域外取证法律适用问题研究
|
摘要
域外取证的法律问题很多。本文主要从法律适用的角度，论述域外取证的法律制度、法律冲突、以及域外取证中程序法和实体法的适用，并重点分析了《海牙取证公约》对域外取证规则的统一、主要国家对海牙取证公约的适用，以及公约在适用中出现的问题。文章最后分析了我国域外取证领域法律适用的现状和不足，并提出了相应的完善措施。全文除绪论和结论外，共分六章，分别如下：
第一章论述了域外取证的基本法律制度，首先从域外取证的性质入手，论述了域外取证的方式及法律适用，包括证人出庭作证和使用新技术等特殊的域外取证方式的法律适用问题。在域外取证的范围方面，重点论述了域外取证中“民商事”的范围和“民商事”法律问题的冲突，以及外国法查明中的法律适用问题。
第二章论述了域外取证法律适用上的冲突，本章共分为三节。第一节用比较分析的方法，阐述了主要国家的域外取证制度。第二节分析了域外取证法律冲突的表现和成因，并重点论述了美国和其他国家关于“审前程序”的冲突。第三节论述了各国的障碍立法以及适用问题，指出障碍立法在域外取证领域的积极作用和负面影响，并对障碍法的适用进行评价。
第三章论述了域外取证法律适用规则的统一和协调，本章共分为三节。第一节阐述了海牙取证公约对各国域外取证规则的统一，从法律适用的角度对海牙公约进行评述。第二节从各国对国内法的修改入手，论述了域外取证法律适用上的协调，并重点评述了各国在“审前文件开示”问题上的协调。第三节主要论述海牙取证公约适用中出现的问题，特别是公约尚未解决的法律适用问题，例如“民商事”的界定、“域外取证”的理解、公约适用的范围和条件，以及公约的排他性适用等。
第四章鉴于域外取证法律冲突主要发生在美国和其他国家之间，主要介绍了海牙取证公约在美国的适用，本章共分为四节。第一节介绍了美国限制和否定海牙取证公约的概括性立场。第二节论述了美国早期各级法院适用海牙公约的不同实践。第三节介绍美国联邦最高法院在“法航”案中关于海牙公约适用的判例性结论，并对该案进行评析。第四节结合美国法院适用海牙公约中出现的问题，着重论述了海牙公约的解释、公约与国内法的关系，以及适用公约引起的利益失衡等问题，指出公约并没有取代各国的国内法，海牙公约不是最终的、唯一的域外取证规则。
第五章从冲突规范入手，讨论分析了域外取证中的证据法律适用问题，指出证据的法律冲突和法律适用仍需借助冲突规范去指引，并在此基础上对证据的可采性、证人资格、证人特权、证明责任、证明效力等事项的法律适用问题进行分析。另外，本章还从对外国程序法的适用角度论述域外取证的法律适用，指出在域外取证中对外国程序法直接适用、间接适用和概括适用等，以解决域外取证的法律冲突和法律适用问题。
第六章是论文的最后一部分，在上述全部分析讨论的基础上，落实到中国的域外取证制度上来，本章共分为三节。第一节论述中国对外取证和外国来华取证的立法和司法现状。第二节分析我国当前在域外取证法律适用上存在的问题，包括对域外取证的认知、域外取证中的利益平衡、司法协助条约的执行，以及互惠原则与中国利益的保护等问题，并提出了解决问题的思路和原则。第三节主要从具体的制度层面对我国域外取证中的法律适用加以改进和完善，指出应首先完善国内的证据规则、统一“涉内”和“涉外”案件的证据规则、认可当事人域外取证和借鉴特派员取证方式、以及建立证人和当事人的救济制度，并从证据法律适用规范的角度，论证如何构建和完善我国的域外取证制度和法律适用制度。
文章结论部分阐明了我国域外取证法律适用的指导原则，并对全文的内容进行理论上的总结。
This dissertation focuses on the related matters regarding application of rules to taking evidence abroad, examining evidence-taking legislation in some major countries, analyzing the uniform rules in Hague Evidence Convention governing the evidence-taking abroad and the incidental questions in its application by the contracting parties, and considers whether the Convention is exclusive or mandatory means of obtaining evidence located abroad. In the end, the Dissertation examines the statutory legislation and judicial practice in the People's Republic of China, and answers the questions of how to reform evidence-taking legislation and how to employ the rules under the principle of convenience, generosity, cooperation and reciprocity in obtaining evidence located abroad.
The dissertation consists of six chapters as follows:
Chapter I outlines the basic rules andpractice of taking evidence abroad, holding that taking evidence abroad falls into the litigants' private rights and responsibilities. The main items of this chapter include: means and norms of taking evidence abroad, taking foreign witness stand, taking evidence by video link in another jurisdiction, characterization of "civil and commercial" matters, foreign law proof, and other related matters concerning the approaches in taking evidence abroad .
Chapter II focuses on the conflicts of procedural and substantive rules regarding evidence-taking, and analyzes the causation of the conflicts, especially on the "pre-trial discovery" process which is characteristic of American civil procedure. In this chapter, the "blocking statutes" in some countries concerned is also be examined and discussed.
Chapter III discusses the unification and harmonization of the rules for obtaining evidence abroad. The first part of this Chapter introduces the main provisions in the Hague Evidence Convention to the question of taking evidence, and the second part comments on the compromise on the "pre-trial discovery" between America and other countries, and the third part analyzes the factual effect of the Convention and specify the unresolved problems in the Convention.
Chapter IV focuses on the treatment of the Hague Evidence Convention by the United States. This chapter consists of four parts: The first part describes the general attitude of America against the Convention. The second part outlines the different approaches to the interpretation and application of Hague Convention by American courts. The third part examines "Aerospatiale" which is an important case decided by the supreme court of the United States. The fourth part discusses such issues as interpretation of the Convention, application of local rules against the convention due to the jurisdiction over intra-parties, and counterbalancing of interests between concerned parties and sovereign states.
Chapter V makes a research on the conflict rules determining the applicable law to the evidence related matters, and suggests that in some circumstances even the foreign procedural law can be used to settle the contradict in obtaining evidence and judicial assistance.
Chapter VI examines the legislation and practice in China in respective of taking evidence abroad, and analyzes some applicable rules to be modified or reformed in this area. In this chater it is suggested that with the development of foreign relations, evidenc rules be improved and reformed to modernize civil procedure, and China should introduce direct means of obtaining evidence abroad and provide more efficient judicial assistance on reciprocity.
Conclusion: The application of rule to taking evidence abroad is a two-sided issue, and sovereign states should commit themselves to the objective of granting generous judicial assistance in foreign related process, protecting the interests of the parties concerned and public interests.
第一章论述了域外取证的基本法律制度，首先从域外取证的性质入手，论述了域外取证的方式及法律适用，包括证人出庭作证和使用新技术等特殊的域外取证方式的法律适用问题。在域外取证的范围方面，重点论述了域外取证中“民商事”的范围和“民商事”法律问题的冲突，以及外国法查明中的法律适用问题。
第二章论述了域外取证法律适用上的冲突，本章共分为三节。第一节用比较分析的方法，阐述了主要国家的域外取证制度。第二节分析了域外取证法律冲突的表现和成因，并重点论述了美国和其他国家关于“审前程序”的冲突。第三节论述了各国的障碍立法以及适用问题，指出障碍立法在域外取证领域的积极作用和负面影响，并对障碍法的适用进行评价。
第三章论述了域外取证法律适用规则的统一和协调，本章共分为三节。第一节阐述了海牙取证公约对各国域外取证规则的统一，从法律适用的角度对海牙公约进行评述。第二节从各国对国内法的修改入手，论述了域外取证法律适用上的协调，并重点评述了各国在“审前文件开示”问题上的协调。第三节主要论述海牙取证公约适用中出现的问题，特别是公约尚未解决的法律适用问题，例如“民商事”的界定、“域外取证”的理解、公约适用的范围和条件，以及公约的排他性适用等。
第四章鉴于域外取证法律冲突主要发生在美国和其他国家之间，主要介绍了海牙取证公约在美国的适用，本章共分为四节。第一节介绍了美国限制和否定海牙取证公约的概括性立场。第二节论述了美国早期各级法院适用海牙公约的不同实践。第三节介绍美国联邦最高法院在“法航”案中关于海牙公约适用的判例性结论，并对该案进行评析。第四节结合美国法院适用海牙公约中出现的问题，着重论述了海牙公约的解释、公约与国内法的关系，以及适用公约引起的利益失衡等问题，指出公约并没有取代各国的国内法，海牙公约不是最终的、唯一的域外取证规则。
第五章从冲突规范入手，讨论分析了域外取证中的证据法律适用问题，指出证据的法律冲突和法律适用仍需借助冲突规范去指引，并在此基础上对证据的可采性、证人资格、证人特权、证明责任、证明效力等事项的法律适用问题进行分析。另外，本章还从对外国程序法的适用角度论述域外取证的法律适用，指出在域外取证中对外国程序法直接适用、间接适用和概括适用等，以解决域外取证的法律冲突和法律适用问题。
第六章是论文的最后一部分，在上述全部分析讨论的基础上，落实到中国的域外取证制度上来，本章共分为三节。第一节论述中国对外取证和外国来华取证的立法和司法现状。第二节分析我国当前在域外取证法律适用上存在的问题，包括对域外取证的认知、域外取证中的利益平衡、司法协助条约的执行，以及互惠原则与中国利益的保护等问题，并提出了解决问题的思路和原则。第三节主要从具体的制度层面对我国域外取证中的法律适用加以改进和完善，指出应首先完善国内的证据规则、统一“涉内”和“涉外”案件的证据规则、认可当事人域外取证和借鉴特派员取证方式、以及建立证人和当事人的救济制度，并从证据法律适用规范的角度，论证如何构建和完善我国的域外取证制度和法律适用制度。
文章结论部分阐明了我国域外取证法律适用的指导原则，并对全文的内容进行理论上的总结。
This dissertation focuses on the related matters regarding application of rules to taking evidence abroad, examining evidence-taking legislation in some major countries, analyzing the uniform rules in Hague Evidence Convention governing the evidence-taking abroad and the incidental questions in its application by the contracting parties, and considers whether the Convention is exclusive or mandatory means of obtaining evidence located abroad. In the end, the Dissertation examines the statutory legislation and judicial practice in the People's Republic of China, and answers the questions of how to reform evidence-taking legislation and how to employ the rules under the principle of convenience, generosity, cooperation and reciprocity in obtaining evidence located abroad.
The dissertation consists of six chapters as follows:
Chapter I outlines the basic rules andpractice of taking evidence abroad, holding that taking evidence abroad falls into the litigants' private rights and responsibilities. The main items of this chapter include: means and norms of taking evidence abroad, taking foreign witness stand, taking evidence by video link in another jurisdiction, characterization of "civil and commercial" matters, foreign law proof, and other related matters concerning the approaches in taking evidence abroad .
Chapter II focuses on the conflicts of procedural and substantive rules regarding evidence-taking, and analyzes the causation of the conflicts, especially on the "pre-trial discovery" process which is characteristic of American civil procedure. In this chapter, the "blocking statutes" in some countries concerned is also be examined and discussed.
Chapter III discusses the unification and harmonization of the rules for obtaining evidence abroad. The first part of this Chapter introduces the main provisions in the Hague Evidence Convention to the question of taking evidence, and the second part comments on the compromise on the "pre-trial discovery" between America and other countries, and the third part analyzes the factual effect of the Convention and specify the unresolved problems in the Convention.
Chapter IV focuses on the treatment of the Hague Evidence Convention by the United States. This chapter consists of four parts: The first part describes the general attitude of America against the Convention. The second part outlines the different approaches to the interpretation and application of Hague Convention by American courts. The third part examines "Aerospatiale" which is an important case decided by the supreme court of the United States. The fourth part discusses such issues as interpretation of the Convention, application of local rules against the convention due to the jurisdiction over intra-parties, and counterbalancing of interests between concerned parties and sovereign states.
Chapter V makes a research on the conflict rules determining the applicable law to the evidence related matters, and suggests that in some circumstances even the foreign procedural law can be used to settle the contradict in obtaining evidence and judicial assistance.
Chapter VI examines the legislation and practice in China in respective of taking evidence abroad, and analyzes some applicable rules to be modified or reformed in this area. In this chater it is suggested that with the development of foreign relations, evidenc rules be improved and reformed to modernize civil procedure, and China should introduce direct means of obtaining evidence abroad and provide more efficient judicial assistance on reciprocity.
Conclusion: The application of rule to taking evidence abroad is a two-sided issue, and sovereign states should commit themselves to the objective of granting generous judicial assistance in foreign related process, protecting the interests of the parties concerned and public interests.
引文
① 沈涓著：《中国区际冲突法研究》，中国政法大学出版社2003年1月版，第1页。
② 美国各州实施相对独立的法律制度；英国国际私法将苏格兰和北爱尔兰与德国、法国等均视为是不同的法域；我国实行“一国两制”，大陆与台湾地区、香港、澳门特别行政区之间，均属不同的法域。
③ 韩德培主编：《国际私法》，高等教育出版社，2000年8月第1版，第447页。
④ 参见谢石松著：《国际民商事纠纷的法律解决程序》，广东人民出版社1996年6月第1版，第359-360页。
① 汤维建，《关于证据属性的若干思考和讨论》，载于《政法论坛》2000年第6期。
② 例如，我国《民事诉讼法》第63条规定证据的形式表现为：书证；物证；视听资料；证人证言；当事人的陈述；鉴定结论；勘验笔录七种形式。
① 大陆法系国家通常将证明责任分为主观证明责任和客观证明责任，普通法系国家则将证明责任分为提供证据的责任和说服陪审团的责任。主观证明责任是指在诉讼开始或者进行过程中的任何阶段，当事人对其主张的事实提出证据的责任。通常情况下把主观证明责任成为举证责任。客观证明责任和举证责任的区别在于，客观证明责任是一种客观规定的、当事人不能履行举证责任的不利后果的负担。举证责任是指当事人提供证据证明有利于自己主张的责任。参见张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年版；陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年9月版；陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月版；[美]克罗斯：《克罗斯论证据》；沈达明著：《英美证据法》等。
② 张卫平著：《诉讼架构与程式》，清华大学出版社1998年版，第250页。
③ 罗玉珍、高委主编：《民事证明制度与理论》，法律出版社2003年2月第1版，第9页。
① [日]谷口安平著，王亚新、刘荣军译：《程序的正义与诉讼》(增补本)，中国政法大学出版社2002年11月第1版，第40-41页。
② 同上，第41页。
③ David H. Taylor, Should It Take a Thief?: Rethinking the Admission of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Cases, 22 Rev. Litig. p630, 2003.
④ 同上。
⑤ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第8条第1款第2项：“救济请求应包括简明地陈述标明诉答人有权获得请求的救济。”
⑥ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第11条第2款第3项，主张或者其它事实论点应当有证据支持，或者特别指出如给与其进一步调查或发现的合理机会可能获得证据支持。
⑦ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第37条第1款第2项第2目，实施制裁所针对的行为是不能回答提出的问题，而不是不能陈述整个事实过程，除非提出的问题中含有特别制定的内容需要回答。
⑧ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第16条第3款第9项。
① 参见徐宏著：《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社2006年7月第2版，第21-22页。
② 例如我国《民事诉讼法》第263条规定：“请求和提供司法协助，应当依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约所规定的途径进行；没有条约关系的，通过外交途径进行。外国驻中华人民共和国的使领馆可以向该国公民送达文书和调查取证，但不得违反中华人民共和国的法律，并不得采取强制措施。除前款规定的情况外，未经中华人民共和国主管机关准许，任何外国机关或者个人不得在中华人民共和国领域内送达文书、调查取证。”该条关于取证的规定置于该法第29章“司法协助”项下。
③ (1994) Section 1782 says, in pertinent part: The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. The order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court.
① 海牙国际私法会议关于取证公约的释义报告中，通篇都使用了“领事取证”的措辞，没有使用繁琐的“外交和领事人员取证”的表达方式，也是基于该原因。
② 参见1963年《维也纳领事关系公约》第5条第10项。
③ 陈刚著：《民事诉讼法制的现代化》，中国检察出版社2003年4月第1版，第179页。
① 如法国、卢森堡等国规定外国领事官员向其本国国民取证时，须a、事先经过本国司法部的许可；b、只能在公众可接近的大使馆或领事馆的建筑内进行；c、要事先通知取证的时间和地点；d、实施取证后须向驻在国的中央机关提供一份附有译文的取证摘要等。
② 参见海牙国际私法常设局对海牙取证公约执行情况的统计资料。参见海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
③ 这些制裁措施包括：命令强制开示、强制答复，在法庭审理阶段不允许使用没有开示过的证据，认定没有得到开示的证据事实存在、视为要求真实，禁止违反者提出证据，驳回诉讼请求或作缺席判决。此外，还可以单独或同时命令当事人或其律师负担对方因此而产生的合理费用等。
① Istvan Szaszy, International Civil Procedure, A.W. Sijthoff-Leyden, p664, 1967。
② Harry J. O'Kane, Obtaining Evidence Abroad, 17 Vand. J. Transant'l L.p72, 1984.
③ 同上。
① 参见海牙取证公约第17条的规定。
② Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence A broad in Civil and Commercial Matters(1984), p25.
③ Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, European Union Legislation, 《Official Journal L 174》 27/06/2001 p.1.
④ 参见该规则第17条。
⑤ 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net..
① 陈刚著：《民事诉讼法制的现代化》，中国检察出版社2003年4月第1版，第199页。
② 参见谢石松著：《国际民商事纠纷的法律解决程序》，广东人民出版社1996年6月第1版，第380页。
① 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① 参见《中华人民共和国和波兰人民共和国关于民事和刑事司法协助的协定》第28条。
② 参见《中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦关于民事和刑事司法协助的条约》第4条第1款：由提出请求的缔约一方法院或其他主管机关通过被请求的缔约一方通知前来的证人和鉴定人……上述所述的通知应通过第二条规定的(中央机关)的途径转递。
① 何家弘、张卫平主编：《外国证据法选译》(下卷)，人民法院出版社2000年版，第1386-1387页。
② 刘立宪、谢鹏程：《海外司法改革的走向》，中国方正出版社2000年版，第57页。
③ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p974, 1988.
④ 海牙国际私法会议关于《海牙取证公约》问卷调查反馈资料，参见海牙国际私法会议网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① See Treaty on JudicialAssistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Australia and the Republic of Korea, Article 24 Taking of evidence by video link: 1. A court of a Contracting Party, with prior authorization of the Central Authority of the other Contracting Party, may take testimony from a person who is in the territory of the other Contracting Party by video link. 2. A request for prior authorization shall be made by a Central Authority of the Contracting Party where the court is situated to a Central Authority of the other Contracting Party.……4. (a) The Central Authority of the requested Contracting Party shall, before deciding whether to give the authorization, contact directly or through a court the person to give testimony to confirm that he or she voluntarily agrees to give testimony by video link.
② 参见2003年10月28日至11月4日召开的海牙国际私法会议关于取消外国公文书认证、送达公约和取证公约的特别委员会上的报告。
① 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
② 参见徐宏：《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社2006年7月第2版，第14页。
③ 1978 Special Commission Report, p1426. See Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p403, 1981.
① 1978 Special Commission Report, p1426. See Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p403, 1981.
① Rio 7into Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., [1978] 2 W.L.R. 81.(H.L).
② 参见点Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of EvidenceAbroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p401, 1981.
② 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，p1675，1985．
② See Peter Hay,Conflict of Laws, second edition, West Publishing Co. 1994, P. 155.但是在美国，普通法上的该项规则已有所缓和，一些州的立法规定，对于姊妹州的法律，法官可以通过司法认知(judicial notice)的程序而不是通过当事人举证的方式予以查明，这种做法在一些案件中也被推广应用到对于外国法律的查明过程。
③ 肖永平著：《中国冲突法立法问题研究》，武汉大学出版社，1996年版，第209—210页。
④ 在《解答》第二部分关于处理涉外经济合同争议的法律适用问题中规定：在应适用的法律为外国法律时，人民法院如果不能确定其内容的，可以通过下列途径查明：1)由当事人提供；2)由我驻该国的使、领馆提供；3)由该国驻华使、领馆提供；4)由中外法律专家提供。通过上列途径仍不能查明的，可以参照我国相应的法律处理。
⑤ 1988年实施的最高人民法院关于贯彻执行《中华人民共和国民法通则》若干问题的意见(试行)中对该问题作了这样规定：对于应当适用的外国法律，可通过下列途径查明：①由当事人提供；②由与我国订立司法协助协定的缔约对方的中央机关提供；③由我国驻该国使领馆提供；④由该国驻我国使馆提供；⑤由中外法律专家提供。通过以上途径仍不能查明的，适用中华人民共和国法律。
① 徐卉：《外国法证明问题研究》，载于《诉讼法论丛》第3卷，法律出版社1999年版，第557—558页。
② [英]J．H．C．莫里斯著《法律冲突法》，李东来等译，中国对外翻译出版公司1990年9月第1版，第40页。
③ 该条第1、2款分别规定：“缔约双方中央机关应当根据请求相互提供本国的法律情报，以及本国民事方面司法实践的情报和其它法律情报。如缔约一方法院在审理民事诉讼案件中必须适用缔约另一方法律，可以通过双方中央机关请求该另一方提供必要的情报。”
① 何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第208页。
② 参见白绿铉、卞建林译：《美国联邦民事诉讼规则证据规则》，中国法制出版社，2000年6月第1版。
③ 参见刘荣军：《美国民事诉讼的证据开示制度》，载于《民事审判方式改革与发展》，中国法制出版社1998
① Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2001).
② See Insurance Corp.oflreland, Ltd.v.Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.694(1982); In re Marc Rich & Co.,707 F.2d 663,670(2d Cir.),cert.denied, 463 U.S. 1215(1983), Jerry L. McDaniel, ExtraterritorialDiscovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of lnternational Law, Vol.7, 1992, p 174.
