P5）定義：定義：法律法律沖突沖突；屬地屬地管轄權(quán)管轄權(quán)；屬屬人管轄權(quán)人管轄權(quán)；間接間接調(diào)整（沖突規(guī)范或沖突規(guī)則調(diào)整（沖突規(guī)范或沖突規(guī)則）;直接直接調(diào)整。調(diào)整。（二）范圍（二）范圍 （P7）法律沖突法律沖突 ；外國(guó)人外國(guó)人法律地位、當(dāng)事人國(guó)籍、住所問(wèn)題法律地位、當(dāng)事人國(guó)籍、住所問(wèn)題；有關(guān)有關(guān)國(guó)際民事訴訟及仲裁程序問(wèn)題。國(guó)際民事訴訟及仲裁程序問(wèn)題。（三）調(diào)整國(guó)際民商事（三）調(diào)整國(guó)際民

5、商事 法律關(guān)系的法律關(guān)系的途徑（途徑（P9） 間接調(diào)整（沖突法調(diào)整）與直接調(diào)整（實(shí)體間接調(diào)整（沖突法調(diào)整）與直接調(diào)整（實(shí)體法調(diào)整）法調(diào)整）思考題思考題1、就、就“不動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)適用不動(dòng)產(chǎn)所不動(dòng)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)適用不動(dòng)產(chǎn)所在地法在地法”這一規(guī)定而言，下列哪些說(shuō)法正確？這一規(guī)定而言，下列哪些說(shuō)法正確？A、該規(guī)定屬于統(tǒng)一實(shí)體私法規(guī)范、該規(guī)定屬于統(tǒng)一實(shí)體私法規(guī)范B、該規(guī)定屬于沖突規(guī)范、該規(guī)定屬于沖突規(guī)范C、該規(guī)定所采取的調(diào)整方法為直接調(diào)整、該規(guī)定所采取的調(diào)整方法為直接調(diào)整D、該規(guī)定所采取的調(diào)整方法為間接調(diào)整、該規(guī)定所采取的調(diào)整方法為間接調(diào)整思考題思考題2、下列哪些法律規(guī)范屬于間接調(diào)整、下列哪些法律規(guī)范屬于間接調(diào)

6、整規(guī)范？規(guī)范？A、結(jié)婚年齡，男不得低于二十二周歲，、結(jié)婚年齡，男不得低于二十二周歲，女不得低于二十周歲女不得低于二十周歲B、傷害他人身體者，應(yīng)賠償受害人醫(yī)藥、傷害他人身體者，應(yīng)賠償受害人醫(yī)藥費(fèi)、誤工損失費(fèi)、誤工損失C、法定繼承，適用被繼承人死亡時(shí)住所、法定繼承，適用被繼承人死亡時(shí)住所地法地法D、結(jié)婚的方式符合婚姻締結(jié)地法的，應(yīng)、結(jié)婚的方式符合婚姻締結(jié)地法的，應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定為有效當(dāng)認(rèn)定為有效1、法則區(qū)別說(shuō)（、法則區(qū)別說(shuō)（Theory of Statutes）（）（P32-37） 13、14世紀(jì)意大利法律注釋學(xué)家巴托魯斯（世紀(jì)意大利法律注釋學(xué)家巴托魯斯（Bartolus）提出）提出的的2、沖突法（、沖突

7、法（Conflict of laws） 1653年荷蘭學(xué)者羅登伯格提出的年荷蘭學(xué)者羅登伯格提出的 3、私國(guó)際法（、私國(guó)際法（Private International Law） 1834年，美國(guó)國(guó)際法奠基人（年，美國(guó)國(guó)際法奠基人（Joseph Story）教授提出的。）教授提出的。4、國(guó)際私法（、國(guó)際私法（International Private Law） 1851年，德國(guó)學(xué)者謝夫納（年，德國(guó)學(xué)者謝夫納（Schaffner）最早使用。）最早使用。 二、國(guó)際私法常用的名稱 國(guó)際私法是以解決涉外民事關(guān)系法律適國(guó)際私法是以解決涉外民事關(guān)系法律適用為核心，包括規(guī)定外國(guó)人民事法律地用為核心，包括規(guī)定外

