本文關(guān)鍵詞：國(guó)際私法證成法律選擇方法的正當(dāng)取向考量，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

        法之所立，必伴其議；議之所終，止于可受。國(guó)際私法為一門(mén)獨(dú)立的法律學(xué)科自不待言，然而，關(guān)于該法律科學(xué)所要達(dá)到的目標(biāo)及其采用的方法，卻眾說(shuō)紛紜，莫衷一是。究竟應(yīng)以何種方法解決涉外法律問(wèn)題為宜，天才的法學(xué)家們提出五彩繽紛、蔚為壯觀(guān)的方法、學(xué)說(shuō)和理論，但概念復(fù)雜、匱乏說(shuō)服力。故此，不確定性彌漫四野，君臨一切。然則，，國(guó)際私法有無(wú)認(rèn)識(shí)之客觀(guān)性？國(guó)際私法之真理性何在？國(guó)際私法應(yīng)如何證成法律選擇方法？如果世人涉足國(guó)際民商事交往之際不能正確地解答國(guó)際私法領(lǐng)域中這些帶有根本性的問(wèn)題，那么國(guó)際私法學(xué)說(shuō)理論深處不確定性境地的狀態(tài)就不會(huì)從根本上得以改變；那么國(guó)際私法實(shí)務(wù)運(yùn)作應(yīng)以何種方法解決涉外法律問(wèn)題為宜的困惑就不會(huì)得到圓滿(mǎn)地解決。故而，在國(guó)際私法真理性檢驗(yàn)的維度上，應(yīng)如何證成法律選擇方法以適當(dāng)解決法律沖突和法律適用問(wèn)題亦已構(gòu)成本文思考之初衷、探索之目標(biāo)和研究?jī)r(jià)值之所在。為達(dá)至探索之目標(biāo)和兌現(xiàn)研究之價(jià)值，因循思考之初衷，本文將分為五章對(duì)上述關(guān)鍵性問(wèn)題加以順次研討：第一章為導(dǎo)論，該章研究分析了全文所涉及的基本理論問(wèn)題。首先，關(guān)于國(guó)際私法中的可接受性問(wèn)題，實(shí)則關(guān)乎國(guó)際私法的真理性認(rèn)識(shí)。因?yàn)閲?guó)際私法的正確性只能依賴(lài)于乃至決定于攸關(guān)國(guó)際民商事關(guān)系調(diào)整利益之各方的可得接受狀態(tài)。因而這種性質(zhì)的可接受性，實(shí)際表征著國(guó)際私法的真理性品質(zhì)以及標(biāo)志著國(guó)際私法所為證成任務(wù)的完成。其次，關(guān)于可接受性所涉及的主體問(wèn)題，實(shí)則明晰國(guó)際私法中可接受性源來(lái)之主體。國(guó)際民商事社會(huì)公眾、國(guó)際民商事主體、立法者和司法者皆置身解決跨國(guó)法律問(wèn)題之中，皆為受其中之事影響抑或?yàn)槠渲兄滤婕�。因而�?guó)際私法的可接受性實(shí)來(lái)自置身其中之人的切身感知、適當(dāng)滿(mǎn)足、自覺(jué)承認(rèn)以及躬身實(shí)踐。再次，關(guān)于國(guó)際私法中的法律選擇問(wèn)題，實(shí)則關(guān)系證成法律選擇方法的核心內(nèi)容要素。從解決法律沖突的途徑而言，沖突法規(guī)范承載著單邊和多邊主義方法，統(tǒng)一實(shí)體法規(guī)范則承載著諸國(guó)締結(jié)之國(guó)際條約。沖突法規(guī)范是一種間接調(diào)整方法，統(tǒng)一實(shí)體法規(guī)范是一種直接調(diào)整方法，而實(shí)體法方法則是一種中間過(guò)渡調(diào)整方法。最后，關(guān)于基于證成的取向必備正當(dāng)性問(wèn)題，實(shí)則確定考量國(guó)際私法證成法律選擇方法的向度。從可接受性所涉及的主體角度視之，邏輯向度、程序向度、適用向度和實(shí)效向度，實(shí)乃國(guó)際私法為完成和實(shí)現(xiàn)證成任務(wù)和目標(biāo)而應(yīng)予順次關(guān)注的證成取向。這些立基于證成的取向分別從普遍的基礎(chǔ)證成意義、理性的策略意義、形式正義意義和實(shí)質(zhì)正義意義等四個(gè)方面為置身其中之人所接受為正當(dāng)，從而擔(dān)當(dāng)起重要的考量向度的角色。第二章為國(guó)際私法的邏輯向度考量，該章為置身其中之人評(píng)估和檢驗(yàn)法律選擇方法的可接受性乃至正當(dāng)性提供了邏輯證成有效性的考量向度。首先，無(wú)論是從已知到未知地提出解決涉外法律問(wèn)題的方法，還是從兩種或兩種以上相互矛盾的陳述中發(fā)現(xiàn)最佳答案以便解決涉外法律問(wèn)題,國(guó)際私法所為的證成所應(yīng)做出的理性考慮必須符合邏輯思考的基本規(guī)范，必須具備有效的推理形式亦即邏輯證成的有效性。其次，邏輯證成的有效性在國(guó)際私法所為證成中，將通過(guò)國(guó)際私法立法者的宣示、司法者的操作和國(guó)際民商事主體的實(shí)踐，反饋、傳導(dǎo)并感染國(guó)際民商事社會(huì)之公眾這種普通人的意識(shí)和普通人的確信。而普通人的這種對(duì)于邏輯力量的意識(shí)和確信乃具有國(guó)際私法普遍的基礎(chǔ)證成法律選擇方法的意義。第三章為國(guó)際私法的程序向度考量，該章為諸國(guó)立法者評(píng)估和檢驗(yàn)法律選擇方法的可接受性乃至正當(dāng)性提供了商談程序理性的考量向度。