③ 同上。
① See Senate Report, No. 2392, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5201. See Peter Metis, International Judicial Assistance: Does 28 U.S.C. §1782 Contain a lmplicit Discoverability Requirement? Fordham Int'l L. J. 1994-1995.
② Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §1782, 62 Stat.949 (1948). 原文如下: The deposition of any witness within the United States to be used in any civil action pending in any court in a foreign country with which the United States is at peace may be taken before a person……designated by the district court of any district where the wimess resides or may be found.
③ Act of May 24,1949,ch. 139，§93，63 Stat．103(1949)．该规定修改了关于外国的诉讼限于金钱赔偿和财产返还的限制性规定，只要求是一个司法程序即可，同时对证人必须居住(residing)在美国的条件予以删除，同时 将“民事”案件扩到到包括刑事案件在内的所有司法程序(judicialproceeding)。
① 按照美国学者和法官的论述，请求书在实质上讲，是一个国家通过它的法院，向其他国家发出的话语，通过被请求国家自己的法院，按照后者的程序，为请求国提供司法协助的途径和方式。而这些关于司法协助的请求，通常是和平时期基于国家之间的礼让，而制作、提出、接受和提供的。See De Villeneuve v. Morning Jornal Ass'n, 206 F. 70(S. D. N. 1913).
② See e.g., In Re Letters Rogatory Issued by the Director of Inspection of the Government oflndia, 385 E2d 1017 (2d Cir. 1967).
③ 参见何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第98页。
① 张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年4月第1版，第71页。
② 同上，第76页。
③ 在英国民事诉讼中，证据开示的英语是discloure，而在美国，diselousure仅指动议方主动开示己方的信息，以换取对方的discovery。但总的看来，在美国，开示程序被译作discovery，而非discloure。
④ 《补充规则》第31章的诉讼指引，明确规定了特定类型案件中需开示的特定书证。
⑤ 但有两点例外：一是在人身伤亡损害赔偿案件中，当事人可以申请令第三人，如受害者以前的医生披露有关文书；另二是如果第三人不仅仅是证人，而且还无意中混入他人的加害活动并发挥一定的作用，该第三人虽然不承担责任，但有义务提供全面的信息以披露加害者的身份。第二种例外规则又被称之为“Norwichi Pharmacal”规则，在Norwichi Pharmaca v．Commissioners ofCustoms and Excise [1974]A．C．133一案中得到确立，参见常怡：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版，第525页。
① 沈达明、冀宗儒编著：《1999年英国民事诉讼规则诠释》，中国法制出版社，2005年4月第1版，第231页。1999年4月26日，《民事诉讼规则》正式施行。
② P.F.Sutherland,The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England andAbroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p791 1982.
① See P.E Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.p795 1982.
② 同上，p792-795 1982．
③ in reBoyse, Crofton v.Crofton(1882) 20 Ch.D. 760, at 769 per Fry J.
④ (1969) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 49, CA.
① P.F.Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p792, 1982.
② Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions)Act 1975.
③ 1975年证据法第7节规定，根据《1925年最高法院裁判法》第99节，最高法院制定法院规则的权力事项包括：(a) as to the manner in which any such application as is mentioned in s. 1 above is to be made; (b) subyect to the provisions of this Act, as to the circumstances in which an order can be made under s. 2above; and (c) as to the manner in which any such reference as it mentioned in s. 3(2) above is to be made; and any such rules may include such incidental, supplementary and consequential provision as the authority making the rules may consider necessary or expedient.
④ 第70号命令于1976年得到了最高法院的修订。
⑤ Supreme Court Practice 1982. Pt.l,para. 70/1-6/2. 转引自: P.E Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and A broad. 31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p800 1982.
⑥ "criminal proceedings of a political character" See P.F. Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p804 1982.
① 原文如下: "international proceedings" means proceedings before the International Court of Justice or any other court, tribunal, commission, body or authority (whether consisting of one or more persons) which, in pursuance of any international agreement or any resolution of General Assembly of the United Nations, exercises any jurisdiction or performs any functions of a judicial nature or by way of arbitration, conciliation or inquiry or is appointed (whether permanently or temporarily) for the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction or performing any such functions.
② 上述三个条件详见1975年证据法第1节Section 1 of the Evidence 1975 states: Where an application is made to the High Court…for an order for evidence to be obtained in…(England and Wales) and the Court is satisfied—(a) that the application is made in pursuance of a request issued by or on behalf of a court or tribunal ("the requesting court") exercising jurisdiction in…a country or trritory outside the United Kingdom; and (b) that the evidence to which the application relates is to be obtained for the purposes of civil proceedings which either have been instituted before the requesting court or whose institution before that court is contemplated, the High Court…shall have the powers conferred on it by the following provisions of this Act.
③ P.F. Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in EnglandandAbroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p810-811. 1982.
④ Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v. Parkinson (1892) l Q.B. 431, CA.
⑤ See P.F. Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England andAbroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p808, 1982.
① [英]J．H．C．莫里斯主编，李双元等译：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》(下)，中国大百科全书出版社，1998年1月第1版，第1715页。
② [英]J．H．C．莫里斯主编，李双元等译：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》(下)，中国大百科全书出版社，1998年1月第1版，第1716页。
③ 参见常怡主编：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年12月第1版，第505页。
④ 参见何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第98页。
① 罗结珍译：《法国新民事诉讼法典》中国法制出版社1999年版，第4页。
② 参见沈达明编著：《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中国法制出版社，2002年6月第1版，第145页。
① See generally J. Merryman, The Civil. Law Tradition, (2d ed. 1985)
② C.Pr.Civ. arts. 736-38, see also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law 965, 1988.
③ Borel § Boyd, Opportunities for and Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence in France for Use in Litigation in the United States, 13 Int'l Law, p40 (1979)。
④ C. Pr. Crv. art. 184, 185, 186, 198, 207. see also Borel §Boyd, Opportunities for and Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence in France for Use in Litigation in the United States, 13 Int'l Law, p40 (1979).
① Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Republic of France in Support of Petitioners at 25, Aerospatiale (Supreme Court of the United States) (No.85-1695). See also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law 967, 1988.
② 这些事项包括：a)被调取的证据应当符合1970年海牙取证公约的规定，并且与缔约国指定的司法机关正在处理的案件有关。b)是否出席作证取决于自愿，不能作证的也不会在法院地国引起刑事责任；c)诉讼当事方同意或反对取证的理由：d)在取证过程中，相关当事方可以依法委托代理人；e)被要求提供证据的人员可以援引拒绝作证的特权或义务。
③ 参见法国加入海牙公约的声明和保留事项。See also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley，Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention，22 Int'l Law 968, 1988.
④ 参见法国加入海牙公约的声明和保留事项。海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
⑤ 同上。
① 何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第391页。
② 谢怀栻译，《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》，中国法制出版社，2001年版，第72页。
③ 参见谢怀栻译，《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》，中国法制出版社，2001年版，第104页。
① 德国民事诉讼法典第391条。转引自：Donald R．Shemanski，Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L,, 467,1983.
② Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., 19467,1983.
③ 德国民事诉讼法典第136、139和278条。亦可参见：Axel Heck, U.S.Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 241. 1985-1986.
④ See Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The lmpact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p468-469,1983.
① 《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》第364条。
② 《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》第363条2款。
③ 参见沈达明编著：《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中国法制出版社，2002年6月第l版，第324-325页。
④ 德国统一前，联邦德国曾指定了11个中央机关负责接收取证请求书，现在德国国内共有16个中央机关承担收发请求书的职责。参见：http://www.hcch.net/index_en.phla?act=authorities.details&aid=501
⑤ 第4条第1、2款规定：请求书应以被请求执行机关的文字作成或附该种文字的译文。但是，除非缔约国已根据第33条提出保留，缔约国应该接受以英文或法文作成或附其中任何一种文字译文的请求书。
⑥ 在德国的法院体制中，地区法院属一审法院，大致相当于美国的地区法院。
⑦ Platto, TakingEvidenceAbroadfor Use in Civil Cases in the UnitedStates-A Practical Guide. 16 Int'Law. p582-85, (1982).
① Plat-to, Taking Evidence Abroad for Use in Civil Cases in the United States-A Practical Guide. 16 Int'Law. p584, (1982).
② Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The lmpact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., 19472,1983.
③ 按照德国的国内法律，律师在征得法官的同意后，可以对证人进行询问和交叉询问。
④ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law pp976-977, 1988.
⑤ 参见本文第2章第2节中关于“审前程序的冲突”部分对“柯宁玻璃厂诉国际电话电报公司一案”的介绍。转引自：Coming Glass Works v. International Telephone & Telegraph, No. 76-0144 (D. Va. 1976).
⑥ Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p175, 1992.
⑦ "In re Forsyth." See also Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p177, 1992.
① Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, pl77, 1992.
② 参见该法第46条第1款规定。另，根据2001加拿大证据法第44条的规定，在外国法院于加拿大境内取证的规则中的法院是指加拿大各省的任何上级法院，法官是指这些法院的任何所有的法官。即，“court”means any superior court in any province; "judge" means any judge of any superior court in any province。
① 参见米尔建·R·达马斯卡著《漂移的证据法》，李学军等译，何家弘审校，中国政法大学出版社2003年9月第1版，第10页。
② 米尔建．R．达马斯卡著《漂移的证据法》，李学军等译，何家弘审校，中国政法大学出版社2003年9月第1版，第7页。
① See Harry Leroy Jones, International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform, 62 Yale L.J. pp515, 520 (1953).
② See Anschuetz & Co.,GmbH v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority, 54 U.S.L.W. 3084 (U.S. July 17, 1985) (No.85-98).
① Law No. 80-538 of July 16, 1980, J.O., July 17, 1980, p1799,转引自James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-A erospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p210, 2000.
② Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947), 转引自James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-A erospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p212, 2000.
③ See Axel Heck, U.S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p240, (1986).
④ Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. p139, 1986.
⑤ John M.Fedders, Policing Internationalized U.S. Capital Markets: Methods to Obtain Evidence Abroad, 18 tnt'l Lawyer, 91-92,1984.
⑥ Macdonald & Douglas M. Johnston, The Structure andProcess oflnternan'onalLaw, Niihoff, 1983, P. 425.
⑦ 同上。
① 王哲著：《西方政治法律思想史》，北京大学出版社，1988年，第105页。
② 参见邓成明：《论人民主权与公民的民主权利》，载于《广东社会科学》，2005年第4期。
① [日]谷口安平著：《程序的正义与诉讼》，王亚新、刘荣军译，中国政法大学出版社1996年第1版，第27页。
① [德]康拉德 茨威格特·海因 克茨著：《比较法总论》，潘汉典等译，贵州人民出版社1992年版，第482页。
② 在诉讼法律制度和证据法律制度中，程序公正和实体公正均不可偏废。笔者在这里提及部分国家偏向于实体公正，是相对其他国家而言。事实上，任何国家的立法者都在着力解决程序公正和实体公正的平衡问题。
① 参见，沈达明：《比较民事诉讼法》(上册)，中信出版社1991年版，第26-30页。
② 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第27、28、30—36条。
③ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第条规定。另见见刘荣军：《美国民事诉讼的证据开示制度及其对中国的影响》，梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》第5卷，法律出版社1996年版，第420-425页。
① Marilyn A. Monahan, Waiver of Rights under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or CommercialMatters.7 Loy. L. A. Int'l & Comp.L.J. p414, 1984.
② 参见法国民事诉讼法典第三部分。转引自：Daniel Wotman，The Hague Convention on the Taking ofEvidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. 404, 1981.
③ Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p405, 1981.
④ 参见注释③。
⑤ 参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条第2款第1项。原文如下：Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(ⅰ)，(ⅱ)，and(ⅲ)．上述规则是2001年美国最高法院新修订的规则，在证据开示的范围上，本条规定与以前的规定没有本质上的区别——笔者注。
① Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p405, 1981.
② 即“fishingexpedition”，国内有关的词典和著述中将其译作“证据收集”或“审前侦察”，笔者认为“fishing expedition”意在反映美国的审前证据开示范围宽泛而不具体，近乎没有目标的、不加甄别的证据收集和证据开示行为，因此译作“撒网捕鱼”式的证据开示更为妥贴。
③ Marilyn A. Monahan, Waiver of Rights under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.7 Loy. L. A. Int'l & Comp.L.J. p414 1984.
④ Restatement (third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States ~ 442 reporters' note 1 (1988).
⑤ Gary Born & David Westin, International CivilLitigution in United States Courts 278 n.68 (1989).
⑥ Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p172.1992.
⑦ [1956] 1 Q.B. 618 (C.A.).
⑧ Radio Corp. of America v. Rauland Corp. [1956] 1 Q.B. at 649. See also Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. 406, 1981.
① The declaration made by the Kingdom of Denmark in accordance with article 23 concerning "Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents"shall apply to any Letter of Request which requires a person: a) to state what documents relevant to the proceedings to which the Letter of request relates are, or have been, in his possession, other than particular documents specified in the Letter of Request; or b) to produce any documents other than particular documents which are specified in the Letter of Request, and which are likely to be in his possession.
② Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., [1978] 2 W.L.R. 81.(H.L).
① In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation M.O.L. Docket No. 235 (1977) 3 All E.R. 703; (1977) 3 W.L.R.430. P.E Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad. 31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p813. 1982.
② P.F. Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. pp814-815. 1982.
③ Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p408, 1981.
① F.R.G. Memorandum, see also Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p480,1983.
② 同上, pp 480-481. See also C. D. Meinhardt, "Neuere Entwicklungen im zivilrechtlichen Verkehr, Deutschland USA," erman-American Lawyers' Association Newsletter, p3 (July 1980).
③ 原文如下"The Embassy wishes to reiterate that it remains the formal position of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany that evidence for use in civil matters pending in the United Mates which is not being given by German citizens on a strictly voluntary basis, may only be obtained in the Federal Republic of Germany through the channels authorized by and in accordance with the provisions of the Hague Evidence Convention"。Falzon Brief, 23 I.L.M. at 418-19 (communication from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany). See also Margaret T. Bums, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad:Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p295, 1985.
① Coming Glass Works v.International Telephone & Telegraph, No. 76-0144 (D. Va. 1976).
① See Julius B.Levine,Discovery: A Comparison between English and American Civil Discovery Law with Beform Proposals (1982).
② See Evidence Act 1995, Section 26: Court's control over questioning ofwimesses The court may make such orders as it considers just in relation to: (a)the way in which witnesses are to be questioned; and(b)the production and use of documents and things in connection with the questioning of witnesses; and (c)the order in which parties may question a witness; and (d)the presence and behaviour of any person in connection with the questioning of wimesses.
③ 这些州和领地包括the Northern Territory，Queensland，and South Australia。这种“limited discovery”有别于美国的“general discovery”。
④ See Wilson v. Church, [1879] 9 Ch. D. 552 (Cotton, L.J.)
⑤ Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p179.1992.
① "throw light on the questions at issue", See Donaldson v. Harris, (1973) 4 S.A.S.ft. 299.
② Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law,, Vol.7, p180, 1992.
③ See David J. Gerber, International Discovery After A erospatiale: The Quest for an Analytical Framework, 82 A.J.LL. p521, pp536-37 (1988),
④ Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p180, 1992.
① Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, Public General Acts, 1980, Pt. Ⅱ,ch. 11, at 243 (U.K.); Evidence Amendment Act, [1980] 1 N.Z. Stat. 34; Protection of Business A ct, 1978, No. 99, amended by Act of 1979, No. 114 (S. Afr.); Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act, 1976 Austl. Acts 1125, amended by 1976 Austl. Acts 1743; Uranium Information Security Regulations, Can. Stat. O.& Regs. 76-644 (1976); Business Records Protection Act, Ont. Rev. Stat. ch. 56, sect. 2(1) (1980); Law of May 24, 1965, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teii Ⅱ [BGB 2] 835 (W. Ger). 参见: David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale lndustrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p155, 1987.
② Law Relating to the Communication of Economic, Commercial, Industrial, Financial or Technical Documents or Information to Foreign, Natural or Legal Persons. art. 1, bis, translated in, 75 AM. J. Int'l L. 382, 383 (1981). See also Margaret T. Bums, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad:Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p296, 1985.
① See Response of the French Ministry of Justice to written questions of M. Roger Chinaud, Journal Official, Jan. 26, 1981, 转引自: Margaret T. Bums, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad:Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p296, 1985.
② 同上。
③ Axel Heck, U.S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. p275. 985-1986.
④ Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance pour le Commerce Exterieure (COFACE) v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 105 F.R.D. 16 (S.D.N.Y.1983).
⑤ COFACE, 81 Cir. 4463-CLB, slip op. at 10 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 1983).
⑥ 有关该部分的条款原文: The court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source…whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
① Axel Heck, U.S.Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 277. 1985-1986.
② Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p182,1992.
③ 480 F. Suns. 1138 (N.D. Ill. 1979).
④ Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act, 1979.
⑤ Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act of 1984.
① 1984 Act § 6(5).
② 357 U.S. 197(1958).
① David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p149, 1987.
② 同上。
③ United States v. First Nat'l City Bank, 396 E2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968). United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Ghicago, 699 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983).
④ 357 U.S. at 204-06. 转引自David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale lndustrielle Aerospatiale: nternational Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Corn.Reg. p150, 1987.
① 这五种因素是:(a) vital national interests of each of the states, (b) the extent and the nature of the hardship that inconsistent enforcemeat actions would impose upon the person, (c) the extent to which the required conduct is to take place in the terroory of me omer state, (d) the nationality of the person, and (e) the extent to which enforcement by action of either state can reasonably be expected to achieve compliance with the rule prescribed by that state.
② 参见: First Nat'l City Bank, 396 F.2d一案。
③ 691 F. 2d 1281 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1098(1981).
④ 105 F. R. D. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).也可参见: David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: nternational Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p152, 1987.
① 本案也是关于美国在《海牙取证公约》适用问题上的重要案例之一，本文将在后面的章节中详细论述。
② David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: nternational Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com.Reg. pp153-154, 1987.
③ See Restatement 3d of the Foreign Relations Law of the U. S., §442.
① Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, vol. 7，p183，1992．但是，实践中，英国在这方面就显得更为直接一些，这从英国颁布的障碍法的名称中便可以看出。
② 有关该部分的条款原文: The court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source...whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
① See Graco. 101 F. R. D. at 527.
② David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N. C. J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p155, 1987.
① David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N. C.J. Int'l L. & Com.Reg. p138, 1987.
① 782 F. 2a at 125-126.
② 海牙取证公约第1第: In civil or commercial matters a judicial authority of a Contracting State may, in accordance with the provisions of the law of that State, request the competent authority of another Contracting State, by means of a Letter of Request, to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act.
① Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235,253 (1958).
② John M. Fedders, Policing Internationalized U. S. Capital Markets: Methods to Obtain Evidence Abroad, 18 Int'l Lawyer, p92,1984.
① David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: nternational Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p154, 1987.
② Burger, Abuses of Discovery: Judges are Correcting the Problem, 20 Trial, No. 9, Sept. 1984, at 18.
③ 公约第12条规定，“只有在下列情况下，才能拒绝执行请求书：1、在执行国，该请求书的执行不属于司法机关的职权范围；或2、被请求国认为，请求书的执行将会损害其主权和安全。执行国不能仅因其国内法已对该项诉讼标的规定专属管辖权或不承认对该事项提起诉讼的权利为理由，拒绝执行请求。”
④ 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，at 1675．1985．
① Harverv M. Sklaver. Obtaining Evidence in International Litigation. 7 Cumb. L. Rev. p247. 1976-1977.
② 该公约于1899年5月25日在参加海牙会议的欧洲16国生效。
③ 1951年英国成为海牙国际私法会议的第一个普通法系成员，之后爱尔兰、美国、加拿大、澳大利亚等其他普通法系国家渐次加入海牙国际私法会议。
① 例如，公约主要规定了相互请求代为取证的方式，对领事取证仅以一条概括，对其他取证方式则未作规定，内容显得很简陋，难以适应实践的需要。而且，公约没有排除其他取证方式的采用，致使实践中其他取证方式滥用，不利于解决取证领域的冲突。
② Harverv M. Sklaver, Obtaining Evidence in International Litigation. 7 Cumb. L. Rev. p247, 1976-1977.
③ 这43个国家和地区分别为阿根廷、澳大利亚、白俄罗斯、保加利亚、中国、中国香港、中国澳门、塞浦路斯、捷克、丹麦、爱沙尼亚、芬兰、法国、德国、以色列、意大利。拉脱维亚、卢森堡、墨西哥、摩纳哥、荷兰、挪威、波兰、葡萄牙、罗马尼亚、俄罗斯、斯洛文尼亚、斯洛伐克、南非、西班牙、斯里兰卡、瑞典、瑞士、土耳其、乌克兰、英国、美国和委内瑞拉，另外还有四个非海牙国际私法会议组织的成员国巴巴多斯、科威特、塞舌尔和新加坡也参加了该公约。资料来源：海牙国际私法会议网站：2006年8月15日登陆，http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=82.
④ See Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Conventiotr, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p231, 278(1986).
⑤ See Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Ae rospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p737, 1988-1989.
① 参见海牙取证公约第23条。
② See David Meclean, International Judicial Assistance, Clarendon Press Oxford, p91, 1992.
① 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① 参见Explanatory Reportby Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
② 英美法国家制作证言笔录的方式有别于大陆法国家，在英美法国家的证据调查过程中，对于证人的证言，采用逐字记录的方式，完全的再现了证人作证的情形，而大陆法国家录取证言时，往往由法官对证言做出归纳后记入庭审笔录。在域外取证中，有时会在制作证言笔录的方式上发生冲突。
③ See Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters.
① 出于国际社会的习惯性称谓，此处将“外交和领事人员”取证，统一称之为“领事”取证。
① Robert J. Augustine, Obtaining International Judicial Assistance Under the Federal Rules and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters: An Exposition of the Procedures and A Practical Example: In Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract Litigation. 10 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.pp132-133 1980.
① See Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters.
① See Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters.