8、國(guó)人民事法律地位規(guī)范、沖突規(guī)范、統(tǒng)一實(shí)體規(guī)范和國(guó)位規(guī)范、沖突規(guī)范、統(tǒng)一實(shí)體規(guī)范和國(guó)際民事訴訟程序和國(guó)際商事仲裁程序規(guī)際民事訴訟程序和國(guó)際商事仲裁程序規(guī)范在內(nèi)的一個(gè)獨(dú)立的法律部門。范在內(nèi)的一個(gè)獨(dú)立的法律部門。三、國(guó)際私法的定義 第二章 國(guó)際私法發(fā)展史國(guó)際私法學(xué)說(shuō)發(fā)展史國(guó)際私法學(xué)說(shuō)發(fā)展史法則區(qū)別說(shuō)意大利法國(guó)荷蘭巴托魯斯杜摩蘭達(dá)讓特萊胡伯法律關(guān)系本座說(shuō)薩維尼既得權(quán)說(shuō)本地法說(shuō)結(jié)果選擇說(shuō)政府利益分析說(shuō)最密切聯(lián)系說(shuō)戴西庫(kù)克凱弗斯柯里里斯 Babcock v. Jackson (Cite as: 12 N.Y 2d 473-477; 191N.E 2d 279-280; 240 N.Y.S.2d 743-7

9、45; 1963 N.Y. LEXIS 1185; 95 A.L.R.261) On Friday, September 16, 1960, Miss Georgia Babcock and her friends, Mr. and Mrs. William Jackson, all residents of Rochester, left that city in Mr. Jacksons automobile, Miss Babcock as guest, for a weekend trip to Canada. Some hours later, as Mr. Jackson was

10、driving in the Province of Ontario, Canada, he apparently lost control of the car; it went off the highway into an adjacent stone wall, and Miss Babcock was seriously injured. Upon her return to New York State, she brought the present action against William Jackson, alleging negligence on his part i

11、n operating his automobile. Jackson having died after the commencement of the suit, his executrix was substituted in his place as defendant. At the time of the accident, there was in force in Ontario a statute providing that the owner or driver of a motor vehicle, other than a vehicle operated in th

12、e business of carrying passengers for compensation, is not liable for any loss or damages resulting from bodily injury to, or the death of any person being carried in the motor vehicle Even though no such bar is recognized under this States substantive law of torts, the defendant moved to dismiss th

13、e complaint on the ground that the law of the place where the accident occurred governs and that Ontarios guest statute bars recovery. The court at Special Term, agreeing with the defendant, granted the motion and the Appellate Division, over strong dissent by Justice Halpern, affirmed the judgment

14、of dismissal without opinion. On May 9th, 1963, Court of Appeals of New York, the Judge, Fuld, who wrote the opinion: there is no reason why all issues arising out of a tort claim must be resolved by reference to the law of the same jurisdiction. Where the issue involves standards of conduct, it is

15、more than likely that it is the law of the place of the tort which will be controlling but the disposition of other issues must turn, as does the issue of the standard of conduct itself, on the law of the jurisdiction which has the strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue present

16、ed. The judgment appealed from should be reversed, with costs, and motion to dismiss the complaint denied. 1.Question: Shall the law of the place of the tort invariably govern the availability of relief for the tort or shall the applicable choice of law rule also reflect a consideration of other fac

17、tors which are relevant to the purposes served by the enforcement or denial of the remedy? 2. Relevant Law (1)Conflict of laws - law governing tort actions - traditional choice of law rule -law of place of tort invariably governs. (2) “center of gravity” and “grouping of contracts” doctrine applied

18、because “it gives to the place having the most interest in the problem paramount control over the legal issues arising out of a particular factual context” for “the policy of the jurisdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome of the particular litigation.” (From Auten v. Auten) (3) merely fortuitous circu