首先，商談程序機(jī)制之安排和商談程序規(guī)范之介入為法律選擇中的商談程序注入了理性?xún)?nèi)涵，亦即前者彰顯了依循商談程序證成法律選擇方法的理性策略；后者則在證成法律選擇方法中保障了共同商談的理性運(yùn)作以及理性策略的實(shí)現(xiàn)。其次，單邊主義方法和多邊主義方法，既持續(xù)強(qiáng)化著國(guó)際私法的學(xué)說(shuō)法特質(zhì)，又不斷彰顯著國(guó)際私法學(xué)術(shù)氣息的濃厚及其實(shí)踐封閉性的嚴(yán)密。在解決涉外法律適用問(wèn)題的過(guò)程中，借由此兩種法律選擇方法中任意一種，只會(huì)使圈外之人難以涉足。因而，通過(guò)程序向度考量，此兩種法律選擇方法均已遍嘗敗績(jī)，諸國(guó)立法者對(duì)于此兩種方法的可接受性程度之低應(yīng)足已顯見(jiàn)，國(guó)際私法于此向度欲證成此兩種方法均為殊難完成之任務(wù)。最后，實(shí)體法方法為國(guó)際民商事社會(huì)公眾和國(guó)際民商事主體參與和決定切身利益與負(fù)擔(dān)之籌劃安排提供了實(shí)踐機(jī)會(huì)；因?yàn)閷?shí)體法方法能夠?yàn)橹蒙砥渲兄颂峁┝艘环N極具程序理性的可能達(dá)成與產(chǎn)生共識(shí)確認(rèn)和潛在認(rèn)同的程序，并且這種程序天然包含有保障置身其中之人理性參與商談實(shí)踐的程序性規(guī)范。因而實(shí)體法方法顯然禁得起諸國(guó)立法者于此向度上對(duì)其方法的可接受性乃至正當(dāng)性考量。第四章為國(guó)際私法的適用向度考量，該章為諸國(guó)司法者評(píng)估和檢驗(yàn)法律選擇方法的可接受性乃至正當(dāng)性提供了適用結(jié)果可普遍化的考量向度。首先，適用結(jié)果的可普遍化，亦即適用結(jié)果的確定性、可預(yù)測(cè)性與一致性，是一種符合形式正義的因而也是公正合理的訴求。并且根本上系于法律選擇方法的確定性。法律選擇方法的統(tǒng)一性是實(shí)現(xiàn)法律選擇方法確定性的前提性步驟，而法律選擇方法的可行性是實(shí)現(xiàn)法律選擇方法確定性的實(shí)質(zhì)性步驟。其次，單邊主義方法和多邊主義方法，無(wú)論是否將適用結(jié)果的可普遍化視為基本的追求目標(biāo)，都將無(wú)法通過(guò)適用向度考量。因?yàn)榇藘煞N法律選擇方法中任意一種，均無(wú)法在解決涉外法律適用問(wèn)題的過(guò)程中始終保證其所承載的法律選擇方法的確定性，因而均無(wú)助于實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)際私法證成法律選擇方法的目標(biāo)。最后，實(shí)體法方法在價(jià)值導(dǎo)向方面著眼于創(chuàng)立一種真實(shí)而有效的新實(shí)體規(guī)范，從而真實(shí)地和有效地回應(yīng)涉外民商事交往的跨國(guó)性本質(zhì)需求。從因應(yīng)跨國(guó)性的出發(fā)點(diǎn)和漸趨良善法治境地的過(guò)程而言，其方法將有助于實(shí)現(xiàn)法律選擇方法的可行性和統(tǒng)一性。因而實(shí)體法方法顯然禁得起諸國(guó)司法者于此向度上對(duì)其方法的可接受性乃至正當(dāng)性考量。第五章為國(guó)際私法的實(shí)效向度考量，該章為國(guó)際民商事主體評(píng)估和檢驗(yàn)法律選擇方法的可接受性乃至正當(dāng)性提供了調(diào)整實(shí)效適當(dāng)正義的考量向度。首先，跨國(guó)民商事交往對(duì)公正而持久地權(quán)衡、調(diào)停與協(xié)調(diào)置身其中之人的利益關(guān)系的需求，以及在此綜合平衡進(jìn)程中對(duì)適當(dāng)滿(mǎn)足國(guó)際民商事主體的利益訴求與期望的需求，就是正視實(shí)體方面有關(guān)實(shí)質(zhì)正義的務(wù)實(shí)考慮。并且這種實(shí)質(zhì)正義的發(fā)掘與實(shí)現(xiàn)充分體現(xiàn)在法律選擇中如何適當(dāng)?shù)卣{(diào)整與國(guó)際民商事主體密切相關(guān)的數(shù)對(duì)至關(guān)重要的利益關(guān)系的調(diào)整實(shí)效之中。其次，實(shí)體法方法以創(chuàng)立新實(shí)體規(guī)范為其方法的核心內(nèi)容，不僅真實(shí)地回應(yīng)涉外民商事交往的跨國(guó)性本質(zhì)需求，而且有效地置國(guó)際民商事主體的利益訴求與期望于國(guó)際民商事社會(huì)第一需要的地位。其運(yùn)作過(guò)程必然將調(diào)整國(guó)際民商事主體相互之間及其與立法者和司法者之間利益關(guān)系作為其創(chuàng)立新實(shí)體法規(guī)范的焦點(diǎn)內(nèi)容。因而實(shí)體法方法顯然禁得起國(guó)際民商事主體于此向度上對(duì)其方法的可接受性乃至正當(dāng)性考量。最后，單邊主義方法往往可歸結(jié)為一種法院地法至上主義，多邊主義方法則往往以沖突法正義為其首要原則，此兩種方法均未將因應(yīng)涉外交往跨國(guó)屬性的國(guó)際民商事主體利益保障置于其方法的首要原則地位。因而于實(shí)效向度上此兩種方法缺失實(shí)質(zhì)正義性，難為國(guó)際民商事主體接受為正當(dāng)。