① 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
② Adairdyer：Hague conventions on Civil Procedure，Encyclopedia of Public International Law，Vol．11，1995，pp659-662．转引自：段东辉《海牙取证公约述评》，载于《法学评论(双月刊)》，1998年第3期，第93页。
① 参见李双元著：《走向二十一世纪的国际私法》，法律出版社1999年8月第1版，第512页。
② 同上，第515—516页。
③ 这也正是通过国际民事诉讼解决纠纷与当事人自行解决纷争或通过仲裁解决纠纷的根本区别之一。
④ 同注释②。
① 参见沈达明：《比较民事诉讼法》(上册)，中信出版社1991年版，第31页。
② 参见常怡：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版，第505页。
③ 同上，第507-508页。
① 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，at 1675，1985．
② 法国新民事诉讼法第9、10、133、134、139、142、184-86、222、738-42条，转引自Pascal W．Di Fronzo，The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p752, 1988-1989.
③ Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Republic of France in Support of Petitioners at 25, Aerospatiale(Supreme Court of the United States)(No.85-1695). See also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p967, 1988.
④ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p966, 1988.
① Donald R. Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p472,1983.
② 按照德国的国内法律，律师在征得法官的同意后，可以对证人进行询问和交叉询问。
③ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law pp976-977, 1988.
④ 参见德国民事诉讼法典§393，160-164条和司法协助法典§86，转引自Pascal W．Di Fronzo，The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p752, 1988-1989.
⑤ The Convention is reprinted in 8 artindale-Hubbell Law Dictionary pt. Ⅶ, (1988) and at 28 U.S.C.A. §1781 (Supp. 1988), along with the declarations and reservations by various signatories.
⑥ 参见德国的声明和保留内容。
⑦ 参见德国批准公约的法律文件，转引自Donald R．Shemanski，Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p476, 1983.
⑧ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p979, 1988.
⑨ 参见: Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Convvention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters(1984).
① Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law pp980-981, 1988.
② Foreign Tribunals EvidenceAct 1856 and the Evidence by Commission Acts of 1859 and 1885.
③ Evidence Act, 1975, ch. 34,§2(1)
④ Evidence Act, 1975, ch. 34, §2(2).
⑤ Evidence Act, 1975, ch. 34, §2(3).
① 参见英国加入公约的声明，转引自Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law 972, 1988.
② See Jerry, L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, 1992.
③ Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of The Judicial Conference of The United States, Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(Sept.1990), see Joseph P. Griffin & Mark N. Bravin, Beyond Aerospatiale: A Commentary on Foreign Discovery Provisions, 25 Int'l Law. p331(1991). Also see Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p189,1992.
④ See Gary Born, Fishing for Trouble in Foreign Depths, Legal Times, Apr. 8, p29,1991.Thomas Reisenberg & Joseph Franco, New Procedures Cause a Ripple, Not a Wave, Legal Times, p29, 1991.
① John J. Cound, Jack H. Friedental，1993 Civil Procedure Supplement, West Publishing Co. p90, 1993.
② 参见白绿铉、卞建林译：《美国联邦民事诉讼规则证据规则》，中国法制出版社2000年第1版，第58页。原译文针对美国联邦民事诉讼规则的内容在翻译上有诸多“晦涩”之处，本文在引用时作了纠正。
③ 参见：www2.law.comell.edu.
① Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol. 7, p188, 1992.
① Law of December 22. 1977, Part Ⅰ, 3105, at 3106, see Donald R. Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p483,1983.
② Corning Glass Works v. International Telephone & Telegraph, No. 76-0144 (D. Va. 1976).
③ Donald R. She manski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p483, 1983.
④ Brief of the Federal Republic of Germany as Amicus Curiae. at 9-10, Aerospatiale (Supreme Court of the United States) (No. 85-1695).原文为: The Federal Republic of Germany has recently accelerated the procedure for the issuance of regulations which will permit the pretrial production of document when they are clearly identified, relevant and do not necessarily divulge business secrets. The government of the Federal Republic of Germany is endeavoring to issue the regulations before the end of 1986, after the necessary consent of the Bondesrcrt (Upper House of Parliament) has been obtained. This corresponds with suggestions made by the Government of the United States on the diplomatic level.
① 信函的原文: the Central Authority designated pursuant to article 2 of the Convention...does not object to transmission to the competent French court of a letter of request whose purpose is "pretrial discovery of documents" so long as such letter of request presents the following assurances: the requested documents must be enumerated in the letter of request and have a direct and clear nexus with the subject muner of the litigation. If goes without saying that the conditions generally provided in the Convention regarding the nature of the requesting authority and respect for the requested State's public policy must have been observed. Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p966, 1988.
② Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Republic of France in Support of Petitioners at 1-2, Aerospatiale (Supreme Court of the United States) (No.85-1695). See also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p967, 1988.
① Additional Protocal to the Inter-America Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad
② Additional Protocol to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rotatory
③ 徐昕：《英国民事诉讼中现代科技之运用—兼评21世纪民事诉讼的发展趋势》，发表于http://www.law-walker.net/detail.asp?id=1998
④ 《跨国民事诉讼规则》首次发表于1995年《康奈尔国际法杂志》第30期，修改稿1998年发表于《德克萨斯国际法杂志》第33期。最近的一次修改为2001年4月12日。英文本见http://www.ali.org/ali/transrules.htm
① F. R. D. 503 (N.D. Ⅲ. 1984).
② See Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. p140, 1986.
① 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，at 1672．1985．
② 该次特委会为海牙国际私法会议关于取消外国公文书认证、送达公约和取证公约的特别委员会，于2003年10月28日至11月4日召开。特别委员会的116名代表，分别来自包括成员国、公约当事国、观察员国家的57个单位的组织。
① 参见1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，p1678，1985．
① Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p231. 1985-1986.
② Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Ae rospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p738, 1988-1989.
③ See Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Conventiotr, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p231, 278(1986).
④ See Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 231. 1985-1986.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. pp190-191,2000.
② Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p739, 1988-1989.
③ 同上. pp739-740.
④ Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters, reprinted in United States: Message from the President Transittitting to the Senate the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 12 I. L. M. p323(1973).
① C. Mc Cormice, Evidence §137 (1954). See also Earl Byron, Law Notes, 6 Houston. Law. Review. pp910-917, 1968-1969.
② See232 U.S. 383 (1914).
③ Donald R. Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p469,1983.
④ See H. Steiner &. D. Vagts, Transnational Legal Problem preamble, (2d ed.1976); see also Restatement (second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §138 (1965).
⑤ See Societes Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commereialles, S. A. v. Rogers,357 U.S. p197 (1956).
① 参见海牙取证公约第12条。
② Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p741. 1988-1989.
③ 同上，pp741-742．
④ Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 163(1894)(引用时有删节)．关于国际法的确定和解释问题，也可参见Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876，881-84(2d Cir.1980).
① See Axel Heck, U.S.Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p251. 1985-1986.
② 28 U.S.C. §1783 (1982).
③ Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §420，1988.
④ 公约第27条规定：本公约的规定不妨碍缔约国：(1)声明可以通过第二条规定的途径以外的途径将请求书送交其司法机关；(2)根据其国内法律或惯例，允许在更少限制的情况下实行本公约所规定的行为；(3)根据其国内法律或惯例，允许以本公约规定以外的方式调取证据。
⑤ 判词原文如下: We could perhaps read the Hague Convention, broadly, as a preemptive and exclusive rule of international evidence-gathering, binding upon us as the supreme law of the land...But we prefer to believe that the...Convention establishes not a fixed role but rather a m}rt}num measure of international cooperation; our reading of Article 27...encourages us to conclude that this is...what the ratifyingstates intended. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, etc. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 840, 859, I76 Cal. Rptr. 87A}, 885-86 (1981).
① See Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. pp253-254. 1985-1986.
② The Secretary of State's Letter of Submittal, 12 I. L. M. p323 (1973). see also Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p254. 1985-1986.
③ David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p143, 1987.
④ Pierburg, 137 Cal. App. 3d at 244, 186 Cal. Rptr. at 880.
① This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
② 11 Wall. 616, 624, 78 U.S. 616 (1870).转引自: Prof. William L. Wilks and Nancy E. Goldberg, Esq., The Unsolved Problem in Taking Evidence Abroad: The Non-Rule of Aerospatiale. 7 Dick. J. Int'l p75,1988-1989.
③ David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p143, 1987.
④ Julian G. Ku, Treaties as Laws: A Defense of the Last-in-Time Rule for Treaties and Federal Statutes, Indiana Law Journal, p322,. 2005.
① Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 840, 176 Cal. Rptr. 874 (1981).
② Volkswagenwerk Ⅱ, 123 Cal. App. at 859, 176 Cal. Rpir. at 885.
③ F. R. D. 503 (N.D. Ⅲ. 1984).
④ Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p302, 1985.
⑤ Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance pour le Commerce Exterieure (COFACE) v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 105 F. R. D. 16 (S.D.N.Y.1983).
① 《海牙取证公约》的官方报告员和起草委员会的联合主任。
② Laker Airways Ltd.. 103 F. R. D. at 50 n. 19.
③ Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U. S. (2 Cranch)64,118(1804).
④ Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. pp255-256. 1985-1986.
⑤ Amram. United States Ratification of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 67 Am. J. Int'l L. p104-105 (1973). See also Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p308, 1985.
⑥ Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p308, 1985.
① Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p308, 1985.
② See Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p255. 1985-1986.
③ 同上。
④ F. R. D. 503 (N.D. Ⅲ. 1984).
① See Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. p136, 1986.
② 同上。
③ 101 F. R. D. 521(N.D. Ⅲ. 1984).
① International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee. 105 F. R. D. 435 (S. D. N. Y. 1984).
② Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence A broad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J, p137, 1986.
③ Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. p138, 1986.
④ No. 80 Civ. 1911, slip op. (S. D. N. Y. May 30, 1984).
⑤ No. 80 Civ. 1911, slip op. at 5, (S. D. N. Y. May 30, 1984). See also Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p303, 1985.
⑥ 102 F R. D. 918 (S. D. N. Y. 1984).
① 754 F. 2d 602 (5th Cir. 1985). petition for cert. filed sub nom., Anschuetz & Co.,GmbH v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority, 54 U.S.L.W. 3084 (U.S. July 17, 1985) (No.85-98).
② 美国第五巡回法院负责运河区、路易斯安娜州、密西西比州、得克萨斯州等地上诉案件的审理。
③ 754 F2d 605(5th Cir．1985)．
④ 754 F2d 605(5th Cir．1985)．德国司法部的意见一并见于上述顾问意见。参见：Margaret T．Burns，The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p304, 1985.
⑤ See Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F. R. D. 58, 161 n.5(E. D. Pa. 1983); Pierburg GmbH & Co.v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. App.3d 236, 246, 186 Cal.Rptr. 876, 881-82 (1982).
⑥ 同上。
⑦ Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p271.1985-1986.
① Axel Heck, U.S.Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p264. 1985-1986.
② Michael J. Novara, The Demise of the Multilateral Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad: in re A nschuetz & Co., GmbH, 13 Brook. J. Int'l L. p139, 1987.
③ Michael J. Novara, The Demise of the Multilateral Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad: in re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 13 Brook. J. Int'l L. pp157-158, 1987.
④ 757 F. 2d 729 (5th Cir.1985) petition for cert. filed, 54 U.S.L.W.3084 (U.S.July 17,1985)(No.85-99).
① 757 F2d 731 (5th Cir. 1985).
② 同上。
③ 同上。
④ Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p304, 1985.
① Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p257. 1985-1986
① Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F. R. D. 58 (E. D. Pa. 1983).
② See Anschuetz. 754 F. 2d at 606.
③ Cooper Indus. v. British Aerospace, 102 F. R. D. 918, 920 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
④ Amram, United States Rat}cation of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 67 Apt. J. Int'l L. p106 (1973).
⑤ Boreri v. Fiat S. p. A., 763 F.2d 17, 19 (1st Cir. 1985).
⑥ Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p744, 1988-1989.
⑦ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p191, 2000.
① 464 US. 811 (1983), appeal dismissed, 465 U.S. 1014 (1984).
② 465 U.S. 1019 (1984), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 913 (1984).
③ 754 F. 2d 602 (5th Cir. 1985).
① See Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p745, 1988-1989.
② 参见Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct., 482 U. S. 522(1987).
③ See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United SEates District Court, 482 U.S.—107 S. Ct. 2542 (1987).
④ 该条规定，依据当事人或被要求发现的人的申请，并且在证明该中请人出于艮好的诚信与其它相关的当事人是徒步经法庭解决该争议而做出了努力，或者有相当理由的情况下，诉讼系属的法院或者与庭外取证有关的事项则由准备庭外取证地区的法院，可以依正义的要求做出命令以保护该当事人或被要求出示证据的人免于烦恼、困惑、压抑或过分的责任和花费。
① David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com.Reg. p147, 1987.
② 在美国，上诉法院对于下级法院的诉讼过程中的证据开示命令一般不予复审，但是考虑到本案所涉问题的“重要性、新颖性”和“易发性”，并且涉及到海牙取证公约、联邦民事诉讼规则以及法国国内的障碍立法相互之间关系，上诉法院决定予以复审。②此案最终得到了联邦最高法院调卷再审。
③ In re Societe Nationale.782 F.2d.
① Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery-The United States Supreme Court has held that the Hague Convention on the Taking, of Evidence A"broad in Civil and Commercial Matters provides optional procedures for conducting discovery in a foreign nation to which American courts may resort if, after a particularized comity analysis, they deem it necessary. 26 Duq. L. Rev. p779. 1987-1988.
② A erospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct., 482 U. S. 533(1987).
① 公约第27条规定：本公约的规定不妨碍缔约国：(1)声明可以通过第二条规定的途径以外的途径将请求书送交其司法机关；(2)根据其国内法律或惯例，允许在更少限制的情况下实行本公约所规定的行为；(3)根据其国内法律或惯例，允许以本公约规定以外的方式调取证据。
② 公约第9条规定：执行请求书的司法机关应适用其本国法规定的方式和程序。但是，该机关应采纳请求机关提出的采用特殊方式或程序的请求，除非其与执行国国内法相抵触或因其国内惯例和程序或存在实际困难而不可能执行。
③ Aerosnatiale, 107 S. Ct. at 2562.
④ See Aerospatiale, 482 U. S. at 568 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The dissent was joined by Brennan, Marshall, and O'Connor; JJ.
⑤ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p198, 2000.
⑥ Doster, 141 F. R. D. at 52 (citing Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544).转引自James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp. L, p204, 2000.
① Randall D. Roth, Five Years After Aerospatiale: Rethinking Discovery Abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation Under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 13 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. p445 1992-1993.
② Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery, 26 Duq. L. Rev. p781, 1987-1988.
③ Randall D. Roth, Five Years After Aerospatiale: Rethinking Discovery Abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation Under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 13 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L.p451 1992-1993.
④ Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale lndustrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p750, 1988-1989.
⑤ 同上。
① "In many situations the Letter of Request procedure authorized by the Convention would be unduly time consuming and expensive, as well as less certain to produce the needed evidence than direct use of the Federal Rules. A rule of first resort in all cases would therefore be inconsistent with the overriding interest in the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of litieation in our court.参见: 107 S. Ct. 2555 (1987).
② See Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery-The United States Supreme Court has held that the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters provides optional procedures for conducting discovery in a foreign nation to which American courts may resort if, after a particularized comity analysis, they deem it necessary. 26 Duq. L. Rev. 780. 1987-1988.
① 参见Aerospatiale, 482 U.S.
② Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p747, 1988-1989.
③ 同①, 26Duq. L. Rev. 787. 1987-1988.
④ 同上, 26Duq. L. Rev. 788. 1987-1988.
⑤ Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery-The United States Supreme Court has held that the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters provides optional procedures for conducting discovery in a foreign nation to which American courts may resort if, after a particularized comity analysis, they deem it necessary. 26 Duq. L. Rev. p790. 1987-1988.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p204, 2000.
② James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. lnt'l & omp.L, p204, 2000.
③ Doster, 141 F. R. D.
① 117 F. R. D. 38(N.D.N.Y.1987).
② James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p202, 2000.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp. L, p206, 2000.
② See In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, 172 F. R.D Ind 295 309 (N. D. Ⅲ. 1997).
③ See Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 789, 796 (S. D. N. Y 1984).
④ Scarminach v. Goldwell GmbH, 531 N.Y.S.2d 188, 191(N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1988).
⑤ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul.j. Int'l & omp.L, p207, 2000.
⑥ See In re Uranium Antitrust Litig., 480 F. Supp. 1138, 1148 (N. D. Ⅲ. 1979).
⑦ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p207, 2000.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp. L, p208, 2000.
② 同上．p210, 2000.
① In re Application of Asta Medica, S.A., 981 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992).
② Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782. 37 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. p670, 2005.
③ Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782. 37 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev.. P672 2005.
① Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782. 37 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. pp682-683, 2005.
① 同上，p673 2005.
② See David J. Gerber, Extraterritorial Discovery and the Conflict of Procedural System: Germany and the United States, 34Am. J. Com. L. p787 (1986).
③ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p190, 2000.
④ See Harry J. O'Kane, Obtaining Evidence Abroad, 17 Vand. J. Transant'l L. p73. 1984.
① Pfund, U. S. Participation in International Unification of Private Law, 19 Int'l Law. p505 (1985). See also Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p278. 1985-1986.
② James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p194, 2000.
① Marilyn A. Monahan, Waiver of Rights under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.7 Loy. L. A. Int'l & Comp. L. J. p425 1984.
② 同上，pp424-425,1984.
③ 同上, p425,1984.
④ United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. at 230.
⑤ Report of the United States Delegation to the Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 8 Int'l Legal Materials p785, 806(1969).
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p196, 2000.
② See28 U.S.C. §1782(1982).
③ Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS lnt'l L. J. p144, 1986.
① 参见杨弘磊：《涉外送达规定的协调与适用——兼评“奔驰”产品责任案中的法院送达》，人民法院报2002年7月8日版。
② 参见该规定第5条。
③ Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p310, 1985.
① 同上。
② James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p214, 2000.
① 参见黄进、何其生、萧凯编：《国际私法：案例与资料》(下)，法律出版社2004年12月版，第1400页。
① 王晓燕：《国际私法的利益平衡论》，载于《武大国际法评论》第4卷第108页。
② 参见Alaska Packers Association v．Industrial Accident Commission of California，转引自：邓正来著《美国现代国际私法流派》，中国政法大学出版社2006年3月第1版，第94页。
③ 柯里：《冲突法论文选集》，1963年第178页，转引自：邓正来著《美国现代国际私法流派》，中国政法大学出版社2006年3月第1版，第95页。
④ See Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence—Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p940, 1988.
① See Prescott & Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law. p939, pp941-43 (1988).
② Marc Rich & Co. A.G v. United States, 739 F. 2d 834 (2d Cir. 1984).
③ Amici briefs, reprinted in 25 I.L.M. pp1475-1568 (1986).
① 782 F. 2d at 126.
② 782 F. 2d at 126. See also David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p140, 1987.
③ David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. p141, 1987.
④ Bermann, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Supreme Court: A critique of the Aerospatiale Decision, 63 Tul. L. Rev. (1989).
⑤ Hudson v Hermann Pfauter GmbH & Co., 117 FR.D. 33, 39 (N.D.N.Y. 1987), See James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L. p203, 2000.
① Cooper, 102 F. R. D. at 920.
① See Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p306, 1985.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p213, 2000.
① See David J. Gerber, Extraterritorial Discovery and the Conflict of Procedural System: Germany and the United States, 34Am. J. Com. L. p787 (1986).
② 同上。
③ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp. L. p215, 2000.
① Bain v. Whitehaven and Furness Junction Ry. (1850)3 H. L. C.1, 19.
② 江伟，《中国证据法草案及立法问题探讨》，参见法制日报理论专刊第39期，2003年7月17日。
③ 高家伟，《中国证据法草案及立法问题探讨》，参见法制日报理论专刊第39期，2003年7月17日。
④ 李双元、屈广清、欧福永主编：《国际民事诉讼程序导论》，人民法院出版社，2004年1月第1版，第459页。
⑤ 例如在决定证据的可接受性问题上，需要考察证据调取过程中的一些程序性问题是否合法，在判断合法与否的的问题上，除了法院地法作为衡量外，证据所在地和取证地法律的程序规定，也是需要参考的重要因素。 关于国际民事诉讼程序的法律适用问题，请参见本章的后面的论述。
① 参见李双元、屈广清、欧福永主编：《国际民事诉讼程序导论》，人民法院出版社，2004年1月第1版，第459页。
② 同上。
① 参见何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第83页。
② 参见沈达明、冀宗儒编著：《1999年英国民事诉讼规则诠释》，中国法制出版社，2005年4月第1版，第231页。
③ United States v. Looper, 419 F. 2d 4th Cir. 1969. p1405. 1407n. 4.
④ 参见李双元、欧福永、熊之才编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京大学出版社2002年9月第1版，第570页。
⑤ 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§140: "Integrated Contracts (Parol Evidence Rule) Whether a contract is integrated in a writing and, if so, the effects of integration are determined by the local law of the state selected by application of the rules of §187-188."§141: "Statute of Frauds Whether a contract must be in writing, or evidenced by a writing, in order to be enforceable is determined by the law selected by application of the rules of §187-188."
① 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§138: "Evidence The local law of the forum determines the admissibility of evidence, except as stated in §139-141."
② 传统普通法最初认为当事人可能伪造证据，故未赋予当事人提供证据的资格。1851年《证据法》废止普通法有关当事人不能提供证据之规则，确立了当事人作为证人的资格。
③ 参见张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年4月第1版，第227页。
① 如《中华人民共和国律师法》第33条规定：律师应当保守在执业活动中知悉的国家秘密和当事人的商业秘密，不得泄露当事人的隐私。《中华人民共和国公证法》第23条规定：公证员不得有下列行为：(八)泄露在执业活动中知悉的国家秘密、商业秘密或者个人隐私。
② 民事诉讼法第70条规定：凡是知道案件情况的单位和个人，都有义务出庭作证。
③ 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§137: "Witnesses The local law of the forum determines what witnesses are competent to testify and the considerations that may affect their credibility."
