结果选择理论研究
|
摘要
本论以新兴的法律选择与适用理论——结果选择理论——为研究对象。它从全新的角度解决法律冲突，鲜明地有别于传统国际私法理论的“法域选择”的特质。自20世纪中期出现以来，该理论对不少国家国际私法的发展产生了深刻影响，并衍生出多种新学说、新规则，效力遍及合同、侵权、婚姻家庭、继承等诸领域。国内、外学界对该理论也日益重视，但主要重在点状突破，较少整体性研究，且对该理论在实践中运用效果的观察、评述也并不多见。
本文不仅从学理角度深入研究该理论，还以涉外产品责任领域为视角对其在立法和司法实践中的运用状况进行了细致的考察。以“美国冲突法革命”为契机，学界对传统冲突理论与规则的僵化、机械、无法顾及个案公正的特质多有批判。在对此加以评介的基础上，本文进而探讨国际私法学科新兴的结果选择理论，它灵活而有弹性，且以实现公正判决为导向，具有鲜明的反传统性。该理论在美国及大陆法系国家呈现不同的形式。当代美国冲突法学界出现了诸多灵活的法律选择理论，如“政府利益分析说”、“较好的法律说”、“最密切联系原则”等。它们将对公正判决结果的追求融入法律选择和适用的过程，各有侧重地实践了结果选择理论。这些学说在包括涉外产品责任在内的多个领域，得到了美国法院的踊跃尝试，并积累了不少经验与教训。在20世纪中后期兴起的国际私法法典化进程中，大陆法系国家也积极体行结果选择理论，制定了不少体现该理论思想内核的冲突规范，比如结果选择规则和例外条款。这类规则目前虽数量有限，但已被运用到涉外产品责任、跨国雇佣合同、跨国扶养关系、涉外婚姻关系的成立与解除等多种法律关系的法律冲突的解决中，规模不容小觑。
本论的核心问题和研究重心集中在以下方面：其一，对结果选择理论在当代国际私法领域出现、兴起、发展的状况加以宏观把握。本文结合美国新兴的学说以及数十个国家的法规，整体考察体现结果选择理论的多种实践，既分析了其间的差异，亦总结出该理论区别于传统冲突法理论或规则之处。其二，以涉外产品责任案件中的准据法选择和适用为视角，逐一考察了多种体现结果选择理论的学说及规范在实际运用中的效果。
The Thesis studies on the newly rising choice-of-law theory, the result-selective theory. It isdistinctively differentiate from the traditional private international law theories, which has thecharacteristic as “jurisdiction-selecting”. Since its birth in the middle of the20thcentury, theresult-selective theory has deeply influenced the development of conflicts law and produced lotsof new theories and rules in many fields, such as contracts, torts, matrimony inheritance and so on.It has gained more and more attention in the world’s academy. However, most of the presentstudies focus on individual points and are in lack of integrity.
This thesis not only studies in-depth the result-selective theory from theoretical point of view,but also using the field of international product liability as an example to presents a detaileddescription of legislation and judicial practice of it. Utilizing the “American Conflict of LawsRevolution" as an opportunity, the academy criticized the traditional conflict theories and rules fortheir rigidity, mechanism, and the characteristic as not taking into account of individual justice. Onthe basis of the above Review, this thesis then explores the recently emerging result-selectivetheory. It is obviously anti-traditional because of flexibility and aims at achieving just judgment.This theory takes different forms in the U.S.A. and civil-law countries. In modern Americanconflicts law field, some flexible choice of law theory have formed and been fully studied, such as"the Government Interest Analysis Theory","Better Law Theory" and “The Most SignificantRelationship Theory". They include the pursuit of fair verdicts into the process of law-choosingand applying process and practice the result-selective theory from various angels. And thosetheories have been adopted enthusiastically by the U.S. courts in a number of areas, including theforeign product liability cases. In the debts of that, a lot of experience and lessons haveaccumulated. While in civil-law countries, in the late20th century along with the codificationprocess, some conflict rules reflecting the ideological core of the result-selective theory haveappeared, such as "results selective rules " and "escape clause". Such rules at present, although ina limited number, but have been applied to a wide scope of legal relationships, such asinternational product liability, cross-border employment contracts, transnational dependencyrelations, transnational matrimony and so on. Besides introduction of the legislation practice, thisthesis also discusses some relevant issues, for example, the specialty about these norms and theeffects of them.
