法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
外國法的主張、適用與證明-兼論國際私法選法強行性之緩和
文獻引用
編著譯者: 蔡華凱
出版日期: 2006.06
刊登出處: 台灣/東海大學法學研究第 24 期/175-240 頁
頁  數: 40 點閱次數: 2294
下載點數: 160 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 蔡華凱
關 鍵 詞: 國際私法準據法選擇選法規則之強行性非強行的選法(規則)任意的選法(規則)外國法的適用外國法的主張外國法的證明外國法事實說外國法法律說民事訴訟法第二八三條美國聯邦民事訴訟規則第 44.1 條
中文摘要: 選法規則選法的結果,原則上非法庭地法即為外國法,因此外國法的適用與外國法的證明乃國際私法選法規則與理論上不可或缺之一章。傳統講學上或研究方法上就此問題,必先以討論外國法的性質究竟是法律抑或是事實而展開其論述。此種方法在比較法的研究上固然有其價值,惟在我國的國際私法選法規則本身的理論架構上是否妥當,不無疑問。
法院是否適用外國法,與外國法在法庭地國的法律體系內,究竟屬於法律或事實並無直接之關聯。法院是否適用外國法,乃選法的問題,取決於選法規則在法庭地國係屬強行規範,抑或任意規範。而「外國法法律說」與「外國法事實說」之別在理論上所攸關者,乃訴訟程序上舉證責任誰屬的問題,為外國法證明的問題,並非選法的問題,論理邏輯上與外國法的適用應該加以區別。具體言之,在決定適用外國法之前提,法院必先適用法庭地的選法規則,法院若不先適用法庭地的選法規則,則根本不可能達到用外國法的結論。換言之,無適用外國法的問題,則不生外國法證明的問題。
外國法的證明雖然應為外國法的適用之後位概念,但卻足以影響適用外國法之整體結果,兩者關係密切,自不待言。尤其對於外國法不明時應如何處理,法無明文,唯有依解釋決定之。此際,外國法事實說和外國法法律說之別不論在我國或外國之涉外裁判實務上是否具有關鍵性的影響,殊值檢討。本文針對我國民事訴訟法第二八三條與美國聯邦民事訴訟規則第 44.1 條之立法、解釋與兩國涉外民事裁判實務進行比較研究,所得之結論為,外國法事實說和外國法法律說之議,不論在國際私法學之講學上或研究上,可以休矣。
現行的選法規則,亦即我國之涉外民事法律適用係屬強行法規,在理論上不問當事人在訴訟上是否有所主張或抗辯,法院必須依職權選法,最高法院就此有為數不少糾正下級法院之判決,即在闡明此理。惟強行性之選法規則,固然在理論上堅持對於涉外民事訴訟之法律適用給予法庭地法院適用外國法的機會,惟一方面鑒於外國法之證明不易,乃國際社會涉外裁判普遍之現實,另一方面,倘若當事人之間不欲適用外國法,則法院強行選擇適用外國法之理論正當性何在,殊值再考。
本文主張在總論上仍然應該維持選法規則之強行性,法院處理涉外民事爭訟仍應依職權為準據法之選擇。惟限於涉外財產關係事件,基於當事人意思自主原則、訴訟上之處分權主義、司法裁判品質之確保以及訴訟經濟之理由,特別在當事人於訴訟上未就選法問題或適用外國法提出主張或抗辯時,審判長應行使闡明權,曉諭當事人就選法問題與分析為充分言詞辯論之準備,而當事人亦得在訴訟程序中達成適用法庭地法的合意,抑或適用某特定國家之法律,但合意適用外國法者,應就外國法的內容負充分之舉證責任。
英文關鍵詞: mandatory choice-of-law rulefacultative choice-of- law theorylex foriapplication of foreign lawproof of foreign lawpleading of foreign lawfederal rules of civil procedure 44.1
英文摘要: The application of foreign law and the proof of foreign law must be distinguished at the outset. The former relates to the choice-of- law question and also concerns the role of the court. That is, should a court applies foreign law ex officio whenever indicates by conflict rules, or should it apply foreign law only at the request of one of the parties? This simple question concerns the nature of conflict of laws. In other words, should conflict rules mandatory or permissive? The latter relates to the burden of proof, Is basically procedural question. Traditional conflict rules approach begins with the division between those system that regard foreign law as fact and those that regard it as law. Though it may appear fundamental, this distinction is actually of only limited importance.
Take conflict of laws in U.S.A for example, prior to the adoption of Rule 44.1 F.R. Civ. P in 1966, foreign law question were regarded as question of fact, and failure to prove the content of foreign law was fatal to a claim, even if the parties had not raised the issue of the applicability of foreign law on their own. Nevertheless, under the influence of the vested rights theory, courts raised the choice-of-law issue on their own motion. This assumes that choice of law rules in U.S.A were mandatory rather than permissive. However, after the adoption of Rule 44.1 F.R. Civ. P, foreign law is a question of law thereafter, but with the decline of the vested rights theory, the movement has been away from a mandatory application of the forum’s choice of law rules and forwards the adoption of a discretionary rule.
There is a question that mandatory choice-of-law-rules camp must answer: If there is neither party request the application of foreign law, why should a court insist that foreign law should be applied?
This article argues that in order to serve the private interests of the parties, the freedom of disposition, the quality of the judicial process and procedural efficiency should be taking into consideration of private international law policy in Taiwan. Especially under the circumstances that neither party plead for the application of foreign law, the court should notice the parties sua sponte, ordering that both parties should be well-prepared for choice-of-law issue prior to oral argument. The parties are also allowed to give consent to decide their case according to lex fori .The burden of proof is imposed on those who plead for the application of foreign law
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、外國法的適用
一、問題的提起
二、選法規則之強行性
三、非強行的或任意的選法規則與理論
參、外國法的證明
一、外國法事實說與法律說之實益?
二、外國法欠缺或內容不明時的處理
三、本文之見解-外國法位階論
肆、緩和選法規則強行性之必要
一、涉外民事法律適用法修正草案第二十八條
二、任意的或非強行的選法之理論基礎
三、訴訟程序上之具體適用及其理論根據
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
蔡華凱,外國法的主張、適用與證明-兼論國際私法選法強行性之緩和,東海大學法學研究,第 24 期,175-240 頁,2006年06月。
返回功能列