④ [英]J．H．C．莫里斯主编：《戴西和莫里斯伦冲突法》，李双元等译，中国大百科全书出版社1998年版，第1715页。
⑤ [美]乔恩·R·华尔兹著：《刑事证据大全》，何家弘等译，中国人民公安大学出版社1993年第1版，第283 页。
① 参见常怡主编：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版，第521-522页。
② 何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第98页
① 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§139 Privileged Communications: (1) Evidence that is not privileged under the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the communication will be admitted, even though it would be privileged under the local law of the forum, unless the admission of such evidence would be contrary to the strong public policy of the forum. (2) Evidence that is privileged under the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the communication but which is not privileged under the local law of the forum will be admitted unless there is some special reason why the forum policy favoring admission should not be given effect.
② 所谓的第三国，即在证人既不属于执行地国、又不属于请求国国民的情况下，一般指的是证人的国籍国。
③ 张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年4月第1版，第7页。
④ 参见沈达明著：《英美证据法》、《比较民事诉讼法初论》；张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》；陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》等。
① 参见陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月第1版。
② 陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月第1版，第65页。
③ 陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年9月第1版，第225—226页。
④ 陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月第1版，第65-66页。
⑤ 陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年9月第1版，第225—226页。
① [德]汉斯·普维庭著，吴越译：《现代证明责任问题》，法律出版社1999年版，第519页。
② 陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月第1版，第66页。
③ 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§133 Burden of Proof: The forum will apply its own local law in determining which party has the burden of persuading the trier of fact on a particular issue unless the primary purpose of the relevant role of the state of the otherwise applicable law is to affect decision of the issue rather than to regulate the conduct of the trial. In that event, the rule of the state of the otherwise applicable law will be applied.
④ [英]J．H．C．莫里斯著《法律冲突法》，李东来等译，中国对外翻译出版公司1990年9月第1版，第458页。
① 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§135 Sufficiency of Evidence: The local law of the forum determines whether a party has introduced sufficient evidence to warrant a finding in his favor on an issue of fact, except as stated in §133-134.
② 李双元、欧福永、熊之才编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京大学出版社2002年9月第1版，第288页。
① [英]J．H．C．莫里斯著《法律冲突法》，李东来等译，中国对外翻译出版公司1990年9月第1版，第459页。
② 参见该《意见》第一部分总则第1、2条规定。
③ Mahadervan v. Mahadervan (1964), P233, 242.
① 李双元、谢石松：《国际民事诉讼法概论》，武汉大学出版社1990年版，第386页。
② 只不过这种协调冲突的方式是一种间接的协调方式，或者说是一种源头上的协调而已，其效果跟域外取证领域中统一程序规则相比，不是十分明显。
③ Craig Osborne，Civil Litigation，Blackstone Press Ltd．，p157，1993．转引自张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年4月第1版，第2页。
① 屈广清著：《国际私法中的证据冲突规范初论》，载于《法商研究》，1997年第6期，第65页。
② 李双元、欧福永、熊之才编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京大学出版社2002年9月第1版，第569-570页。
① 李浩培著：《国际民事程序法概论》，法律出版社1996年版，第18页。
② 同上。
③ 李双元主编：《国际民商新秩序的理论建构》，武汉大学出版社1998年版，第415页。
④ 参见上注，第416页。
① 海牙国际私法会议于1992年开始起草“民商事管辖和外国判决公约”，试图在民商事诉讼的管辖权和判决承认与执行方面制定全球性的统一规则，但因各国纷争不止，几多周折，终未通过，最后就“协议选择法院”这一核心条款起草新的公约草案，该草案历经各国政府和国际组织等的提议、修改、谈判、洽商，于2005年6月30日结束的第二十届外交大会上通过，公约的名称正式确定为《选择法院协议公约》。
② [日]美浓部达吉著：《公法与私法》，黄冯明译，周旋校，中国政法大学出版社2003年第1版，第5页。
③ 同上。
④ 同上，第167页。
⑤ 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，at 1675．1985．
① 同上。
② 李双元 谢石松：《国际民事诉讼法概论》，武汉大学出版社1990年版，第330页。
③ 同上。
④ 参见龚柏华编著：《美中经贸法律纠纷案例评析》，中国政法大学出版社1996年版，第218-220页。本案英文案例报告详见1992 WL 453646。
① See Gray B．Born，International Civil Litigation in United States Courts p289(3rd ed．1996)，转引自《诉讼法论丛》第7卷，法律出版社2002年9月版。
② Gulf Oil Corp．v．Gilbert，330 U．S．501(1947)．
③ 李双元、金彭年、张茂等编著：《中国国际私法通论》，法律出版社，1998年第1版，第584页。
① 参见龚柏华编著：《美中经贸法律纠纷案例评析》，中国政法大学出版社1996年版，第218-220页。本案英文案例报告详见1992 WL 453646。
① 见《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》263条。
② 按照《民诉法意见》320条规定，当事人在我国领域外使用人民法院的判决书、裁定书，要求我国人民法院证明其法律效力的，以及外国法院要求我国人民法院证明判决书、裁定书的法律效力的，我国作出判决、裁定的人民法院，可以本法院的名义出具证明。
③ 资料来源：外交部官方网站http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/wjb/zzjg/tyfls/tyfl/1154/t23622.htm。
④ 见该条约16—23条的规定。
⑤ 我国于1997年12月8日交存加入书，按照公约自交存加入书第60天即1998年2月6日对我国生效。
① 声明原文: in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention concerning the Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in common law countries, only the request for obtaining discovery of the documents clearly enumerated in the Letters of Request and of direct and close connection with the subject matter of the litigation will be executed.
② 这30个国家和地区分别为保加利亚、立陶宛、斯里兰卡、斯洛文尼亚、乌克兰、俄罗斯、白俄罗斯、科威特、罗马尼亚、荷兰、卢森堡、捷克、以色列、波兰、芬兰、德国、意大利、美国、斯洛文尼亚、法国、丹麦、西班牙、澳大利以、挪威、阿根廷、爱沙尼亚、瑞士、瑞典、拉脱维亚、希腊和塞浦路斯。参见海牙国际私法会议网站：http://www.hcch.net.2006年8月15日登陆。
③ 见最高人民法院《法办[2003]297号文件》。
④ 参见最高人民法院2001年8月7日通过的《关于内地与澳门特别行政区法院就民商事案件相互委托送达司法文书和调取证据的安排》，于2001年9月15日起正式生效。
⑤ 资料来源：司法部司法协助局。
① 资料来源：何其生著《域外送达制度研究》，北京大学出版社2006年2月第1版，第340页。
② 参见：徐宏，《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社，1996年第1版，第241—242页。
③ 本案发生在现行民事诉讼法实施以前，按照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法(试行)》第202条，外国法院委 托的事项同中华人民共和国的主权、安全不相容的，予以驳回，调查取证应当按照国际条约或互惠原则进行。
① 资料来源：中华人民共和国最高人民法院民四庭和外事局。
② 《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第30条(b)款(2)项允许以录像方式进行录证。
① 参见李浩：《民事证据法的目的》，载于《法学研究》2004年第5期，第116页。
② 事实上，最高人民法院在《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第75条已经有类似的规定：“有证据证明一方当事人持有证据无正当理由拒不提供，如果对方当事人主张该证据的内容不利于证据持有人，可以推定该主张成立。”
① 参见董立坤主编：《中国内地与香港地区法律的冲突与协调》，法律出版社2004年版，第533页。
② Hilton v Guyot，159 U．S．113，163(1894)．
③ 参见马守仁：《美国对外国法院判决的承认与执行》，载于《中国国际法年刊》，中国对外翻译出版公司1984年版，第289页。
① 在Hilton v．Guyot一案中，格雷(Gray)法官引用先前的判例做了如下论述：“外国法院的(对人)判决，不论在普通法上还是衡平法上，其效力根据案件的当事人不同而有所区别。如果判决是有管辖权的法院针对同一国家的两个当事人做出的，那么它可以在任何地方都被认为是有最终的确定力。如果判决是应外国人针对本国国民提起的诉讼做出的，那么不论判谁胜诉，双方要受到判决的约束(不论是否承认与执行，笔者注)，如果判决是本国国民对外国人提起的诉讼，而且外国人胜诉，那么双方将同等地受到判决的约束。”上述观点还见之于下列判例：Ricardo v．Garcias，12 Clark & F．368；The Griefswald，Swab．430，435；Barber v．Lamb，8 C．B．(N．S．)95；Lea v．Deakin，11 Biss．23，Fed．Cas．No．8，154．
② Istvan Szaszy，International Civil Procedure，A．W．Sijthoff-Leyden，pp583-584，1967．
③ See Hilton v．Guyot,159 U．S．113，163(1894)．
④ 齐湘泉：《论法院判决、仲裁裁决域外承认与执行中的互惠原则》，载于《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2000年第3卷，第615页。
⑤ Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance：Revializing Section 1782．37 Geo．Wash．Int'l L．Rev．p685．2005．
① 参见谢石松著：《国际商事纠纷的法律解决程序》，广东人民出版社1996年版，第479页。
② 参见：《新加坡联合早报》，2006年1月18日。
① 参见: http://economy.enorth.com.cn/system/2007/01/16/001519811.shtml.
② 杨弘磊著：《中国内地司法实践视角下的纽约公约问题研究》，法律出版社2006年12月第1版，第373页。
① 李浩：《民事证据法的目的》，载于《法学研究》，2004年第5期，第108页。
① 参见赵生祥：《论从国外获取民商事案件证据的方式》，司法部司法协助局编：《司法协助研究》，法律出版社1996年版，第224页。
① 1983年我国外交部准许美国法院曾就美国钻井船“爪哇”号沉船案派员来我国调查该事故。参见赵相林主编：《国际私法》，中国政法大学出版社1997年4月第1版，第409页。
① 参见董丽萍、刘国明：《我国国际司法协助实践的发展和问题》，见http://www.chinacourt.org，发布时间：2002-09-13
② 参见《海牙取证公约》第36条的规定。
③ 2006年7月17日最高人民法院审判委员会第1394次会议通过了《最高人民法院关于涉外民事或商事案件司法文书送达问题若干规定》，该规定于2006年8月22日实施。
603 肖永平著：《肖永平论冲突法》，武汉大学出版社，2002年4月第1版，第157页。
604 江伟：《美国民事诉讼的真谛》之序言部分，[美]Stephen N．Subrin，Margaret Y．K．Woo著，蔡彦敏、徐卉译，法律出版社，2002年4月第1版，第5页。
1．赵相林主编：《国际私法》，中国政法大学出版社，1997年4月第1版
2．赵相林主编：《国际私法》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年9月修订版
3．赵相林主编、杜新丽副主编：《中国国际私法立法问题研究》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版
4．赵相林、宣增益著：《国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁》，中国政法大学出版社1994年2月版。
5．周忠海等著：《国际法学述评》，法律出版社，2001年7月版
6．李浩培著：《国际民事程序法概论》，法律出版社1996年版，第18页。
7．李浩培著：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年1月第2版
8．李双元著：《走向二十一世纪的国际私法》，法律出版社1999年8月第1版
9．李双元、屈广清、欧福永主编：《国际民事诉讼程序导论》，人民法院出版社，2004年1月第1版
10．李双元主编：《国际民商新秩序的理论建构》，武汉大学出版社1998年版
11．李双元、谢石松著：《国际民事诉讼法概论》，武汉大学出版社2001年版
12．李双元、金彭年、张茂、李志勇编著：《中国国际私法通论》，法律出版社，1998年第1版
13．韩德培主编：《国际私法》，高等教育出版社，2000年8月第1版
14．韩德培主编：《国际私法问题专论》，武汉大学出版社2004年1月第1版
15．沈涓著：《中国区际冲突法研究》，中国政法大学出版社2003年1月版
16．齐湘泉主编：《涉外民事关系法律适用法》，人民出版社2003年8月版
17．肖永平著：《肖永平论冲突法》，武汉大学出版社2002年版
18．肖永平著：《中国冲突法立法问题研究》，武汉大学出版社，1996年版
19．肖永平主编：《欧盟统一国际私法研究》，武汉大学出版社，2002年6月第1版
20．邓正来著《美国现代国际私法流派》，中国政法大学出版社2006年3月第1版
21．杨弘磊著：《中国内地司法实践视角下的纽约公约问题研究》，法律出版社2006年12月第1版
22．谢石松著：《国际民商事纠纷的法律解决程序》，广东人民出版社1996年6月第1版
23．徐冬根、薛凡著：《中国国际私法完善研究》，上海社会科学院出版社1998年第1版
24．徐冬根著：《国际私法趋势论》，北京大学出版社2005年1月第1版
25．徐宏著：《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社，1996年第1版
26．徐宏著：《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社，2006年7月第2版
27．李旺著：《国际私法》，法律出版社，2003年8月第1版。
28．刘卫翔著：《欧洲联盟国际私法》，法律出版社，2001年12月第1版
29．郑远民、吕国民、于志宏编著：《国际私法(国际民事诉讼法和国际商事仲裁法)》，中信出版社第2002年10月第l版
30．王世洲主编：《欧洲共同体法律的制定与执行》，法律出版社2000年版
31．董立坤主编：《中国内地与香港地区法律的冲突与协调》，法律出版社2004年版
32．沈达明、冀宗儒编著：《1999年英国民事诉讼规则诠释》，中国法制出版社
33．沈达明编著：《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中国法制出版社，2002年6月第1版
34．何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版
35．何家弘主编：《新编证据法学》，法律出版社2000年3月第1版
36．何家弘、张卫平主编：《外国证据法选译》(下卷)，人民法院出版社2000年版，第1386-1387页。
37．刘立宪、谢鹏程：《海外司法改革的走向》，中国方正出版社2000年版，第57页
38．白绿铉、卞建林译：《美国联邦民事诉讼规则证据规则》，中国法制出版社2000年第1版
39．白绿铉著：《美国民事诉讼法》，经济日报出版社1996年版
40．陈刚著：《民事诉讼法制的现代化》，中国检察出版社2003年4月第1版
41．陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年9月版
42．张茂著：《美国国际民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社1999年版
43．张卫平著：《诉讼架构与程式》，清华大学出版社1998年版
44．张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年版
45．常怡：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版
46．杨良宜、杨大明著：《国际商务游戏规则：英美证据法》，法律出版社2002年9月第1版
47．陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7 月版
48．罗玉珍、高委主编：《民事证明制度与理论》，法律出版社2003年2月第1版
49．司法部司法协助局编：《司法协助研究》，法律出版社1996年版
50．王哲著：《西方政治法律思想史》，北京大学出版社，1988年，第105页。
51．[美]杰弗里·哈泽德米歇尔·塔鲁伊著：《民国民事诉讼法导论》，张茂译，中国政法大学1998年9月版
52．[英]莫里斯著：《法律冲突法》，李东来等译，中国对外翻译出版公司1990年版
53．[英]J．H．C．莫里斯主编，李双元等译：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》(下)，中国大百科全书出版社，1998年1月第1版
54．[美]米尔建·R·达马斯卡著《漂移的证据法》，李学军等译，何家弘审校，中国政法大学出版社2003年9月第1版
55．[美]克罗斯：《克罗斯论证据》；沈达明著：《英美证据法》等。
56．[日]谷口安平著，王亚新、刘荣军译：《程序的正义与诉讼》(增补本)，中国政法大学出版社2002年11月第1版
57．[日]美浓部达吉著：《公法与私法》，黄冯明译，周旋校，中国政法大学出版社2003年第1版
58．[德]汉斯·普维庭著，吴越译：《现代证明责任问题》，法律出版社1999年版
59．[德]康拉德茨威格特·海因克茨著：《比较法总论》，潘汉典等译，贵州人民出版社1992年版
60．[法]亨利·巴蒂福保罗·拉加德著：《国际私法总论》，中国对外翻译出版公司1989年版
1．杜新丽主编：《国际私法教学案例》，中国政法大学出版社1999年7月第1版
2．齐湘泉：《论法院判决、仲裁裁决域外承认与执行中的互惠原则》，《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2000年第3卷
3．屈广清著：《国际私法中的证据冲突规范初论》，《法商研究》，1997年第6期
4．刘荣军：《美国民事诉讼的证据开示制度》，《民事审判方式改革与发展》，中国法制出版社1998年版
5．段东辉：《海牙取证公约述评》，《法学评论》1998年第3期
6．徐卉：《外国法证明问题研究》，《诉讼法论丛》第3卷，法律出版社1999年版
7．崔晓静：《证据制度的法律适用》，《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，2002年第5卷
8．徐昕：《英国民事诉讼中现代科技之运用一兼评2l世纪民事诉讼的发展趋势》：www.law-walker.net
9．董丽萍、刘国明：《我国国际司法协助实践的发展和问题》，http://www.chinacourt.org
10．崔婕：《证据收集制度》，《现代法学》，2002年第6期
11．何家弘、姚永吉：《两大法系证据制度比较论》，《比较法研究》，2003年第4期
12．赵生祥：《论从国外获取民商事案件证据的方式》，司法部司法协助局编《司法协助研究》
13．汤维建：《关于证据属性的若干思考和讨论》，《政法论坛》2000年第6期
14．邓成明：《论人民主权与公民的民主权利》，《广东社会科学》，2005年第4期
15．李浩：《民事证据法的目的》，《法学研究》2004年第5期
16．马守仁：《美国对外国法院判决的承认与执行》，《中国国际法年刊》，中国对外翻译出版公司1984年版
17．王晓燕：《国际私法的利益平衡论》，《武大国际法评论》第4卷
18．江伟，《中国证据法草案及立法问题探讨》，法制日报理论专刊第39期，2003年7月17日。
19．高家伟，《中国证据法草案及立法问题探讨》，法制日报理论专刊第39期，2003年7月17日。
20．杨弘磊：《涉外送达规定的协调与适用——兼评“奔驰”产品责任案中的法院送达》，人民法院报2002年7月8日版。
21．李双元、欧福永、雄之才编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》(上中下三册)，北京大学出版社2002年版
22．黄进、何其生、萧凯编：《国际私法：案例与资料》(上、下)，法律出版社2004年12月版
23．罗结珍译：《法国新民事诉讼法典》中国法制出版社1999年版
24．谢怀栻译，《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》，中国法制出版社，2001年版
25．司法部司法协助局编：《中外司法协助条约规则概览》，法律出版社1998年版
26．中国国际私法协会主办：《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社出版
27．陈光中、江伟主编：《诉讼法论丛》系列丛书，法律出版社出版
28．何家弘主编：《证据学论坛》系列丛书，中国检察出版社
29．龚柏华编著：《美中经贸法律纠纷案例评析》，中国政法大学出版社1996年
30．国家法规数据库：www.chinalaw.net
1. Borel § Boyd, Opportunities for and Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence in France for Use in Litigation in the United States, 13 Int'l Law, (1979).
2. David Meclean, International Judicial Assistance, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1992.
3. Gray B.Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 3rd ed. 1996.
4. Harry D. Tebbens, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment in urope, European Law Review,1993.
5. H.Steiner &. D. Vagts, Transnational Legal Problem preamble, 2d ed.1976.
6. Istvan Szaszy, International Civil Procedure, A.W. Sijthoff-Leyden, 1967.
7. John J.Cound, Jack H.Friedental, 1993 Civil Procedure Supplement, West Publishing Co. 1993.
8. Mary Kay Kane, civil procedure, West group, 1996.
9. Macdonald & Douglas M. Johnston, The Structure and Process of International Law, Nijhoff, 1983
10. Peter Hay, Conflict of Laws, second edition, West Publishing Co. 1994.
11. Amram, United States Ratification of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 67Apt. J. Int'l L. (1973)
12. Axel Heck, U.S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.1985-1986.
13. Adairdyer:Hague conventions on Civil Procedure, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 11,1995
14. Burger, Abuses of Discovery: Judges are Correcting the Problem, 20 Trial, No. 9, Sept. 1984.
15. Borel Boyd, Opportunities for and Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence in France for Use in Litigation in the United States, 13 Int'l Law, 1979.
16. Bermann, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Supreme Court: A critique of the Aerospatiale Decision, 63 Tul. L. Rev., 1989.
17. Cf. Thomas Reisenberg & Joseph Franco, New Procedures Cause a Ripple, Not a Wave Legal Times, Apr. 8,1991.
18. Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L.2000.
19. Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters,European Union Legislation, Official Journal L.174,2001.
20. David J. Gerber, International Discovery After Aerospatiale: The Quest for an Analytical Framework, 82 A.J.LL.(1988).
21. David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg.1987
22. Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law, 1988.
23. Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L.1981.
24. David Mcclean. Oxford, International Judicial Assistance, American Journal of International Law, January, 1994.
25. David H. Taylor, Should It Take a Thief?: Rethinking the Admission of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Cases, 22 Rev. Litig. 2003.
26. David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg.1987.
27. Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L.1983.
28. Gary Born, Fishing for Trouble in Foreign Depths, LEGAL TIMES, Apr. 8, 1991.
29. Harvery M. Sklaver, Obtaining Evidence in International Litigation, 7 Cumb. L. Rev., 1976-1977.
30. Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters-A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. 1981.
31. Harry Leroy Jones, International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform, 62 Yale L.J. 1953.
32. Harry J. O'Kane, Obtaining Evidence Abroad, 17 Vand. J. Transant'l L.1984.
33. Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7,1992.
34. James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L.2000.
35. Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. 1986.
36. John M.Fedders,Policing Internationalized U.S. Capital Markets: Methods to Obtain Evidence Abroad, 18 Int'l Lawyer, 1984.
37. Julian G Ku, Treaties as Laws: A Defense of the Last-in-Time Rule for Treaties and Federal Statutes, Indiana Law Journal, 2005.
38. Jurgen Basedow, The Communitarization of the Conflict of Laws under the Treaty of Amsterdan, Common Market Law Review,Vol.37,2000.
39. Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad:Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. 1985.
40. Marilyn A. Monahan, Waiver of Rights under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.7 Loy. L. A. Int'l &Comp.LJ.1984.