本文不仅从学理角度深入研究该理论，还以涉外产品责任领域为视角对其在立法和司法实践中的运用状况进行了细致的考察。以“美国冲突法革命”为契机，学界对传统冲突理论与规则的僵化、机械、无法顾及个案公正的特质多有批判。在对此加以评介的基础上，本文进而探讨国际私法学科新兴的结果选择理论，它灵活而有弹性，且以实现公正判决为导向，具有鲜明的反传统性。该理论在美国及大陆法系国家呈现不同的形式。当代美国冲突法学界出现了诸多灵活的法律选择理论，如“政府利益分析说”、“较好的法律说”、“最密切联系原则”等。它们将对公正判决结果的追求融入法律选择和适用的过程，各有侧重地实践了结果选择理论。这些学说在包括涉外产品责任在内的多个领域，得到了美国法院的踊跃尝试，并积累了不少经验与教训。在20世纪中后期兴起的国际私法法典化进程中，大陆法系国家也积极体行结果选择理论，制定了不少体现该理论思想内核的冲突规范，比如结果选择规则和例外条款。这类规则目前虽数量有限，但已被运用到涉外产品责任、跨国雇佣合同、跨国扶养关系、涉外婚姻关系的成立与解除等多种法律关系的法律冲突的解决中，规模不容小觑。
本论的核心问题和研究重心集中在以下方面：其一，对结果选择理论在当代国际私法领域出现、兴起、发展的状况加以宏观把握。本文结合美国新兴的学说以及数十个国家的法规，整体考察体现结果选择理论的多种实践，既分析了其间的差异，亦总结出该理论区别于传统冲突法理论或规则之处。其二，以涉外产品责任案件中的准据法选择和适用为视角，逐一考察了多种体现结果选择理论的学说及规范在实际运用中的效果。
The Thesis studies on the newly rising choice-of-law theory, the result-selective theory. It isdistinctively differentiate from the traditional private international law theories, which has thecharacteristic as “jurisdiction-selecting”. Since its birth in the middle of the20thcentury, theresult-selective theory has deeply influenced the development of conflicts law and produced lotsof new theories and rules in many fields, such as contracts, torts, matrimony inheritance and so on.It has gained more and more attention in the world’s academy. However, most of the presentstudies focus on individual points and are in lack of integrity.
This thesis not only studies in-depth the result-selective theory from theoretical point of view,but also using the field of international product liability as an example to presents a detaileddescription of legislation and judicial practice of it. Utilizing the “American Conflict of LawsRevolution" as an opportunity, the academy criticized the traditional conflict theories and rules fortheir rigidity, mechanism, and the characteristic as not taking into account of individual justice. Onthe basis of the above Review, this thesis then explores the recently emerging result-selectivetheory. It is obviously anti-traditional because of flexibility and aims at achieving just judgment.This theory takes different forms in the U.S.A. and civil-law countries. In modern Americanconflicts law field, some flexible choice of law theory have formed and been fully studied, such as"the Government Interest Analysis Theory","Better Law Theory" and “The Most SignificantRelationship Theory". They include the pursuit of fair verdicts into the process of law-choosingand applying process and practice the result-selective theory from various angels. And thosetheories have been adopted enthusiastically by the U.S. courts in a number of areas, including theforeign product liability cases. In the debts of that, a lot of experience and lessons haveaccumulated. While in civil-law countries, in the late20th century along with the codificationprocess, some conflict rules reflecting the ideological core of the result-selective theory haveappeared, such as "results selective rules " and "escape clause". Such rules at present, although ina limited number, but have been applied to a wide scope of legal relationships, such asinternational product liability, cross-border employment contracts, transnational dependencyrelations, transnational matrimony and so on. Besides introduction of the legislation practice, thisthesis also discusses some relevant issues, for example, the specialty about these norms and theeffects of them.
引文
①Joseph Morse,“Characterization: Shadow or Substance”, Columbia Law Review, Vol.49, No.8(Dec.,1949),p.1029.根据其他学者的考证，这是“结果选择”一词较早地出现，Luther L. McDougal, III&Robert L. Felix&Ralph U. Whitten, American Conflicts Law (5thedition), Transnational Publishers, Inc., note2, p.331.
①Cavers,“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, Harv. L. Rev. Vol.47, P.173.; Cook,“The Logical andLegal Bases of the Conflict of Laws”, Yale L. J., Vol.33, P.457.
②Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice (Special Edition), N.Y.:Transnational Publishers,2005.
③Symeon C. Symeonides,“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, Willamette L. Vol.46, Rev.1(2009-2010).