    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.

國(guó)際私法證成法律選擇方法的正當(dāng)取向考量

中文摘要4-8Abstract8-13第1章 導(dǎo)論16-45    1.1 國(guó)際私法中的可接受性問(wèn)題16-20    1.2 可接受性所涉及的主體問(wèn)題20-33    1.3 國(guó)際私法中的法律選擇問(wèn)題33-41    1.4 基于證成的取向必備正當(dāng)性41-45第2章 國(guó)際私法的邏輯向度考量45-70    2.1 法律選擇中邏輯證成的有效性46-59    2.2 法律選擇中邏輯向度的正當(dāng)性考量59-68    2.3 小結(jié)68-70第3章 國(guó)際私法的程序向度考量70-104    3.1 法律選擇中商談程序的理性71-79    3.2 單邊主義方法與程序向度的正當(dāng)性考量79-89    3.3 多邊主義方法與程序向度的正當(dāng)性考量89-95    3.4 小結(jié)：實(shí)體法方法的修正95-104第4章 國(guó)際私法的適用向度考量104-155    4.1 法律選擇中適用結(jié)果的可普遍化105-118    4.2 單邊主義方法與適用向度的正當(dāng)性考量118-136    4.3 多邊主義方法與適用向度的正當(dāng)性考量136-143    4.4 小結(jié)：實(shí)體法方法的修正143-155第5章 國(guó)際私法的實(shí)效向度考量155-183    5.1 法律選擇中調(diào)整實(shí)效的適當(dāng)正義156-169    5.2 實(shí)體法方法與實(shí)效向度的正當(dāng)性考量169-178    5.3 小結(jié)：?jiǎn)芜�、多邊主義方法的實(shí)質(zhì)正義性缺失178-183結(jié)論183-186參考文獻(xiàn)186-198作者簡(jiǎn)介及科研成果198-199后記199

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：國(guó)際私法證成法律選擇方法的正當(dāng)取向考量，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。