41. Michael J. Novara, The Demise of the Multilateral Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad: in re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 13 Brook. J. Int'l L. 1987
42. Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery-The United States Supreme Court has held that the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters provides optional procedures for conducting discovery in a foreign nation to which American courts may resort if, after a particularized comity analysis, they deem it necessary. 26 Duq. L. Rev. 1987-1988.
43. Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782. 37 Geo. Wash. Int'l L.Rev. 2005.
44. Platto, Taking Evidence Abroad for Use in Civil Cases in the United States-A Practical Guide. 16 Int' Law, 1982.
45. Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Soci ete Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 1988-1989.
46. P.F.Sutherland,The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.791 1982.
47. Prescott & Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law. 1988.
48. Randall D.Roth, Five Years After Aerospatiale: Rethinking Discovery Abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation Under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 13 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L.1992-1993.
49. Randall D. Roth, Rethinking Discovery abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law, Fall, 1992.
50. Robert J. Augustine, Obtaining International Judicial Assistance Under the Federal Rules and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters: An Exposition of the Procedures and A Practical Example : In Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract Litigation. 10 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1980.
51. Robert B. von Mehren, Discovery of Documentary and Other Evidence in A Foreign Country, American Journal of International Law October, 1983.
52. Tung-Pi Chen, International Judicial Assistance in China: Plodding into the Twenty-First Century's, 26 Int'l L, 1992.
53. William L. Wilks and Nancy E. Goldberg, Esq.,The Unsolved Problem in Taking Evidence Abroad: The Non-Rule of Aerospatiale. 7 Dick. J. Int'l 1988-1989.
54. The Inter-American Legal System:A Comparison of the Inter-American Treaties 1947-2001 http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/charter.html
55. Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version), Official Journal C 325,24/12/2002 p. 173 ELLIS Publications.
56. Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters.
1. Amici briefs, reprinted in 25 I.L.M. (1986).
2. Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct., 482 U. S. 533(1987).
3. Bain v. Whitehaven and Furness Junction Ry. (1850) 3 H. L. C. 1,19.
4. Boreri v. Fiat S.p.A., 763 F.2d 17,19 (1st Cir. 1985).
5. Boyse,Crofton v.Crofton(1882) 20 Ch.D. 760, at 769 per Fry J. (1969) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 49, CA.
6. Corning Glass Works v.Intemational Telephone & Telegraph, No. 76-0144 (D. Va. 1976).
7. Cooper Indus, v. British Aerospace, 102 F.R.D. 918, 920 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
8. Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance pour 1 e Commerce Exterieure (COFACE) v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 105 F.R.D. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
9. De Villeneuve v. Morning Jornal Ass'n, 206 F. 70(S. D. N. 1913 ).
10. Explanatory Report by Mr. Ph. W. Amram, http://www.hcch.net.
11. Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.
12. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1993,1997, 2001,2004).
13. Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 789, 796 (S.D.N.Y 1984).
14. Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 789, 796 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
15. Gulf Oil Corp.v.Gilbert, 330 U.S.501(1947).
16. Hudson v Hermann Pfauter GmbH & Co., 117 FR.D. 33, 39 (N.D.N.Y. 1987), See James
17. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113,163 (1894)
18. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235,253 (1958).
19. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee. 105 F.R.D. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
20. In re Anschuetz & Co., 754 F.2d (5th Cir. 1985).
21. Laker Airways Ltd.. 103 F.R.D.
22. Marc Rich & Co. A.G v. United States, 739 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1984).
23. Mahadervan v. Mahadervan (1964).
24. Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) (1804).
25. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D. 58, 161 n.5(E.D. Pa. 1983)
26. Pierburg GmbH & Co.v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. App.3d (1982).
27. Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1984.
28. Report of the United States Delegation to the Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law,8 Int'l Legal Materials, 1969.
29. Restatement (second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States.
30. Restatement (third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, 1988.
31. Restatement (second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States
32. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States
33. Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 1978,2 W.L.R. 81.(H.L).
34. Insurance Corp.of Ireland,Ltd.v.Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.694(1982)J
35. Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v. Parkinson (1892)1 Q.B.431,CA.
36. Radio Corp. of America v. Rauland Corp. [1956] 1 Q.B. at 649. See also Daniel Wotman, The Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., [1978] 2 W.L.R. 81.(H.L).
37. Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation M.O. L. Docket No. 235 (1977) 3 All E.R. 703; (1977) 3 W.L.R.430.
38. Re Application of Asta Medica, S.A., 981 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992).
39. Societes Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commercialles, S.A. v.Rogers, U.S. 197(1956).
40. Scarminach v . Goldwell GmbH, 531 N.Y.S.2d 188, 191(N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1988)
41. Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct., 482 U. S. 522(1987)
42. United States v. First Nat'l City Bank, 396 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968). United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Ghicago, 699 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983).
43. United States v. Looper, 419 F. 2d 4th Cir. 1969.
44. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. at 230.
45. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 840, 176 Cal. Rptr. 874(1981).
46. Wilson v. Church, [1879] 9 Ch. D. 552 (Cotton, L.J.)
47. 1978 Special Commission Report on Hague Convention.
② 美国各州实施相对独立的法律制度；英国国际私法将苏格兰和北爱尔兰与德国、法国等均视为是不同的法域；我国实行“一国两制”，大陆与台湾地区、香港、澳门特别行政区之间，均属不同的法域。
③ 韩德培主编：《国际私法》，高等教育出版社，2000年8月第1版，第447页。
④ 参见谢石松著：《国际民商事纠纷的法律解决程序》，广东人民出版社1996年6月第1版，第359-360页。
① 汤维建，《关于证据属性的若干思考和讨论》，载于《政法论坛》2000年第6期。
② 例如，我国《民事诉讼法》第63条规定证据的形式表现为：书证；物证；视听资料；证人证言；当事人的陈述；鉴定结论；勘验笔录七种形式。
① 大陆法系国家通常将证明责任分为主观证明责任和客观证明责任，普通法系国家则将证明责任分为提供证据的责任和说服陪审团的责任。主观证明责任是指在诉讼开始或者进行过程中的任何阶段，当事人对其主张的事实提出证据的责任。通常情况下把主观证明责任成为举证责任。客观证明责任和举证责任的区别在于，客观证明责任是一种客观规定的、当事人不能履行举证责任的不利后果的负担。举证责任是指当事人提供证据证明有利于自己主张的责任。参见张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年版；陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年9月版；陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月版；[美]克罗斯：《克罗斯论证据》；沈达明著：《英美证据法》等。
② 张卫平著：《诉讼架构与程式》，清华大学出版社1998年版，第250页。
③ 罗玉珍、高委主编：《民事证明制度与理论》，法律出版社2003年2月第1版，第9页。
① [日]谷口安平著，王亚新、刘荣军译：《程序的正义与诉讼》(增补本)，中国政法大学出版社2002年11月第1版，第40-41页。
② 同上，第41页。
③ David H. Taylor, Should It Take a Thief?: Rethinking the Admission of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Cases, 22 Rev. Litig. p630, 2003.
④ 同上。
⑤ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第8条第1款第2项：“救济请求应包括简明地陈述标明诉答人有权获得请求的救济。”
⑥ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第11条第2款第3项，主张或者其它事实论点应当有证据支持，或者特别指出如给与其进一步调查或发现的合理机会可能获得证据支持。
⑦ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第37条第1款第2项第2目，实施制裁所针对的行为是不能回答提出的问题，而不是不能陈述整个事实过程，除非提出的问题中含有特别制定的内容需要回答。
⑧ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第16条第3款第9项。
① 参见徐宏著：《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社2006年7月第2版，第21-22页。
② 例如我国《民事诉讼法》第263条规定：“请求和提供司法协助，应当依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约所规定的途径进行；没有条约关系的，通过外交途径进行。外国驻中华人民共和国的使领馆可以向该国公民送达文书和调查取证，但不得违反中华人民共和国的法律，并不得采取强制措施。除前款规定的情况外，未经中华人民共和国主管机关准许，任何外国机关或者个人不得在中华人民共和国领域内送达文书、调查取证。”该条关于取证的规定置于该法第29章“司法协助”项下。
③ (1994) Section 1782 says, in pertinent part: The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. The order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court.
① 海牙国际私法会议关于取证公约的释义报告中，通篇都使用了“领事取证”的措辞，没有使用繁琐的“外交和领事人员取证”的表达方式，也是基于该原因。
② 参见1963年《维也纳领事关系公约》第5条第10项。
③ 陈刚著：《民事诉讼法制的现代化》，中国检察出版社2003年4月第1版，第179页。
① 如法国、卢森堡等国规定外国领事官员向其本国国民取证时，须a、事先经过本国司法部的许可；b、只能在公众可接近的大使馆或领事馆的建筑内进行；c、要事先通知取证的时间和地点；d、实施取证后须向驻在国的中央机关提供一份附有译文的取证摘要等。
② 参见海牙国际私法常设局对海牙取证公约执行情况的统计资料。参见海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
③ 这些制裁措施包括：命令强制开示、强制答复，在法庭审理阶段不允许使用没有开示过的证据，认定没有得到开示的证据事实存在、视为要求真实，禁止违反者提出证据，驳回诉讼请求或作缺席判决。此外，还可以单独或同时命令当事人或其律师负担对方因此而产生的合理费用等。
① Istvan Szaszy, International Civil Procedure, A.W. Sijthoff-Leyden, p664, 1967。
② Harry J. O'Kane, Obtaining Evidence Abroad, 17 Vand. J. Transant'l L.p72, 1984.
③ 同上。
① 参见海牙取证公约第17条的规定。
② Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence A broad in Civil and Commercial Matters(1984), p25.
③ Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, European Union Legislation, 《Official Journal L 174》 27/06/2001 p.1.
④ 参见该规则第17条。
⑤ 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net..
① 陈刚著：《民事诉讼法制的现代化》，中国检察出版社2003年4月第1版，第199页。
② 参见谢石松著：《国际民商事纠纷的法律解决程序》，广东人民出版社1996年6月第1版，第380页。
① 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① 参见《中华人民共和国和波兰人民共和国关于民事和刑事司法协助的协定》第28条。
② 参见《中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦关于民事和刑事司法协助的条约》第4条第1款：由提出请求的缔约一方法院或其他主管机关通过被请求的缔约一方通知前来的证人和鉴定人……上述所述的通知应通过第二条规定的(中央机关)的途径转递。
① 何家弘、张卫平主编：《外国证据法选译》(下卷)，人民法院出版社2000年版，第1386-1387页。
② 刘立宪、谢鹏程：《海外司法改革的走向》，中国方正出版社2000年版，第57页。
③ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p974, 1988.
④ 海牙国际私法会议关于《海牙取证公约》问卷调查反馈资料，参见海牙国际私法会议网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① See Treaty on JudicialAssistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Australia and the Republic of Korea, Article 24 Taking of evidence by video link: 1. A court of a Contracting Party, with prior authorization of the Central Authority of the other Contracting Party, may take testimony from a person who is in the territory of the other Contracting Party by video link. 2. A request for prior authorization shall be made by a Central Authority of the Contracting Party where the court is situated to a Central Authority of the other Contracting Party.……4. (a) The Central Authority of the requested Contracting Party shall, before deciding whether to give the authorization, contact directly or through a court the person to give testimony to confirm that he or she voluntarily agrees to give testimony by video link.
② 参见2003年10月28日至11月4日召开的海牙国际私法会议关于取消外国公文书认证、送达公约和取证公约的特别委员会上的报告。
① 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
② 参见徐宏：《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社2006年7月第2版，第14页。
③ 1978 Special Commission Report, p1426. See Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p403, 1981.
① 1978 Special Commission Report, p1426. See Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p403, 1981.
① Rio 7into Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., [1978] 2 W.L.R. 81.(H.L).
② 参见点Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of EvidenceAbroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p401, 1981.
② 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，p1675，1985．
② See Peter Hay,Conflict of Laws, second edition, West Publishing Co. 1994, P. 155.但是在美国，普通法上的该项规则已有所缓和，一些州的立法规定，对于姊妹州的法律，法官可以通过司法认知(judicial notice)的程序而不是通过当事人举证的方式予以查明，这种做法在一些案件中也被推广应用到对于外国法律的查明过程。
③ 肖永平著：《中国冲突法立法问题研究》，武汉大学出版社，1996年版，第209—210页。
④ 在《解答》第二部分关于处理涉外经济合同争议的法律适用问题中规定：在应适用的法律为外国法律时，人民法院如果不能确定其内容的，可以通过下列途径查明：1)由当事人提供；2)由我驻该国的使、领馆提供；3)由该国驻华使、领馆提供；4)由中外法律专家提供。通过上列途径仍不能查明的，可以参照我国相应的法律处理。
⑤ 1988年实施的最高人民法院关于贯彻执行《中华人民共和国民法通则》若干问题的意见(试行)中对该问题作了这样规定：对于应当适用的外国法律，可通过下列途径查明：①由当事人提供；②由与我国订立司法协助协定的缔约对方的中央机关提供；③由我国驻该国使领馆提供；④由该国驻我国使馆提供；⑤由中外法律专家提供。通过以上途径仍不能查明的，适用中华人民共和国法律。
① 徐卉：《外国法证明问题研究》，载于《诉讼法论丛》第3卷，法律出版社1999年版，第557—558页。
② [英]J．H．C．莫里斯著《法律冲突法》，李东来等译，中国对外翻译出版公司1990年9月第1版，第40页。
③ 该条第1、2款分别规定：“缔约双方中央机关应当根据请求相互提供本国的法律情报，以及本国民事方面司法实践的情报和其它法律情报。如缔约一方法院在审理民事诉讼案件中必须适用缔约另一方法律，可以通过双方中央机关请求该另一方提供必要的情报。”
① 何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第208页。
② 参见白绿铉、卞建林译：《美国联邦民事诉讼规则证据规则》，中国法制出版社，2000年6月第1版。
③ 参见刘荣军：《美国民事诉讼的证据开示制度》，载于《民事审判方式改革与发展》，中国法制出版社1998
① Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2001).
② See Insurance Corp.oflreland, Ltd.v.Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.694(1982); In re Marc Rich & Co.,707 F.2d 663,670(2d Cir.),cert.denied, 463 U.S. 1215(1983), Jerry L. McDaniel, ExtraterritorialDiscovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of lnternational Law, Vol.7, 1992, p 174.
③ 同上。
① See Senate Report, No. 2392, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5201. See Peter Metis, International Judicial Assistance: Does 28 U.S.C. §1782 Contain a lmplicit Discoverability Requirement? Fordham Int'l L. J. 1994-1995.
② Act of June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §1782, 62 Stat.949 (1948). 原文如下: The deposition of any witness within the United States to be used in any civil action pending in any court in a foreign country with which the United States is at peace may be taken before a person……designated by the district court of any district where the wimess resides or may be found.
③ Act of May 24,1949,ch. 139，§93，63 Stat．103(1949)．该规定修改了关于外国的诉讼限于金钱赔偿和财产返还的限制性规定，只要求是一个司法程序即可，同时对证人必须居住(residing)在美国的条件予以删除，同时 将“民事”案件扩到到包括刑事案件在内的所有司法程序(judicialproceeding)。
① 按照美国学者和法官的论述，请求书在实质上讲，是一个国家通过它的法院，向其他国家发出的话语，通过被请求国家自己的法院，按照后者的程序，为请求国提供司法协助的途径和方式。而这些关于司法协助的请求，通常是和平时期基于国家之间的礼让，而制作、提出、接受和提供的。See De Villeneuve v. Morning Jornal Ass'n, 206 F. 70(S. D. N. 1913).
② See e.g., In Re Letters Rogatory Issued by the Director of Inspection of the Government oflndia, 385 E2d 1017 (2d Cir. 1967).
③ 参见何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第98页。
① 张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年4月第1版，第71页。
② 同上，第76页。
③ 在英国民事诉讼中，证据开示的英语是discloure，而在美国，diselousure仅指动议方主动开示己方的信息，以换取对方的discovery。但总的看来，在美国，开示程序被译作discovery，而非discloure。
④ 《补充规则》第31章的诉讼指引，明确规定了特定类型案件中需开示的特定书证。
⑤ 但有两点例外：一是在人身伤亡损害赔偿案件中，当事人可以申请令第三人，如受害者以前的医生披露有关文书；另二是如果第三人不仅仅是证人，而且还无意中混入他人的加害活动并发挥一定的作用，该第三人虽然不承担责任，但有义务提供全面的信息以披露加害者的身份。第二种例外规则又被称之为“Norwichi Pharmacal”规则，在Norwichi Pharmaca v．Commissioners ofCustoms and Excise [1974]A．C．133一案中得到确立，参见常怡：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版，第525页。
① 沈达明、冀宗儒编著：《1999年英国民事诉讼规则诠释》，中国法制出版社，2005年4月第1版，第231页。1999年4月26日，《民事诉讼规则》正式施行。
② P.F.Sutherland,The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England andAbroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p791 1982.
① See P.E Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.p795 1982.
② 同上，p792-795 1982．
③ in reBoyse, Crofton v.Crofton(1882) 20 Ch.D. 760, at 769 per Fry J.
④ (1969) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 49, CA.
① P.F.Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p792, 1982.
② Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions)Act 1975.
③ 1975年证据法第7节规定，根据《1925年最高法院裁判法》第99节，最高法院制定法院规则的权力事项包括：(a) as to the manner in which any such application as is mentioned in s. 1 above is to be made; (b) subyect to the provisions of this Act, as to the circumstances in which an order can be made under s. 2above; and (c) as to the manner in which any such reference as it mentioned in s. 3(2) above is to be made; and any such rules may include such incidental, supplementary and consequential provision as the authority making the rules may consider necessary or expedient.
④ 第70号命令于1976年得到了最高法院的修订。
⑤ Supreme Court Practice 1982. Pt.l,para. 70/1-6/2. 转引自: P.E Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and A broad. 31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p800 1982.
⑥ "criminal proceedings of a political character" See P.F. Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p804 1982.
① 原文如下: "international proceedings" means proceedings before the International Court of Justice or any other court, tribunal, commission, body or authority (whether consisting of one or more persons) which, in pursuance of any international agreement or any resolution of General Assembly of the United Nations, exercises any jurisdiction or performs any functions of a judicial nature or by way of arbitration, conciliation or inquiry or is appointed (whether permanently or temporarily) for the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction or performing any such functions.
② 上述三个条件详见1975年证据法第1节Section 1 of the Evidence 1975 states: Where an application is made to the High Court…for an order for evidence to be obtained in…(England and Wales) and the Court is satisfied—(a) that the application is made in pursuance of a request issued by or on behalf of a court or tribunal ("the requesting court") exercising jurisdiction in…a country or trritory outside the United Kingdom; and (b) that the evidence to which the application relates is to be obtained for the purposes of civil proceedings which either have been instituted before the requesting court or whose institution before that court is contemplated, the High Court…shall have the powers conferred on it by the following provisions of this Act.
③ P.F. Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in EnglandandAbroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p810-811. 1982.
④ Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v. Parkinson (1892) l Q.B. 431, CA.
⑤ See P.F. Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England andAbroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p808, 1982.
① [英]J．H．C．莫里斯主编，李双元等译：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》(下)，中国大百科全书出版社，1998年1月第1版，第1715页。
② [英]J．H．C．莫里斯主编，李双元等译：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》(下)，中国大百科全书出版社，1998年1月第1版，第1716页。
③ 参见常怡主编：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年12月第1版，第505页。
④ 参见何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第98页。
① 罗结珍译：《法国新民事诉讼法典》中国法制出版社1999年版，第4页。
② 参见沈达明编著：《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中国法制出版社，2002年6月第1版，第145页。
① See generally J. Merryman, The Civil. Law Tradition, (2d ed. 1985)
② C.Pr.Civ. arts. 736-38, see also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law 965, 1988.
③ Borel § Boyd, Opportunities for and Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence in France for Use in Litigation in the United States, 13 Int'l Law, p40 (1979)。
④ C. Pr. Crv. art. 184, 185, 186, 198, 207. see also Borel §Boyd, Opportunities for and Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence in France for Use in Litigation in the United States, 13 Int'l Law, p40 (1979).
① Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Republic of France in Support of Petitioners at 25, Aerospatiale (Supreme Court of the United States) (No.85-1695). See also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law 967, 1988.
② 这些事项包括：a)被调取的证据应当符合1970年海牙取证公约的规定，并且与缔约国指定的司法机关正在处理的案件有关。b)是否出席作证取决于自愿，不能作证的也不会在法院地国引起刑事责任；c)诉讼当事方同意或反对取证的理由：d)在取证过程中，相关当事方可以依法委托代理人；e)被要求提供证据的人员可以援引拒绝作证的特权或义务。
③ 参见法国加入海牙公约的声明和保留事项。See also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley，Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention，22 Int'l Law 968, 1988.
④ 参见法国加入海牙公约的声明和保留事项。海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
⑤ 同上。
① 何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第391页。
② 谢怀栻译，《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》，中国法制出版社，2001年版，第72页。
③ 参见谢怀栻译，《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》，中国法制出版社，2001年版，第104页。
① 德国民事诉讼法典第391条。转引自：Donald R．Shemanski，Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L,, 467,1983.
② Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., 19467,1983.
③ 德国民事诉讼法典第136、139和278条。亦可参见：Axel Heck, U.S.Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 241. 1985-1986.
④ See Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The lmpact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p468-469,1983.
① 《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》第364条。
② 《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》第363条2款。
③ 参见沈达明编著：《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中国法制出版社，2002年6月第l版，第324-325页。
④ 德国统一前，联邦德国曾指定了11个中央机关负责接收取证请求书，现在德国国内共有16个中央机关承担收发请求书的职责。参见：http://www.hcch.net/index_en.phla?act=authorities.details&aid=501
⑤ 第4条第1、2款规定：请求书应以被请求执行机关的文字作成或附该种文字的译文。但是，除非缔约国已根据第33条提出保留，缔约国应该接受以英文或法文作成或附其中任何一种文字译文的请求书。
⑥ 在德国的法院体制中，地区法院属一审法院，大致相当于美国的地区法院。
⑦ Platto, TakingEvidenceAbroadfor Use in Civil Cases in the UnitedStates-A Practical Guide. 16 Int'Law. p582-85, (1982).