④Gerhard Kegel.“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers”,The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.27, No.4,1979, pp.615-633.
⑤Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, The American Journal ofComparative Law, Vol.30, No.1,1982.
⑥Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, Recueil des Cours, Vol.232, No.1,1992.
⑦该年会的五个基本议题包括：多边主义方法、单边主义方法和实体法方法的对抗与共存，法律确定性和灵活性之间的紧张关系、“法域选择规则”和“内容中心”规则和方法之间的对抗与共存、“冲突正义”和“实质正义”之间的困境、实现国际统一性的目标和保护国家利益的需要之间的冲突。见Private International Lawat the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London,Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999.
⑧宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2004年版。
①沈涓：《法官裁量对结果选择的实现之认识》，赵建文主编：《国际法研究》（第四卷），北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2011年版。
②Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, Duke University Press,1963.
③Brainerd Currie,“Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws”, Duke Law Journal, Vol.1959, No.2,1959, pp.171-181.
④Brainerd Currie,“The Disinterested Third State”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.28, No.4,1963, pp.754-794.
⑤格哈德·可格尔著；萧凯、邹国勇译：《冲突法的危机》武汉：武汉大学出版社，2008年版。
⑥Juenger.“Govermental Interests—Real and Spurious—in Multistate Disputes”, U. C. Davis L. Rev. Vol.21(1987-1988), p.515.
⑦Juenger.“Choice-of-Law in Interstate Torts”, U. Pa. L. Rev. Vol.118, No.2(1969), p.202.
⑧Robert A. Sedler.“Interest Analysis as the Preferred Approach to Choice of Law: A Response to ProfessorBrilmayer's ‘Foundational Attack’”, Ohio St. L.J, Vol.46(1985), p.491.
⑨Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, N. Y. U. L. Rev, Vol.41, p.267.
⑩Robert A. Leflar,“Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing considerations”, Califorina Law Review, Vol.54,No.4.
11Stanley E. Cox,“Applying the Best Law”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.9; Ralph U. Whitten:“Improving the ‘BetterLaw’ System: Some Impudent Suggestions for Reordering and Reformulating Leflar's Choice-InfluencingConsiderations”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.177.; Robert L. Felix,“Leflar in the Courts: Judicial Adoptions ofChoice-Influencing Considerations”, Ark. L. Rev, Vol.52, p.35; Gary J. Simson,“Resisting the Allure of BetterRule of Law”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.141.; Luther L. McDougal III,“Leflar's Choice-Influencing Considerations:Revisited, Refined and Reaffirmed”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.105.
12Elliott E. Cheatham; Willis L. M. Reese.“Choice of the Applicable Law”, Columbia Law Review, Vol.52, No.8,1952, pp.959-982.
13The American Law Institute. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d, As Adopted and Promulgatedby the American Law Institute as Washington, D. C.(May23,1969), St. Pual, Minn.: American Law InstitutePublishers,1971.
①Willis L. M Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.28,No.4, p.681.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A Mixed Blessing”,Md. L. Rev, Vol.56,1997, p.1248.
③William L. Reynolds,“Legal Process And Choice of Law”, Md. L. Rev. Vol.56, p.1371.
④Luther L. McDougal III, Robert L. Felix, Ralph U. Whitten, American Conflicts Law (5thEdition), pp.467-472.
⑤Russell J. Weintraub.“‘At least, To Do No Harm’: Does the Second Restatement of Conflicts Meet theHippocratic Standard?”, Md. L. Rev, Vol.56, p.1284.
⑥Friedrich K. Juenger.“A Third Conflicts Restatement?”, Ind. L. J., Vol.75, pp.406-407.
⑦Louise Weinberg.“A Structural Revision of the Conflicts Restatement”, Ind. L.J., Vol.75, pp.478-480.
⑧582NW2d866(Mich. App.1998).
⑨27F.3d731.
①51S. W.3d643.
②Symeonides C. Symeonides. The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, TheNeverlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006.
③Symeon C. Symeonides.“The Need for a Third Conflicts Restatement”, Ind. L.J., Vol.75,2000, p.437.
④Lea Brilmayer.“The role of substantive and choice of law policies in the formation and application of choice oflaw rules”, Recueil des cours, Vol.252,1995.
⑤James A. Meschewski.“Choice of Law in Alaska: A Survival Guide for Using the Second Restatement”, AlaskaL. Rev. Vol.16,1999, p.1.