① Plat-to, Taking Evidence Abroad for Use in Civil Cases in the United States-A Practical Guide. 16 Int'Law. p584, (1982).
② Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The lmpact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., 19472,1983.
③ 按照德国的国内法律，律师在征得法官的同意后，可以对证人进行询问和交叉询问。
④ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law pp976-977, 1988.
⑤ 参见本文第2章第2节中关于“审前程序的冲突”部分对“柯宁玻璃厂诉国际电话电报公司一案”的介绍。转引自：Coming Glass Works v. International Telephone & Telegraph, No. 76-0144 (D. Va. 1976).
⑥ Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p175, 1992.
⑦ "In re Forsyth." See also Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p177, 1992.
① Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, pl77, 1992.
② 参见该法第46条第1款规定。另，根据2001加拿大证据法第44条的规定，在外国法院于加拿大境内取证的规则中的法院是指加拿大各省的任何上级法院，法官是指这些法院的任何所有的法官。即，“court”means any superior court in any province; "judge" means any judge of any superior court in any province。
① 参见米尔建·R·达马斯卡著《漂移的证据法》，李学军等译，何家弘审校，中国政法大学出版社2003年9月第1版，第10页。
② 米尔建．R．达马斯卡著《漂移的证据法》，李学军等译，何家弘审校，中国政法大学出版社2003年9月第1版，第7页。
① See Harry Leroy Jones, International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform, 62 Yale L.J. pp515, 520 (1953).
② See Anschuetz & Co.,GmbH v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority, 54 U.S.L.W. 3084 (U.S. July 17, 1985) (No.85-98).
① Law No. 80-538 of July 16, 1980, J.O., July 17, 1980, p1799,转引自James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-A erospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p210, 2000.
② Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947), 转引自James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-A erospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p212, 2000.
③ See Axel Heck, U.S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p240, (1986).
④ Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. p139, 1986.
⑤ John M.Fedders, Policing Internationalized U.S. Capital Markets: Methods to Obtain Evidence Abroad, 18 tnt'l Lawyer, 91-92,1984.
⑥ Macdonald & Douglas M. Johnston, The Structure andProcess oflnternan'onalLaw, Niihoff, 1983, P. 425.
⑦ 同上。
① 王哲著：《西方政治法律思想史》，北京大学出版社，1988年，第105页。
② 参见邓成明：《论人民主权与公民的民主权利》，载于《广东社会科学》，2005年第4期。
① [日]谷口安平著：《程序的正义与诉讼》，王亚新、刘荣军译，中国政法大学出版社1996年第1版，第27页。
① [德]康拉德 茨威格特·海因 克茨著：《比较法总论》，潘汉典等译，贵州人民出版社1992年版，第482页。
② 在诉讼法律制度和证据法律制度中，程序公正和实体公正均不可偏废。笔者在这里提及部分国家偏向于实体公正，是相对其他国家而言。事实上，任何国家的立法者都在着力解决程序公正和实体公正的平衡问题。
① 参见，沈达明：《比较民事诉讼法》(上册)，中信出版社1991年版，第26-30页。
② 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第27、28、30—36条。
③ 参见美国联邦民事诉讼规则第条规定。另见见刘荣军：《美国民事诉讼的证据开示制度及其对中国的影响》，梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》第5卷，法律出版社1996年版，第420-425页。
① Marilyn A. Monahan, Waiver of Rights under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or CommercialMatters.7 Loy. L. A. Int'l & Comp.L.J. p414, 1984.
② 参见法国民事诉讼法典第三部分。转引自：Daniel Wotman，The Hague Convention on the Taking ofEvidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. 404, 1981.
③ Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p405, 1981.
④ 参见注释③。
⑤ 参见《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第26条第2款第1项。原文如下：Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(ⅰ)，(ⅱ)，and(ⅲ)．上述规则是2001年美国最高法院新修订的规则，在证据开示的范围上，本条规定与以前的规定没有本质上的区别——笔者注。
① Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p405, 1981.
② 即“fishingexpedition”，国内有关的词典和著述中将其译作“证据收集”或“审前侦察”，笔者认为“fishing expedition”意在反映美国的审前证据开示范围宽泛而不具体，近乎没有目标的、不加甄别的证据收集和证据开示行为，因此译作“撒网捕鱼”式的证据开示更为妥贴。
③ Marilyn A. Monahan, Waiver of Rights under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.7 Loy. L. A. Int'l & Comp.L.J. p414 1984.
④ Restatement (third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States ~ 442 reporters' note 1 (1988).
⑤ Gary Born & David Westin, International CivilLitigution in United States Courts 278 n.68 (1989).
⑥ Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p172.1992.
⑦ [1956] 1 Q.B. 618 (C.A.).
⑧ Radio Corp. of America v. Rauland Corp. [1956] 1 Q.B. at 649. See also Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. 406, 1981.
① The declaration made by the Kingdom of Denmark in accordance with article 23 concerning "Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents"shall apply to any Letter of Request which requires a person: a) to state what documents relevant to the proceedings to which the Letter of request relates are, or have been, in his possession, other than particular documents specified in the Letter of Request; or b) to produce any documents other than particular documents which are specified in the Letter of Request, and which are likely to be in his possession.
② Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., [1978] 2 W.L.R. 81.(H.L).
① In Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation M.O.L. Docket No. 235 (1977) 3 All E.R. 703; (1977) 3 W.L.R.430. P.E Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad. 31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. p813. 1982.
② P.F. Sutherland, The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory)for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. pp814-815. 1982.
③ Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. p408, 1981.
① F.R.G. Memorandum, see also Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p480,1983.
② 同上, pp 480-481. See also C. D. Meinhardt, "Neuere Entwicklungen im zivilrechtlichen Verkehr, Deutschland USA," erman-American Lawyers' Association Newsletter, p3 (July 1980).
③ 原文如下"The Embassy wishes to reiterate that it remains the formal position of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany that evidence for use in civil matters pending in the United Mates which is not being given by German citizens on a strictly voluntary basis, may only be obtained in the Federal Republic of Germany through the channels authorized by and in accordance with the provisions of the Hague Evidence Convention"。Falzon Brief, 23 I.L.M. at 418-19 (communication from the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany). See also Margaret T. Bums, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad:Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p295, 1985.
① Coming Glass Works v.International Telephone & Telegraph, No. 76-0144 (D. Va. 1976).
① See Julius B.Levine,Discovery: A Comparison between English and American Civil Discovery Law with Beform Proposals (1982).
② See Evidence Act 1995, Section 26: Court's control over questioning ofwimesses The court may make such orders as it considers just in relation to: (a)the way in which witnesses are to be questioned; and(b)the production and use of documents and things in connection with the questioning of witnesses; and (c)the order in which parties may question a witness; and (d)the presence and behaviour of any person in connection with the questioning of wimesses.
③ 这些州和领地包括the Northern Territory，Queensland，and South Australia。这种“limited discovery”有别于美国的“general discovery”。
④ See Wilson v. Church, [1879] 9 Ch. D. 552 (Cotton, L.J.)
⑤ Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p179.1992.
① "throw light on the questions at issue", See Donaldson v. Harris, (1973) 4 S.A.S.ft. 299.
② Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law,, Vol.7, p180, 1992.
③ See David J. Gerber, International Discovery After A erospatiale: The Quest for an Analytical Framework, 82 A.J.LL. p521, pp536-37 (1988),
④ Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p180, 1992.
① Protection of Trading Interests Act, 1980, Public General Acts, 1980, Pt. Ⅱ,ch. 11, at 243 (U.K.); Evidence Amendment Act, [1980] 1 N.Z. Stat. 34; Protection of Business A ct, 1978, No. 99, amended by Act of 1979, No. 114 (S. Afr.); Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act, 1976 Austl. Acts 1125, amended by 1976 Austl. Acts 1743; Uranium Information Security Regulations, Can. Stat. O.& Regs. 76-644 (1976); Business Records Protection Act, Ont. Rev. Stat. ch. 56, sect. 2(1) (1980); Law of May 24, 1965, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teii Ⅱ [BGB 2] 835 (W. Ger). 参见: David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale lndustrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p155, 1987.
② Law Relating to the Communication of Economic, Commercial, Industrial, Financial or Technical Documents or Information to Foreign, Natural or Legal Persons. art. 1, bis, translated in, 75 AM. J. Int'l L. 382, 383 (1981). See also Margaret T. Bums, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad:Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p296, 1985.
① See Response of the French Ministry of Justice to written questions of M. Roger Chinaud, Journal Official, Jan. 26, 1981, 转引自: Margaret T. Bums, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad:Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p296, 1985.
② 同上。
③ Axel Heck, U.S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J.Transnat'l L. p275. 985-1986.
④ Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance pour le Commerce Exterieure (COFACE) v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 105 F.R.D. 16 (S.D.N.Y.1983).
⑤ COFACE, 81 Cir. 4463-CLB, slip op. at 10 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 1983).
⑥ 有关该部分的条款原文: The court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source…whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
① Axel Heck, U.S.Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 277. 1985-1986.
② Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p182,1992.
③ 480 F. Suns. 1138 (N.D. Ill. 1979).
④ Foreign Antitrust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act, 1979.
⑤ Foreign Proceedings (Excess of Jurisdiction) Act of 1984.
① 1984 Act § 6(5).
② 357 U.S. 197(1958).
① David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p149, 1987.
② 同上。
③ United States v. First Nat'l City Bank, 396 E2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968). United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Ghicago, 699 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983).
④ 357 U.S. at 204-06. 转引自David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale lndustrielle Aerospatiale: nternational Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Corn.Reg. p150, 1987.
① 这五种因素是:(a) vital national interests of each of the states, (b) the extent and the nature of the hardship that inconsistent enforcemeat actions would impose upon the person, (c) the extent to which the required conduct is to take place in the terroory of me omer state, (d) the nationality of the person, and (e) the extent to which enforcement by action of either state can reasonably be expected to achieve compliance with the rule prescribed by that state.
② 参见: First Nat'l City Bank, 396 F.2d一案。
③ 691 F. 2d 1281 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1098(1981).
④ 105 F. R. D. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).也可参见: David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: nternational Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p152, 1987.
① 本案也是关于美国在《海牙取证公约》适用问题上的重要案例之一，本文将在后面的章节中详细论述。
② David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: nternational Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com.Reg. pp153-154, 1987.
③ See Restatement 3d of the Foreign Relations Law of the U. S., §442.
① Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, vol. 7，p183，1992．但是，实践中，英国在这方面就显得更为直接一些，这从英国颁布的障碍法的名称中便可以看出。
② 有关该部分的条款原文: The court, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source...whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
① See Graco. 101 F. R. D. at 527.
② David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N. C. J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p155, 1987.
① David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N. C.J. Int'l L. & Com.Reg. p138, 1987.
① 782 F. 2a at 125-126.
② 海牙取证公约第1第: In civil or commercial matters a judicial authority of a Contracting State may, in accordance with the provisions of the law of that State, request the competent authority of another Contracting State, by means of a Letter of Request, to obtain evidence, or to perform some other judicial act.
① Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235,253 (1958).
② John M. Fedders, Policing Internationalized U. S. Capital Markets: Methods to Obtain Evidence Abroad, 18 Int'l Lawyer, p92,1984.
① David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: nternational Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p154, 1987.
② Burger, Abuses of Discovery: Judges are Correcting the Problem, 20 Trial, No. 9, Sept. 1984, at 18.
③ 公约第12条规定，“只有在下列情况下，才能拒绝执行请求书：1、在执行国，该请求书的执行不属于司法机关的职权范围；或2、被请求国认为，请求书的执行将会损害其主权和安全。执行国不能仅因其国内法已对该项诉讼标的规定专属管辖权或不承认对该事项提起诉讼的权利为理由，拒绝执行请求。”
④ 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，at 1675．1985．
① Harverv M. Sklaver. Obtaining Evidence in International Litigation. 7 Cumb. L. Rev. p247. 1976-1977.
② 该公约于1899年5月25日在参加海牙会议的欧洲16国生效。
③ 1951年英国成为海牙国际私法会议的第一个普通法系成员，之后爱尔兰、美国、加拿大、澳大利亚等其他普通法系国家渐次加入海牙国际私法会议。
① 例如，公约主要规定了相互请求代为取证的方式，对领事取证仅以一条概括，对其他取证方式则未作规定，内容显得很简陋，难以适应实践的需要。而且，公约没有排除其他取证方式的采用，致使实践中其他取证方式滥用，不利于解决取证领域的冲突。
② Harverv M. Sklaver, Obtaining Evidence in International Litigation. 7 Cumb. L. Rev. p247, 1976-1977.
③ 这43个国家和地区分别为阿根廷、澳大利亚、白俄罗斯、保加利亚、中国、中国香港、中国澳门、塞浦路斯、捷克、丹麦、爱沙尼亚、芬兰、法国、德国、以色列、意大利。拉脱维亚、卢森堡、墨西哥、摩纳哥、荷兰、挪威、波兰、葡萄牙、罗马尼亚、俄罗斯、斯洛文尼亚、斯洛伐克、南非、西班牙、斯里兰卡、瑞典、瑞士、土耳其、乌克兰、英国、美国和委内瑞拉，另外还有四个非海牙国际私法会议组织的成员国巴巴多斯、科威特、塞舌尔和新加坡也参加了该公约。资料来源：海牙国际私法会议网站：2006年8月15日登陆，http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=82.
④ See Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Conventiotr, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p231, 278(1986).
⑤ See Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Ae rospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p737, 1988-1989.
① 参见海牙取证公约第23条。
② See David Meclean, International Judicial Assistance, Clarendon Press Oxford, p91, 1992.
① 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
① 参见Explanatory Reportby Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
② 英美法国家制作证言笔录的方式有别于大陆法国家，在英美法国家的证据调查过程中，对于证人的证言，采用逐字记录的方式，完全的再现了证人作证的情形，而大陆法国家录取证言时，往往由法官对证言做出归纳后记入庭审笔录。在域外取证中，有时会在制作证言笔录的方式上发生冲突。
③ See Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters.
① 出于国际社会的习惯性称谓，此处将“外交和领事人员”取证，统一称之为“领事”取证。
① Robert J. Augustine, Obtaining International Judicial Assistance Under the Federal Rules and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters: An Exposition of the Procedures and A Practical Example: In Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract Litigation. 10 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L.pp132-133 1980.
① See Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters.
① See Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters.
① 参见Explanatory Report by Mr．Ph．W．Amram，海牙国际私法会议官方网站：http://www.hcch.net.
② Adairdyer：Hague conventions on Civil Procedure，Encyclopedia of Public International Law，Vol．11，1995，pp659-662．转引自：段东辉《海牙取证公约述评》，载于《法学评论(双月刊)》，1998年第3期，第93页。
① 参见李双元著：《走向二十一世纪的国际私法》，法律出版社1999年8月第1版，第512页。
② 同上，第515—516页。
③ 这也正是通过国际民事诉讼解决纠纷与当事人自行解决纷争或通过仲裁解决纠纷的根本区别之一。
④ 同注释②。
① 参见沈达明：《比较民事诉讼法》(上册)，中信出版社1991年版，第31页。
② 参见常怡：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版，第505页。
③ 同上，第507-508页。
① 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，at 1675，1985．
② 法国新民事诉讼法第9、10、133、134、139、142、184-86、222、738-42条，转引自Pascal W．Di Fronzo，The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p752, 1988-1989.
③ Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Republic of France in Support of Petitioners at 25, Aerospatiale(Supreme Court of the United States)(No.85-1695). See also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p967, 1988.
④ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p966, 1988.
① Donald R. Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p472,1983.
② 按照德国的国内法律，律师在征得法官的同意后，可以对证人进行询问和交叉询问。
③ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law pp976-977, 1988.
④ 参见德国民事诉讼法典§393，160-164条和司法协助法典§86，转引自Pascal W．Di Fronzo，The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p752, 1988-1989.
⑤ The Convention is reprinted in 8 artindale-Hubbell Law Dictionary pt. Ⅶ, (1988) and at 28 U.S.C.A. §1781 (Supp. 1988), along with the declarations and reservations by various signatories.
⑥ 参见德国的声明和保留内容。
⑦ 参见德国批准公约的法律文件，转引自Donald R．Shemanski，Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p476, 1983.
⑧ Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p979, 1988.
⑨ 参见: Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Convvention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters(1984).
① Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law pp980-981, 1988.
② Foreign Tribunals EvidenceAct 1856 and the Evidence by Commission Acts of 1859 and 1885.
③ Evidence Act, 1975, ch. 34,§2(1)
④ Evidence Act, 1975, ch. 34, §2(2).
⑤ Evidence Act, 1975, ch. 34, §2(3).
① 参见英国加入公约的声明，转引自Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law 972, 1988.
② See Jerry, L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, 1992.
③ Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of The Judicial Conference of The United States, Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure(Sept.1990), see Joseph P. Griffin & Mark N. Bravin, Beyond Aerospatiale: A Commentary on Foreign Discovery Provisions, 25 Int'l Law. p331(1991). Also see Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7, p189,1992.
④ See Gary Born, Fishing for Trouble in Foreign Depths, Legal Times, Apr. 8, p29,1991.Thomas Reisenberg & Joseph Franco, New Procedures Cause a Ripple, Not a Wave, Legal Times, p29, 1991.
① John J. Cound, Jack H. Friedental，1993 Civil Procedure Supplement, West Publishing Co. p90, 1993.
② 参见白绿铉、卞建林译：《美国联邦民事诉讼规则证据规则》，中国法制出版社2000年第1版，第58页。原译文针对美国联邦民事诉讼规则的内容在翻译上有诸多“晦涩”之处，本文在引用时作了纠正。
③ 参见：www2.law.comell.edu.
① Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol. 7, p188, 1992.
① Law of December 22. 1977, Part Ⅰ, 3105, at 3106, see Donald R. Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p483,1983.
② Corning Glass Works v. International Telephone & Telegraph, No. 76-0144 (D. Va. 1976).
③ Donald R. She manski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p483, 1983.
④ Brief of the Federal Republic of Germany as Amicus Curiae. at 9-10, Aerospatiale (Supreme Court of the United States) (No. 85-1695).原文为: The Federal Republic of Germany has recently accelerated the procedure for the issuance of regulations which will permit the pretrial production of document when they are clearly identified, relevant and do not necessarily divulge business secrets. The government of the Federal Republic of Germany is endeavoring to issue the regulations before the end of 1986, after the necessary consent of the Bondesrcrt (Upper House of Parliament) has been obtained. This corresponds with suggestions made by the Government of the United States on the diplomatic level.
① 信函的原文: the Central Authority designated pursuant to article 2 of the Convention...does not object to transmission to the competent French court of a letter of request whose purpose is "pretrial discovery of documents" so long as such letter of request presents the following assurances: the requested documents must be enumerated in the letter of request and have a direct and clear nexus with the subject muner of the litigation. If goes without saying that the conditions generally provided in the Convention regarding the nature of the requesting authority and respect for the requested State's public policy must have been observed. Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p966, 1988.
② Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Republic of France in Support of Petitioners at 1-2, Aerospatiale (Supreme Court of the United States) (No.85-1695). See also Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p967, 1988.
① Additional Protocal to the Inter-America Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad
② Additional Protocol to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rotatory
③ 徐昕：《英国民事诉讼中现代科技之运用—兼评21世纪民事诉讼的发展趋势》，发表于http://www.law-walker.net/detail.asp?id=1998
④ 《跨国民事诉讼规则》首次发表于1995年《康奈尔国际法杂志》第30期，修改稿1998年发表于《德克萨斯国际法杂志》第33期。最近的一次修改为2001年4月12日。英文本见http://www.ali.org/ali/transrules.htm
① F. R. D. 503 (N.D. Ⅲ. 1984).
② See Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. p140, 1986.
① 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，at 1672．1985．
② 该次特委会为海牙国际私法会议关于取消外国公文书认证、送达公约和取证公约的特别委员会，于2003年10月28日至11月4日召开。特别委员会的116名代表，分别来自包括成员国、公约当事国、观察员国家的57个单位的组织。
① 参见1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，p1678，1985．
① Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p231. 1985-1986.
② Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Ae rospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p738, 1988-1989.
③ See Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Conventiotr, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p231, 278(1986).
④ See Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 231. 1985-1986.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. pp190-191,2000.
② Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p739, 1988-1989.
③ 同上. pp739-740.
④ Amram, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial matters, reprinted in United States: Message from the President Transittitting to the Senate the Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 12 I. L. M. p323(1973).
① C. Mc Cormice, Evidence §137 (1954). See also Earl Byron, Law Notes, 6 Houston. Law. Review. pp910-917, 1968-1969.
② See232 U.S. 383 (1914).
③ Donald R. Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L., p469,1983.
④ See H. Steiner &. D. Vagts, Transnational Legal Problem preamble, (2d ed.1976); see also Restatement (second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §138 (1965).
⑤ See Societes Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commereialles, S. A. v. Rogers,357 U.S. p197 (1956).
① 参见海牙取证公约第12条。
② Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p741. 1988-1989.
③ 同上，pp741-742．
④ Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 163(1894)(引用时有删节)．关于国际法的确定和解释问题，也可参见Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876，881-84(2d Cir.1980).
① See Axel Heck, U.S.Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p251. 1985-1986.
② 28 U.S.C. §1783 (1982).
③ Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §420，1988.
④ 公约第27条规定：本公约的规定不妨碍缔约国：(1)声明可以通过第二条规定的途径以外的途径将请求书送交其司法机关；(2)根据其国内法律或惯例，允许在更少限制的情况下实行本公约所规定的行为；(3)根据其国内法律或惯例，允许以本公约规定以外的方式调取证据。
⑤ 判词原文如下: We could perhaps read the Hague Convention, broadly, as a preemptive and exclusive rule of international evidence-gathering, binding upon us as the supreme law of the land...But we prefer to believe that the...Convention establishes not a fixed role but rather a m}rt}num measure of international cooperation; our reading of Article 27...encourages us to conclude that this is...what the ratifyingstates intended. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, etc. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 840, 859, I76 Cal. Rptr. 87A}, 885-86 (1981).
① See Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. pp253-254. 1985-1986.
② The Secretary of State's Letter of Submittal, 12 I. L. M. p323 (1973). see also Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p254. 1985-1986.
③ David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p143, 1987.
④ Pierburg, 137 Cal. App. 3d at 244, 186 Cal. Rptr. at 880.
① This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
② 11 Wall. 616, 624, 78 U.S. 616 (1870).转引自: Prof. William L. Wilks and Nancy E. Goldberg, Esq., The Unsolved Problem in Taking Evidence Abroad: The Non-Rule of Aerospatiale. 7 Dick. J. Int'l p75,1988-1989.
③ David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p143, 1987.
④ Julian G. Ku, Treaties as Laws: A Defense of the Last-in-Time Rule for Treaties and Federal Statutes, Indiana Law Journal, p322,. 2005.
① Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 840, 176 Cal. Rptr. 874 (1981).
② Volkswagenwerk Ⅱ, 123 Cal. App. at 859, 176 Cal. Rpir. at 885.
③ F. R. D. 503 (N.D. Ⅲ. 1984).
④ Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p302, 1985.
⑤ Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance pour le Commerce Exterieure (COFACE) v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 105 F. R. D. 16 (S.D.N.Y.1983).
① 《海牙取证公约》的官方报告员和起草委员会的联合主任。
② Laker Airways Ltd.. 103 F. R. D. at 50 n. 19.
③ Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U. S. (2 Cranch)64,118(1804).
④ Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. pp255-256. 1985-1986.
⑤ Amram. United States Ratification of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 67 Am. J. Int'l L. p104-105 (1973). See also Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p308, 1985.
⑥ Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p308, 1985.
① Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p308, 1985.
② See Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p255. 1985-1986.
③ 同上。
④ F. R. D. 503 (N.D. Ⅲ. 1984).
① See Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. p136, 1986.
② 同上。
③ 101 F. R. D. 521(N.D. Ⅲ. 1984).
① International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee. 105 F. R. D. 435 (S. D. N. Y. 1984).
② Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence A broad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J, p137, 1986.
③ Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. p138, 1986.
④ No. 80 Civ. 1911, slip op. (S. D. N. Y. May 30, 1984).
⑤ No. 80 Civ. 1911, slip op. at 5, (S. D. N. Y. May 30, 1984). See also Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p303, 1985.
⑥ 102 F R. D. 918 (S. D. N. Y. 1984).
① 754 F. 2d 602 (5th Cir. 1985). petition for cert. filed sub nom., Anschuetz & Co.,GmbH v. Mississippi River Bridge Authority, 54 U.S.L.W. 3084 (U.S. July 17, 1985) (No.85-98).
② 美国第五巡回法院负责运河区、路易斯安娜州、密西西比州、得克萨斯州等地上诉案件的审理。
③ 754 F2d 605(5th Cir．1985)．
④ 754 F2d 605(5th Cir．1985)．德国司法部的意见一并见于上述顾问意见。参见：Margaret T．Burns，The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p304, 1985.
⑤ See Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F. R. D. 58, 161 n.5(E. D. Pa. 1983); Pierburg GmbH & Co.v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. App.3d 236, 246, 186 Cal.Rptr. 876, 881-82 (1982).
⑥ 同上。
⑦ Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p271.1985-1986.
① Axel Heck, U.S.Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p264. 1985-1986.
② Michael J. Novara, The Demise of the Multilateral Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad: in re A nschuetz & Co., GmbH, 13 Brook. J. Int'l L. p139, 1987.
③ Michael J. Novara, The Demise of the Multilateral Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad: in re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 13 Brook. J. Int'l L. pp157-158, 1987.
④ 757 F. 2d 729 (5th Cir.1985) petition for cert. filed, 54 U.S.L.W.3084 (U.S.July 17,1985)(No.85-99).
① 757 F2d 731 (5th Cir. 1985).
② 同上。
③ 同上。
④ Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p304, 1985.
① Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p257. 1985-1986
① Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F. R. D. 58 (E. D. Pa. 1983).
② See Anschuetz. 754 F. 2d at 606.
③ Cooper Indus. v. British Aerospace, 102 F. R. D. 918, 920 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
④ Amram, United States Rat}cation of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 67 Apt. J. Int'l L. p106 (1973).
⑤ Boreri v. Fiat S. p. A., 763 F.2d 17, 19 (1st Cir. 1985).
⑥ Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p744, 1988-1989.
⑦ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p191, 2000.
① 464 US. 811 (1983), appeal dismissed, 465 U.S. 1014 (1984).
② 465 U.S. 1019 (1984), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 913 (1984).
③ 754 F. 2d 602 (5th Cir. 1985).
① See Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p745, 1988-1989.
② 参见Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct., 482 U. S. 522(1987).
③ See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United SEates District Court, 482 U.S.—107 S. Ct. 2542 (1987).
④ 该条规定，依据当事人或被要求发现的人的申请，并且在证明该中请人出于艮好的诚信与其它相关的当事人是徒步经法庭解决该争议而做出了努力，或者有相当理由的情况下，诉讼系属的法院或者与庭外取证有关的事项则由准备庭外取证地区的法院，可以依正义的要求做出命令以保护该当事人或被要求出示证据的人免于烦恼、困惑、压抑或过分的责任和花费。
① David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com.Reg. p147, 1987.
② 在美国，上诉法院对于下级法院的诉讼过程中的证据开示命令一般不予复审，但是考虑到本案所涉问题的“重要性、新颖性”和“易发性”，并且涉及到海牙取证公约、联邦民事诉讼规则以及法国国内的障碍立法相互之间关系，上诉法院决定予以复审。②此案最终得到了联邦最高法院调卷再审。
③ In re Societe Nationale.782 F.2d.
① Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery-The United States Supreme Court has held that the Hague Convention on the Taking, of Evidence A"broad in Civil and Commercial Matters provides optional procedures for conducting discovery in a foreign nation to which American courts may resort if, after a particularized comity analysis, they deem it necessary. 26 Duq. L. Rev. p779. 1987-1988.
② A erospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct., 482 U. S. 533(1987).
① 公约第27条规定：本公约的规定不妨碍缔约国：(1)声明可以通过第二条规定的途径以外的途径将请求书送交其司法机关；(2)根据其国内法律或惯例，允许在更少限制的情况下实行本公约所规定的行为；(3)根据其国内法律或惯例，允许以本公约规定以外的方式调取证据。
② 公约第9条规定：执行请求书的司法机关应适用其本国法规定的方式和程序。但是，该机关应采纳请求机关提出的采用特殊方式或程序的请求，除非其与执行国国内法相抵触或因其国内惯例和程序或存在实际困难而不可能执行。
③ Aerosnatiale, 107 S. Ct. at 2562.
④ See Aerospatiale, 482 U. S. at 568 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The dissent was joined by Brennan, Marshall, and O'Connor; JJ.
⑤ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p198, 2000.
⑥ Doster, 141 F. R. D. at 52 (citing Aerospatiale, 482 U.S. at 544).转引自James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp. L, p204, 2000.
① Randall D. Roth, Five Years After Aerospatiale: Rethinking Discovery Abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation Under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 13 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L. p445 1992-1993.
② Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery, 26 Duq. L. Rev. p781, 1987-1988.
③ Randall D. Roth, Five Years After Aerospatiale: Rethinking Discovery Abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation Under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 13 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L.p451 1992-1993.
④ Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale lndustrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p750, 1988-1989.
⑤ 同上。
① "In many situations the Letter of Request procedure authorized by the Convention would be unduly time consuming and expensive, as well as less certain to produce the needed evidence than direct use of the Federal Rules. A rule of first resort in all cases would therefore be inconsistent with the overriding interest in the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of litieation in our court.参见: 107 S. Ct. 2555 (1987).
② See Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery-The United States Supreme Court has held that the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters provides optional procedures for conducting discovery in a foreign nation to which American courts may resort if, after a particularized comity analysis, they deem it necessary. 26 Duq. L. Rev. 780. 1987-1988.
① 参见Aerospatiale, 482 U.S.
② Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. p747, 1988-1989.
③ 同①, 26Duq. L. Rev. 787. 1987-1988.
④ 同上, 26Duq. L. Rev. 788. 1987-1988.
⑤ Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery-The United States Supreme Court has held that the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters provides optional procedures for conducting discovery in a foreign nation to which American courts may resort if, after a particularized comity analysis, they deem it necessary. 26 Duq. L. Rev. p790. 1987-1988.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p204, 2000.
② James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. lnt'l & omp.L, p204, 2000.
③ Doster, 141 F. R. D.
① 117 F. R. D. 38(N.D.N.Y.1987).
② James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p202, 2000.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp. L, p206, 2000.
② See In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, 172 F. R.D Ind 295 309 (N. D. Ⅲ. 1997).
③ See Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 789, 796 (S. D. N. Y 1984).
④ Scarminach v. Goldwell GmbH, 531 N.Y.S.2d 188, 191(N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1988).
⑤ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul.j. Int'l & omp.L, p207, 2000.
⑥ See In re Uranium Antitrust Litig., 480 F. Supp. 1138, 1148 (N. D. Ⅲ. 1979).
⑦ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p207, 2000.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp. L, p208, 2000.
② 同上．p210, 2000.
① In re Application of Asta Medica, S.A., 981 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992).
② Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782. 37 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. p670, 2005.
③ Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782. 37 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev.. P672 2005.
① Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782. 37 Geo. Wash. Int'l L. Rev. pp682-683, 2005.
① 同上，p673 2005.
② See David J. Gerber, Extraterritorial Discovery and the Conflict of Procedural System: Germany and the United States, 34Am. J. Com. L. p787 (1986).
③ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p190, 2000.
④ See Harry J. O'Kane, Obtaining Evidence Abroad, 17 Vand. J. Transant'l L. p73. 1984.
① Pfund, U. S. Participation in International Unification of Private Law, 19 Int'l Law. p505 (1985). See also Axel Heck, U. S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. p278. 1985-1986.
② James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p194, 2000.
① Marilyn A. Monahan, Waiver of Rights under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.7 Loy. L. A. Int'l & Comp. L. J. p425 1984.
② 同上，pp424-425,1984.
③ 同上, p425,1984.
④ United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. at 230.
⑤ Report of the United States Delegation to the Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 8 Int'l Legal Materials p785, 806(1969).
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & Comp.L. p196, 2000.
② See28 U.S.C. §1782(1982).
③ Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS lnt'l L. J. p144, 1986.
① 参见杨弘磊：《涉外送达规定的协调与适用——兼评“奔驰”产品责任案中的法院送达》，人民法院报2002年7月8日版。
② 参见该规定第5条。
③ Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p310, 1985.
① 同上。
② James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p214, 2000.
① 参见黄进、何其生、萧凯编：《国际私法：案例与资料》(下)，法律出版社2004年12月版，第1400页。
① 王晓燕：《国际私法的利益平衡论》，载于《武大国际法评论》第4卷第108页。
② 参见Alaska Packers Association v．Industrial Accident Commission of California，转引自：邓正来著《美国现代国际私法流派》，中国政法大学出版社2006年3月第1版，第94页。
③ 柯里：《冲突法论文选集》，1963年第178页，转引自：邓正来著《美国现代国际私法流派》，中国政法大学出版社2006年3月第1版，第95页。
④ See Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence—Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law p940, 1988.
① See Prescott & Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law. p939, pp941-43 (1988).
② Marc Rich & Co. A.G v. United States, 739 F. 2d 834 (2d Cir. 1984).
③ Amici briefs, reprinted in 25 I.L.M. pp1475-1568 (1986).
① 782 F. 2d at 126.
② 782 F. 2d at 126. See also David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg. p140, 1987.
③ David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. p141, 1987.
④ Bermann, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Supreme Court: A critique of the Aerospatiale Decision, 63 Tul. L. Rev. (1989).
⑤ Hudson v Hermann Pfauter GmbH & Co., 117 FR.D. 33, 39 (N.D.N.Y. 1987), See James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L. p203, 2000.
① Cooper, 102 F. R. D. at 920.
① See Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad: Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. p306, 1985.
① James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L, p213, 2000.
① See David J. Gerber, Extraterritorial Discovery and the Conflict of Procedural System: Germany and the United States, 34Am. J. Com. L. p787 (1986).
② 同上。
③ James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp. L. p215, 2000.
① Bain v. Whitehaven and Furness Junction Ry. (1850)3 H. L. C.1, 19.
② 江伟，《中国证据法草案及立法问题探讨》，参见法制日报理论专刊第39期，2003年7月17日。
③ 高家伟，《中国证据法草案及立法问题探讨》，参见法制日报理论专刊第39期，2003年7月17日。
④ 李双元、屈广清、欧福永主编：《国际民事诉讼程序导论》，人民法院出版社，2004年1月第1版，第459页。
⑤ 例如在决定证据的可接受性问题上，需要考察证据调取过程中的一些程序性问题是否合法，在判断合法与否的的问题上，除了法院地法作为衡量外，证据所在地和取证地法律的程序规定，也是需要参考的重要因素。 关于国际民事诉讼程序的法律适用问题，请参见本章的后面的论述。
① 参见李双元、屈广清、欧福永主编：《国际民事诉讼程序导论》，人民法院出版社，2004年1月第1版，第459页。
② 同上。
① 参见何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第83页。
② 参见沈达明、冀宗儒编著：《1999年英国民事诉讼规则诠释》，中国法制出版社，2005年4月第1版，第231页。
③ United States v. Looper, 419 F. 2d 4th Cir. 1969. p1405. 1407n. 4.
④ 参见李双元、欧福永、熊之才编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京大学出版社2002年9月第1版，第570页。
⑤ 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§140: "Integrated Contracts (Parol Evidence Rule) Whether a contract is integrated in a writing and, if so, the effects of integration are determined by the local law of the state selected by application of the rules of §187-188."§141: "Statute of Frauds Whether a contract must be in writing, or evidenced by a writing, in order to be enforceable is determined by the law selected by application of the rules of §187-188."
① 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§138: "Evidence The local law of the forum determines the admissibility of evidence, except as stated in §139-141."
② 传统普通法最初认为当事人可能伪造证据，故未赋予当事人提供证据的资格。1851年《证据法》废止普通法有关当事人不能提供证据之规则，确立了当事人作为证人的资格。
③ 参见张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年4月第1版，第227页。
① 如《中华人民共和国律师法》第33条规定：律师应当保守在执业活动中知悉的国家秘密和当事人的商业秘密，不得泄露当事人的隐私。《中华人民共和国公证法》第23条规定：公证员不得有下列行为：(八)泄露在执业活动中知悉的国家秘密、商业秘密或者个人隐私。
② 民事诉讼法第70条规定：凡是知道案件情况的单位和个人，都有义务出庭作证。
③ 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§137: "Witnesses The local law of the forum determines what witnesses are competent to testify and the considerations that may affect their credibility."
④ [英]J．H．C．莫里斯主编：《戴西和莫里斯伦冲突法》，李双元等译，中国大百科全书出版社1998年版，第1715页。
⑤ [美]乔恩·R·华尔兹著：《刑事证据大全》，何家弘等译，中国人民公安大学出版社1993年第1版，第283 页。
① 参见常怡主编：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版，第521-522页。
② 何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版，第98页
① 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§139 Privileged Communications: (1) Evidence that is not privileged under the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the communication will be admitted, even though it would be privileged under the local law of the forum, unless the admission of such evidence would be contrary to the strong public policy of the forum. (2) Evidence that is privileged under the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the communication but which is not privileged under the local law of the forum will be admitted unless there is some special reason why the forum policy favoring admission should not be given effect.
② 所谓的第三国，即在证人既不属于执行地国、又不属于请求国国民的情况下，一般指的是证人的国籍国。
③ 张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年4月第1版，第7页。
④ 参见沈达明著：《英美证据法》、《比较民事诉讼法初论》；张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》；陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》等。
① 参见陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月第1版。
② 陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月第1版，第65页。
③ 陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年9月第1版，第225—226页。
④ 陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月第1版，第65-66页。
⑤ 陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年9月第1版，第225—226页。
① [德]汉斯·普维庭著，吴越译：《现代证明责任问题》，法律出版社1999年版，第519页。
② 陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7月第1版，第66页。
③ 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§133 Burden of Proof: The forum will apply its own local law in determining which party has the burden of persuading the trier of fact on a particular issue unless the primary purpose of the relevant role of the state of the otherwise applicable law is to affect decision of the issue rather than to regulate the conduct of the trial. In that event, the rule of the state of the otherwise applicable law will be applied.
④ [英]J．H．C．莫里斯著《法律冲突法》，李东来等译，中国对外翻译出版公司1990年9月第1版，第458页。
① 《Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws》§135 Sufficiency of Evidence: The local law of the forum determines whether a party has introduced sufficient evidence to warrant a finding in his favor on an issue of fact, except as stated in §133-134.
② 李双元、欧福永、熊之才编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京大学出版社2002年9月第1版，第288页。
① [英]J．H．C．莫里斯著《法律冲突法》，李东来等译，中国对外翻译出版公司1990年9月第1版，第459页。
② 参见该《意见》第一部分总则第1、2条规定。
③ Mahadervan v. Mahadervan (1964), P233, 242.
① 李双元、谢石松：《国际民事诉讼法概论》，武汉大学出版社1990年版，第386页。
② 只不过这种协调冲突的方式是一种间接的协调方式，或者说是一种源头上的协调而已，其效果跟域外取证领域中统一程序规则相比，不是十分明显。
③ Craig Osborne，Civil Litigation，Blackstone Press Ltd．，p157，1993．转引自张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年4月第1版，第2页。
① 屈广清著：《国际私法中的证据冲突规范初论》，载于《法商研究》，1997年第6期，第65页。
② 李双元、欧福永、熊之才编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京大学出版社2002年9月第1版，第569-570页。
① 李浩培著：《国际民事程序法概论》，法律出版社1996年版，第18页。
② 同上。
③ 李双元主编：《国际民商新秩序的理论建构》，武汉大学出版社1998年版，第415页。
④ 参见上注，第416页。
① 海牙国际私法会议于1992年开始起草“民商事管辖和外国判决公约”，试图在民商事诉讼的管辖权和判决承认与执行方面制定全球性的统一规则，但因各国纷争不止，几多周折，终未通过，最后就“协议选择法院”这一核心条款起草新的公约草案，该草案历经各国政府和国际组织等的提议、修改、谈判、洽商，于2005年6月30日结束的第二十届外交大会上通过，公约的名称正式确定为《选择法院协议公约》。
② [日]美浓部达吉著：《公法与私法》，黄冯明译，周旋校，中国政法大学出版社2003年第1版，第5页。
③ 同上。
④ 同上，第167页。
⑤ 1985年6月海牙国际私法会议常设局域外取证公约特别委员会第二次会议上的报告，24 Int'l Legal Materials，at 1675．1985．
① 同上。
② 李双元 谢石松：《国际民事诉讼法概论》，武汉大学出版社1990年版，第330页。
③ 同上。
④ 参见龚柏华编著：《美中经贸法律纠纷案例评析》，中国政法大学出版社1996年版，第218-220页。本案英文案例报告详见1992 WL 453646。
① See Gray B．Born，International Civil Litigation in United States Courts p289(3rd ed．1996)，转引自《诉讼法论丛》第7卷，法律出版社2002年9月版。
② Gulf Oil Corp．v．Gilbert，330 U．S．501(1947)．
③ 李双元、金彭年、张茂等编著：《中国国际私法通论》，法律出版社，1998年第1版，第584页。
① 参见龚柏华编著：《美中经贸法律纠纷案例评析》，中国政法大学出版社1996年版，第218-220页。本案英文案例报告详见1992 WL 453646。
① 见《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》263条。
② 按照《民诉法意见》320条规定，当事人在我国领域外使用人民法院的判决书、裁定书，要求我国人民法院证明其法律效力的，以及外国法院要求我国人民法院证明判决书、裁定书的法律效力的，我国作出判决、裁定的人民法院，可以本法院的名义出具证明。
③ 资料来源：外交部官方网站http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/wjb/zzjg/tyfls/tyfl/1154/t23622.htm。
④ 见该条约16—23条的规定。
⑤ 我国于1997年12月8日交存加入书，按照公约自交存加入书第60天即1998年2月6日对我国生效。
① 声明原文: in accordance with Article 23 of the Convention concerning the Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in common law countries, only the request for obtaining discovery of the documents clearly enumerated in the Letters of Request and of direct and close connection with the subject matter of the litigation will be executed.