⑥Phaedon John Kozyris.“Conflicts Theory for Dummies: Apres le Deluge, Where Are We On ProducersLiability?”, La. L. Rev. Vol.60, p.1161; P. John Kozyris,“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally,What Should Be Done About Choice of Law for Products Liability?”, Ohio St. L.J., Vol.46, p.569.
⑦Rosenberg.“Two Views on Kell v. Henderson, An Opinion for the New York Court of Appeals”, Colum. L. Rev.Vol.67, p.459.
⑧Arthur T. von Mehren.“Some Reflections on Codification and Case Law in the Twenty-First Century”, U.C.Davis L. Rev., Vol.31,1998, p.659.
⑨R. Leflar, L. McDougal III&R. Felix, American Conflicts Law (4thed.), Lexis Law Publisher,1986, p.269.
⑩Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition), U.S.: WEST. p.58.
11Russell J. Weintraub,“SYMPOSIUM: Choice of Law for Products Liability: Demagnetizing the United StatesForum”, Ark. L. Rev., Vol.52, p.157.
12Courtland H. Peterson,“ARTICLE: SECTION II: Private International Law at the End of the Twentieth Century:Progress or Regress?”, Am. J. Comp. L. Vol.46, p.197.
13Kurt Siehr,“Swiss Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress or Regress?”, XVthInternational Congress of Comparative Law, The Hague-London-Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999, pp.398-399.
14Frank Vischer, General course on private international law, pp.116-125.
①Gunther Kuhne.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, California Law Review, Vol.60, No.1,1972.
②J. J. Fawcett,“Products Liability in Private International Law: A European Perspective”, Recueil des Cours,Vol.238, pp.57-246.
③Arthur Taylor von Mehren,“Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role and Significance inContemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.88, No.2,1974; Shimon A. Rosenfeld,“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization of State’s Interests”, Hofstra L. Rev. Vol.15,p.139; Michael I. Krauss.“Product Liability and Game Theory: One More Trip to the Choice-of-Law Well”, BYUL. Rev.,2002, p.759; Thomas Kadner Graziano,“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of theLaw in Europe and Current Proposals for Reform”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.54,No.2, p.480.
④Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choice of Law In Product-Liability Conflicts”, willamette J. Int’l L.&Dis. Res.Vol.12,2004, p.263.
⑤Willis L. M. Reese,“Draft Convention on the Law Appplicable to Products Liability”, The American Journal ofComparative Law, Vol.21, No.1,1973; David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, TheInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.26, No.4,1977; Russell J. Weintraub.“A Defense of InterestAnalysis in the Conflict of Laws and the Use of that Analysis in Products Liability Cases”,46Ohio St. L.J.493, p.509.
⑥Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.106.Symeon C. Symeonides,“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.60-61; Symeon C. Symeonides.“Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity”, Am. J. Comp. L., Vol.56,2008, p.173.
⑦宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第192、200-201页。
⑧肖永平、王承志：《晚近欧洲冲突法之发展》，《中国法学》，2004年第5期，第173-174页。
⑨赵相林、曹俊主编：《国际产品责任法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版。
①刘益灯：《国际消费者保护法律制度研究》，北京：中国方正出版社，2005年版。
②刘静：《产品责任论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版；王克玉：《涉外产品责任的法律适用及我国产品责任法律制度的完善》，《法律适用月刊》，2003年12月（总第213期），第36页；段卫华、王强：《涉外产品责任的法律冲突与法律适用》，《河北法学》，2006年第24卷第9期，第86页；贾舜宁：《论国际私法对弱者权益的保护》，《辽宁师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，2007年第30卷第2期，第26页；杨辉：《浅议消费者权益法律保护机制建设》，《中国质量技术监督》，2011年3月，第48-50页；许新：《保护消费者权利—论国家干预的手段》，《兰州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2010年第38卷，第18-20页；李清萍：《对<消费者权益保护法>中惩罚性赔偿制度的思考》，《沈阳大学学报》，2011年第23卷第2期，第30-32页；魏干：《从食品安全问题看我国消费者权益保护》，《红旗文稿》，2011年第11期，第21-23页；郭宏：《国际产品责任法律适用的价值取向》，《吉林师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）》，2006年第1期，第49页；许庆坤：《消费者保护的冲突法之维》，《政治与法律》，2006年第6期，第77页。
③谢新胜：《不当“冤大头”就要灵活运用国际私法》，《法制日报》，2009年3月19日，第3版；尹力：《论涉外侵权行为的法律适用原则—兼评我国民法通则及国际私法示范法的有关规定》，《贵州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2000年第18卷第1期，第29-30页；孙娟、李晓梅：《论完善我国涉外产品的法律责任制度》，《理论界》，2005年第9期，第93页；巩丽霞：《试论我国涉外产品责任法律制度的不足》，《经济问题》，2005年第9期，第72页；丁利明：《完善我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法的思考与建议》，《行政与法》，2009年第5期，第57页；徐莉、高霞：《我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法之完善》，《法学杂志》，2010年第12期，第136页；汤诤：《涉外产品责任法律适用原则评析》，《武汉理工大学学报》，2003年第4期，第385页。
④Bartolus,“Bartolus in the Conflict of Laws”, Cambridge Harvard University Press,1914, translated by JosephHenry Beale; J. A. Clarence Smith, Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol.14, No.2,1970.