② 这30个国家和地区分别为保加利亚、立陶宛、斯里兰卡、斯洛文尼亚、乌克兰、俄罗斯、白俄罗斯、科威特、罗马尼亚、荷兰、卢森堡、捷克、以色列、波兰、芬兰、德国、意大利、美国、斯洛文尼亚、法国、丹麦、西班牙、澳大利以、挪威、阿根廷、爱沙尼亚、瑞士、瑞典、拉脱维亚、希腊和塞浦路斯。参见海牙国际私法会议网站：http://www.hcch.net.2006年8月15日登陆。
③ 见最高人民法院《法办[2003]297号文件》。
④ 参见最高人民法院2001年8月7日通过的《关于内地与澳门特别行政区法院就民商事案件相互委托送达司法文书和调取证据的安排》，于2001年9月15日起正式生效。
⑤ 资料来源：司法部司法协助局。
① 资料来源：何其生著《域外送达制度研究》，北京大学出版社2006年2月第1版，第340页。
② 参见：徐宏，《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社，1996年第1版，第241—242页。
③ 本案发生在现行民事诉讼法实施以前，按照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法(试行)》第202条，外国法院委 托的事项同中华人民共和国的主权、安全不相容的，予以驳回，调查取证应当按照国际条约或互惠原则进行。
① 资料来源：中华人民共和国最高人民法院民四庭和外事局。
② 《美国联邦民事诉讼规则》第30条(b)款(2)项允许以录像方式进行录证。
① 参见李浩：《民事证据法的目的》，载于《法学研究》2004年第5期，第116页。
② 事实上，最高人民法院在《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第75条已经有类似的规定：“有证据证明一方当事人持有证据无正当理由拒不提供，如果对方当事人主张该证据的内容不利于证据持有人，可以推定该主张成立。”
① 参见董立坤主编：《中国内地与香港地区法律的冲突与协调》，法律出版社2004年版，第533页。
② Hilton v Guyot，159 U．S．113，163(1894)．
③ 参见马守仁：《美国对外国法院判决的承认与执行》，载于《中国国际法年刊》，中国对外翻译出版公司1984年版，第289页。
① 在Hilton v．Guyot一案中，格雷(Gray)法官引用先前的判例做了如下论述：“外国法院的(对人)判决，不论在普通法上还是衡平法上，其效力根据案件的当事人不同而有所区别。如果判决是有管辖权的法院针对同一国家的两个当事人做出的，那么它可以在任何地方都被认为是有最终的确定力。如果判决是应外国人针对本国国民提起的诉讼做出的，那么不论判谁胜诉，双方要受到判决的约束(不论是否承认与执行，笔者注)，如果判决是本国国民对外国人提起的诉讼，而且外国人胜诉，那么双方将同等地受到判决的约束。”上述观点还见之于下列判例：Ricardo v．Garcias，12 Clark & F．368；The Griefswald，Swab．430，435；Barber v．Lamb，8 C．B．(N．S．)95；Lea v．Deakin，11 Biss．23，Fed．Cas．No．8，154．
② Istvan Szaszy，International Civil Procedure，A．W．Sijthoff-Leyden，pp583-584，1967．
③ See Hilton v．Guyot,159 U．S．113，163(1894)．
④ 齐湘泉：《论法院判决、仲裁裁决域外承认与执行中的互惠原则》，载于《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2000年第3卷，第615页。
⑤ Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance：Revializing Section 1782．37 Geo．Wash．Int'l L．Rev．p685．2005．
① 参见谢石松著：《国际商事纠纷的法律解决程序》，广东人民出版社1996年版，第479页。
② 参见：《新加坡联合早报》，2006年1月18日。
① 参见: http://economy.enorth.com.cn/system/2007/01/16/001519811.shtml.
② 杨弘磊著：《中国内地司法实践视角下的纽约公约问题研究》，法律出版社2006年12月第1版，第373页。
① 李浩：《民事证据法的目的》，载于《法学研究》，2004年第5期，第108页。
① 参见赵生祥：《论从国外获取民商事案件证据的方式》，司法部司法协助局编：《司法协助研究》，法律出版社1996年版，第224页。
① 1983年我国外交部准许美国法院曾就美国钻井船“爪哇”号沉船案派员来我国调查该事故。参见赵相林主编：《国际私法》，中国政法大学出版社1997年4月第1版，第409页。
① 参见董丽萍、刘国明：《我国国际司法协助实践的发展和问题》，见http://www.chinacourt.org，发布时间：2002-09-13
② 参见《海牙取证公约》第36条的规定。
③ 2006年7月17日最高人民法院审判委员会第1394次会议通过了《最高人民法院关于涉外民事或商事案件司法文书送达问题若干规定》，该规定于2006年8月22日实施。
603 肖永平著：《肖永平论冲突法》，武汉大学出版社，2002年4月第1版，第157页。
604 江伟：《美国民事诉讼的真谛》之序言部分，[美]Stephen N．Subrin，Margaret Y．K．Woo著，蔡彦敏、徐卉译，法律出版社，2002年4月第1版，第5页。
1．赵相林主编：《国际私法》，中国政法大学出版社，1997年4月第1版
2．赵相林主编：《国际私法》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年9月修订版
3．赵相林主编、杜新丽副主编：《中国国际私法立法问题研究》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版
4．赵相林、宣增益著：《国际民事诉讼与国际商事仲裁》，中国政法大学出版社1994年2月版。
5．周忠海等著：《国际法学述评》，法律出版社，2001年7月版
6．李浩培著：《国际民事程序法概论》，法律出版社1996年版，第18页。
7．李浩培著：《条约法概论》，法律出版社2003年1月第2版
8．李双元著：《走向二十一世纪的国际私法》，法律出版社1999年8月第1版
9．李双元、屈广清、欧福永主编：《国际民事诉讼程序导论》，人民法院出版社，2004年1月第1版
10．李双元主编：《国际民商新秩序的理论建构》，武汉大学出版社1998年版
11．李双元、谢石松著：《国际民事诉讼法概论》，武汉大学出版社2001年版
12．李双元、金彭年、张茂、李志勇编著：《中国国际私法通论》，法律出版社，1998年第1版
13．韩德培主编：《国际私法》，高等教育出版社，2000年8月第1版
14．韩德培主编：《国际私法问题专论》，武汉大学出版社2004年1月第1版
15．沈涓著：《中国区际冲突法研究》，中国政法大学出版社2003年1月版
16．齐湘泉主编：《涉外民事关系法律适用法》，人民出版社2003年8月版
17．肖永平著：《肖永平论冲突法》，武汉大学出版社2002年版
18．肖永平著：《中国冲突法立法问题研究》，武汉大学出版社，1996年版
19．肖永平主编：《欧盟统一国际私法研究》，武汉大学出版社，2002年6月第1版
20．邓正来著《美国现代国际私法流派》，中国政法大学出版社2006年3月第1版
21．杨弘磊著：《中国内地司法实践视角下的纽约公约问题研究》，法律出版社2006年12月第1版
22．谢石松著：《国际民商事纠纷的法律解决程序》，广东人民出版社1996年6月第1版
23．徐冬根、薛凡著：《中国国际私法完善研究》，上海社会科学院出版社1998年第1版
24．徐冬根著：《国际私法趋势论》，北京大学出版社2005年1月第1版
25．徐宏著：《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社，1996年第1版
26．徐宏著：《国际民事司法协助》，武汉大学出版社，2006年7月第2版
27．李旺著：《国际私法》，法律出版社，2003年8月第1版。
28．刘卫翔著：《欧洲联盟国际私法》，法律出版社，2001年12月第1版
29．郑远民、吕国民、于志宏编著：《国际私法(国际民事诉讼法和国际商事仲裁法)》，中信出版社第2002年10月第l版
30．王世洲主编：《欧洲共同体法律的制定与执行》，法律出版社2000年版
31．董立坤主编：《中国内地与香港地区法律的冲突与协调》，法律出版社2004年版
32．沈达明、冀宗儒编著：《1999年英国民事诉讼规则诠释》，中国法制出版社
33．沈达明编著：《比较民事诉讼法初论》，中国法制出版社，2002年6月第1版
34．何家弘主编：《外国证据法》，法律出版社2003年5月第1版
35．何家弘主编：《新编证据法学》，法律出版社2000年3月第1版
36．何家弘、张卫平主编：《外国证据法选译》(下卷)，人民法院出版社2000年版，第1386-1387页。
37．刘立宪、谢鹏程：《海外司法改革的走向》，中国方正出版社2000年版，第57页
38．白绿铉、卞建林译：《美国联邦民事诉讼规则证据规则》，中国法制出版社2000年第1版
39．白绿铉著：《美国民事诉讼法》，经济日报出版社1996年版
40．陈刚著：《民事诉讼法制的现代化》，中国检察出版社2003年4月第1版
41．陈刚著：《证明责任法研究》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年9月版
42．张茂著：《美国国际民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社1999年版
43．张卫平著：《诉讼架构与程式》，清华大学出版社1998年版
44．张卫平主编：《外国民事证据制度研究》，清华大学出版社，2003年版
45．常怡：《比较民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社2002年版
46．杨良宜、杨大明著：《国际商务游戏规则：英美证据法》，法律出版社2002年9月第1版
47．陈界融著：《民事证据法：法典化研究》，中国人民大学出版社2003年7 月版
48．罗玉珍、高委主编：《民事证明制度与理论》，法律出版社2003年2月第1版
49．司法部司法协助局编：《司法协助研究》，法律出版社1996年版
50．王哲著：《西方政治法律思想史》，北京大学出版社，1988年，第105页。
51．[美]杰弗里·哈泽德米歇尔·塔鲁伊著：《民国民事诉讼法导论》，张茂译，中国政法大学1998年9月版
52．[英]莫里斯著：《法律冲突法》，李东来等译，中国对外翻译出版公司1990年版
53．[英]J．H．C．莫里斯主编，李双元等译：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》(下)，中国大百科全书出版社，1998年1月第1版
54．[美]米尔建·R·达马斯卡著《漂移的证据法》，李学军等译，何家弘审校，中国政法大学出版社2003年9月第1版
55．[美]克罗斯：《克罗斯论证据》；沈达明著：《英美证据法》等。
56．[日]谷口安平著，王亚新、刘荣军译：《程序的正义与诉讼》(增补本)，中国政法大学出版社2002年11月第1版
57．[日]美浓部达吉著：《公法与私法》，黄冯明译，周旋校，中国政法大学出版社2003年第1版
58．[德]汉斯·普维庭著，吴越译：《现代证明责任问题》，法律出版社1999年版
59．[德]康拉德茨威格特·海因克茨著：《比较法总论》，潘汉典等译，贵州人民出版社1992年版
60．[法]亨利·巴蒂福保罗·拉加德著：《国际私法总论》，中国对外翻译出版公司1989年版
1．杜新丽主编：《国际私法教学案例》，中国政法大学出版社1999年7月第1版
2．齐湘泉：《论法院判决、仲裁裁决域外承认与执行中的互惠原则》，《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社2000年第3卷
3．屈广清著：《国际私法中的证据冲突规范初论》，《法商研究》，1997年第6期
4．刘荣军：《美国民事诉讼的证据开示制度》，《民事审判方式改革与发展》，中国法制出版社1998年版
5．段东辉：《海牙取证公约述评》，《法学评论》1998年第3期
6．徐卉：《外国法证明问题研究》，《诉讼法论丛》第3卷，法律出版社1999年版
7．崔晓静：《证据制度的法律适用》，《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，2002年第5卷
8．徐昕：《英国民事诉讼中现代科技之运用一兼评2l世纪民事诉讼的发展趋势》：www.law-walker.net
9．董丽萍、刘国明：《我国国际司法协助实践的发展和问题》，http://www.chinacourt.org
10．崔婕：《证据收集制度》，《现代法学》，2002年第6期
11．何家弘、姚永吉：《两大法系证据制度比较论》，《比较法研究》，2003年第4期
12．赵生祥：《论从国外获取民商事案件证据的方式》，司法部司法协助局编《司法协助研究》
13．汤维建：《关于证据属性的若干思考和讨论》，《政法论坛》2000年第6期
14．邓成明：《论人民主权与公民的民主权利》，《广东社会科学》，2005年第4期
15．李浩：《民事证据法的目的》，《法学研究》2004年第5期
16．马守仁：《美国对外国法院判决的承认与执行》，《中国国际法年刊》，中国对外翻译出版公司1984年版
17．王晓燕：《国际私法的利益平衡论》，《武大国际法评论》第4卷
18．江伟，《中国证据法草案及立法问题探讨》，法制日报理论专刊第39期，2003年7月17日。
19．高家伟，《中国证据法草案及立法问题探讨》，法制日报理论专刊第39期，2003年7月17日。
20．杨弘磊：《涉外送达规定的协调与适用——兼评“奔驰”产品责任案中的法院送达》，人民法院报2002年7月8日版。
21．李双元、欧福永、雄之才编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》(上中下三册)，北京大学出版社2002年版
22．黄进、何其生、萧凯编：《国际私法：案例与资料》(上、下)，法律出版社2004年12月版
23．罗结珍译：《法国新民事诉讼法典》中国法制出版社1999年版
24．谢怀栻译，《德意志联邦共和国民事诉讼法》，中国法制出版社，2001年版
25．司法部司法协助局编：《中外司法协助条约规则概览》，法律出版社1998年版
26．中国国际私法协会主办：《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》，法律出版社出版
27．陈光中、江伟主编：《诉讼法论丛》系列丛书，法律出版社出版
28．何家弘主编：《证据学论坛》系列丛书，中国检察出版社
29．龚柏华编著：《美中经贸法律纠纷案例评析》，中国政法大学出版社1996年
30．国家法规数据库：www.chinalaw.net
1. Borel § Boyd, Opportunities for and Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence in France for Use in Litigation in the United States, 13 Int'l Law, (1979).
2. David Meclean, International Judicial Assistance, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1992.
3. Gray B.Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, 3rd ed. 1996.
4. Harry D. Tebbens, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment in urope, European Law Review,1993.
5. H.Steiner &. D. Vagts, Transnational Legal Problem preamble, 2d ed.1976.
6. Istvan Szaszy, International Civil Procedure, A.W. Sijthoff-Leyden, 1967.
7. John J.Cound, Jack H.Friedental, 1993 Civil Procedure Supplement, West Publishing Co. 1993.
8. Mary Kay Kane, civil procedure, West group, 1996.
9. Macdonald & Douglas M. Johnston, The Structure and Process of International Law, Nijhoff, 1983
10. Peter Hay, Conflict of Laws, second edition, West Publishing Co. 1994.
11. Amram, United States Ratification of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad, 67Apt. J. Int'l L. (1973)
12. Axel Heck, U.S. Misinterpretation of the Hague Evidence Convention, 24 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.1985-1986.
13. Adairdyer:Hague conventions on Civil Procedure, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 11,1995
14. Burger, Abuses of Discovery: Judges are Correcting the Problem, 20 Trial, No. 9, Sept. 1984.
15. Borel Boyd, Opportunities for and Obstacles to Obtaining Evidence in France for Use in Litigation in the United States, 13 Int'l Law, 1979.
16. Bermann, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Supreme Court: A critique of the Aerospatiale Decision, 63 Tul. L. Rev., 1989.
17. Cf. Thomas Reisenberg & Joseph Franco, New Procedures Cause a Ripple, Not a Wave Legal Times, Apr. 8,1991.
18. Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L.2000.
19. Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters,European Union Legislation, Official Journal L.174,2001.
20. David J. Gerber, International Discovery After Aerospatiale: The Quest for an Analytical Framework, 82 A.J.LL.(1988).
21. David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg.1987
22. Darrell Prescott and Edwin R. Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law, 1988.
23. Daniel Wotman, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L.1981.
24. David Mcclean. Oxford, International Judicial Assistance, American Journal of International Law, January, 1994.
25. David H. Taylor, Should It Take a Thief?: Rethinking the Admission of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Civil Cases, 22 Rev. Litig. 2003.
26. David Jamison Laing, In re Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale: International Conflict over Discovery of Evidence in Foreign Countries, 12 N.C.J. Int'l L.& Com.Reg.1987.
27. Donald R.Shemanski, Obtaining Evidence in the Federal Republic of Germany The Impact of The Hague Evidence Convention on German-American Judicial cooperation, 17, Int'l L.1983.
28. Gary Born, Fishing for Trouble in Foreign Depths, LEGAL TIMES, Apr. 8, 1991.
29. Harvery M. Sklaver, Obtaining Evidence in International Litigation, 7 Cumb. L. Rev., 1976-1977.
30. Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters-A Comparison with Federal Rules Procedures, 7 Brook, J. Int'l. L. 1981.
31. Harry Leroy Jones, International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform, 62 Yale L.J. 1953.
32. Harry J. O'Kane, Obtaining Evidence Abroad, 17 Vand. J. Transant'l L.1984.
33. Jerry L. McDaniel, Extraterritorial Discovery in Australia: Fishing for Evidence "Down Under", Florida Journal of International Law, Vol.7,1992.
34. James Chalmers, The Hague Evidence Convention and Discovery Inter Parties: Trial Court Decisions Post-Aerospatiale, 8 Tul. j. Int'l & omp.L.2000.
35. Joan M. Betti, Reconciling American and Civil Law Concerns in Taking Evidence Abroad: A Reevaluation of the Compromise From The Hague. 10 ASILS Int'l L. J. 1986.
36. John M.Fedders,Policing Internationalized U.S. Capital Markets: Methods to Obtain Evidence Abroad, 18 Int'l Lawyer, 1984.
37. Julian G Ku, Treaties as Laws: A Defense of the Last-in-Time Rule for Treaties and Federal Statutes, Indiana Law Journal, 2005.
38. Jurgen Basedow, The Communitarization of the Conflict of Laws under the Treaty of Amsterdan, Common Market Law Review,Vol.37,2000.
39. Margaret T. Burns, The Hague Convention On Taking Evidence Abroad:Conflict Over Pretrial Discovery, 7 Mich. YBI Legal Stud. 1985.
40. Marilyn A. Monahan, Waiver of Rights under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.7 Loy. L. A. Int'l &Comp.LJ.1984.
41. Michael J. Novara, The Demise of the Multilateral Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad: in re Anschuetz & Co., GmbH, 13 Brook. J. Int'l L. 1987
42. Michael P. Lehutsky, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad-Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Discovery-The United States Supreme Court has held that the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters provides optional procedures for conducting discovery in a foreign nation to which American courts may resort if, after a particularized comity analysis, they deem it necessary. 26 Duq. L. Rev. 1987-1988.
43. Okezie Chukwumerije, International Judicial assistance: Revitalizing Section 1782. 37 Geo. Wash. Int'l L.Rev. 2005.
44. Platto, Taking Evidence Abroad for Use in Civil Cases in the United States-A Practical Guide. 16 Int' Law, 1982.
45. Pascal W. Di Fronzo, The Hague Evidence Convention in the Aftermath of Soci ete Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 1988-1989.
46. P.F.Sutherland,The Use of The Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of Obtaining Evidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad.31 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.791 1982.
47. Prescott & Alley, Effective Evidence-Taking Under the Hague Convention, 22 Int'l Law. 1988.
48. Randall D.Roth, Five Years After Aerospatiale: Rethinking Discovery Abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation Under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 13 U. Pa. J. Int'l Bus. L.1992-1993.
49. Randall D. Roth, Rethinking Discovery abroad in Civil and Commercial Litigation under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law, Fall, 1992.
50. Robert J. Augustine, Obtaining International Judicial Assistance Under the Federal Rules and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters: An Exposition of the Procedures and A Practical Example : In Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract Litigation. 10 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1980.
51. Robert B. von Mehren, Discovery of Documentary and Other Evidence in A Foreign Country, American Journal of International Law October, 1983.
52. Tung-Pi Chen, International Judicial Assistance in China: Plodding into the Twenty-First Century's, 26 Int'l L, 1992.
53. William L. Wilks and Nancy E. Goldberg, Esq.,The Unsolved Problem in Taking Evidence Abroad: The Non-Rule of Aerospatiale. 7 Dick. J. Int'l 1988-1989.
54. The Inter-American Legal System:A Comparison of the Inter-American Treaties 1947-2001 http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/charter.html
55. Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version), Official Journal C 325,24/12/2002 p. 173 ELLIS Publications.
56. Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters.
1. Amici briefs, reprinted in 25 I.L.M. (1986).
2. Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct., 482 U. S. 533(1987).
3. Bain v. Whitehaven and Furness Junction Ry. (1850) 3 H. L. C. 1,19.
4. Boreri v. Fiat S.p.A., 763 F.2d 17,19 (1st Cir. 1985).
5. Boyse,Crofton v.Crofton(1882) 20 Ch.D. 760, at 769 per Fry J. (1969) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 49, CA.
6. Corning Glass Works v.Intemational Telephone & Telegraph, No. 76-0144 (D. Va. 1976).
7. Cooper Indus, v. British Aerospace, 102 F.R.D. 918, 920 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
8. Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance pour 1 e Commerce Exterieure (COFACE) v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 105 F.R.D. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
9. De Villeneuve v. Morning Jornal Ass'n, 206 F. 70(S. D. N. 1913 ).
10. Explanatory Report by Mr. Ph. W. Amram, http://www.hcch.net.
11. Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.
12. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1993,1997, 2001,2004).
13. Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 789, 796 (S.D.N.Y 1984).
14. Garpeg, Ltd. v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 789, 796 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
15. Gulf Oil Corp.v.Gilbert, 330 U.S.501(1947).
16. Hudson v Hermann Pfauter GmbH & Co., 117 FR.D. 33, 39 (N.D.N.Y. 1987), See James
17. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113,163 (1894)
18. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235,253 (1958).
19. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee. 105 F.R.D. 435 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
20. In re Anschuetz & Co., 754 F.2d (5th Cir. 1985).
21. Laker Airways Ltd.. 103 F.R.D.
22. Marc Rich & Co. A.G v. United States, 739 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1984).
23. Mahadervan v. Mahadervan (1964).
24. Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) (1804).
25. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D. 58, 161 n.5(E.D. Pa. 1983)
26. Pierburg GmbH & Co.v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. App.3d (1982).
27. Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1984.
28. Report of the United States Delegation to the Eleventh Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law,8 Int'l Legal Materials, 1969.
29. Restatement (second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States.
30. Restatement (third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, 1988.
31. Restatement (second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States
32. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States
33. Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 1978,2 W.L.R. 81.(H.L).
34. Insurance Corp.of Ireland,Ltd.v.Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.694(1982)J
35. Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v. Parkinson (1892)1 Q.B.431,CA.
36. Radio Corp. of America v. Rauland Corp. [1956] 1 Q.B. at 649. See also Daniel Wotman, The Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., [1978] 2 W.L.R. 81.(H.L).
37. Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation M.O. L. Docket No. 235 (1977) 3 All E.R. 703; (1977) 3 W.L.R.430.
38. Re Application of Asta Medica, S.A., 981 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1992).
39. Societes Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commercialles, S.A. v.Rogers, U.S. 197(1956).
40. Scarminach v . Goldwell GmbH, 531 N.Y.S.2d 188, 191(N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1988)
41. Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Ct., 482 U. S. 522(1987)
42. United States v. First Nat'l City Bank, 396 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968). United States v. First Nat'l Bank of Ghicago, 699 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983).
43. United States v. Looper, 419 F. 2d 4th Cir. 1969.
44. United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. at 230.
45. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 840, 176 Cal. Rptr. 874(1981).
46. Wilson v. Church, [1879] 9 Ch. D. 552 (Cotton, L.J.)
47. 1978 Special Commission Report on Hague Convention.