⑤李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，《法学评论》，2011年第6期；李建忠：《古代国际私法溯源：从古希腊、古罗马社会到法则理论的荷兰学派》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版；Friedrich K. Juenger. p.11.
⑥The late A. V. Dicey, A Digest of the Law of England: With Reference to the Conflict of Laws, London: Stevens&Sons, Lted.,1927.
①Joseph Henry Beale. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. I-Part I, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1916, pp.105-113.
②Alan Watson. Joseph Story and the Comity of Errors: A Case Study in Conflict of Laws, Athens and London: TheUniversity of Gergia Press,1992, pp.19-20; Symeon C. Symeonides. American Private International Law, TheNetherlands: Kluwer Law International,2008, p.67；David McClean; J. H. C. Morris. the Conflict of Laws, fourthedition, London Sweet&Maxwell Ltd.,1993, p.443.
③Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines (9N. Y.2d34); Emery v. Emery (45Cal.2d421,289P.2d218); Haumschild v.Continental Cas. Co.(7Wis2d130,95N. W.2d814); Grant v. McAuliffe (41Cal.2d859,264P.2d944);Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
④12N.Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
⑤David F. Cavers; Elliott E. Cheatham; Brainerd Currie; Albert A. Ehrenzweig; Robert A. Leflar; Willis L. M.Reese.“Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963)”, Columbia LawReview, Vol.63, No.7,1963, pp.1212-1257.
⑥亨利巴迪福尔、保罗拉加德著；陈洪武等译：《国际私法总论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1989年版，第305页；Gunther Kuhne.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, pp.12-13; David McClean, J. H. C.Morris, the Conflict of Laws, pp.276-280; J. H. Beale, Jr.,“Dicey’s ‘Conflict of Laws’”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.
10, No.3,1896, pp.168-174; A. E. Anton, Private International Law—a treatise from the standpoint of Scots Law,eninburgh: W. GREEN&SON LTD,1967, p.28; Martin Wolff. Private international Law (second edition), Oxfordat the Clarendon Press,1950, pp.2-3; Lorenze,“Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws”, Yale L. J.,Vol.33, p.736; Cheatman,“American Theories of Conflict of Laws: Their Role and Utility”, Harv. L. Rev., Vol.58,pp.379-385; Willis L. M. Reese.,“American Choice of Law”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.30,No.1,1982, p.138; Symeon C. Symeonides.“The First Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes of Old: As BadAs Its Reputation?”, Southern Illinois University Law Journal, Vol.32.(2007), p.39.
①关于“近代国际私法”与“当代国际私法”的划分，参见黄进：《国际私法》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版，第102、113-114页。
②据说从埃及托勒密王朝时期的一个鳄鱼墓的鳄鱼木乃伊腹中发现一张具有希腊风格的法律规定的纸草纸。纸上记载着颁布于公元前120年至118年的法令，其中一条规定了希腊语埃及法院各自的管辖权，见Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.7.
③马丁沃尔夫著；李浩培、汤宗舜译：《国际私法》，北京：北京大学出版社，2009年版，第24页。
①Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.11.
②Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.11.阿库修斯、巴尔杜纳斯国际私法方面观点的介绍，见李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第125页。
③阿库修斯于1228年时通过对《查士丁尼法典》“三位一体大全篇”的“罗马人民共同体”原则的注释，得出了“法则区别说”的一个首要原则：城邦无权为其他城邦的市民立法，也无权将本邦法律强加适用于外邦人。巴尔杜纳斯则于1235年提出了根据法则本身的性质将所有法则区分为程序法则和实体法则的观点。见李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第125页
④此外，雅克还于1270年提出了“继承问题（包括动词和不动产）适用物之所在地法”的主张，李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第126页；J. A. Clarence Smith.“Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws”,The American Journal of Legal History, Vol.14, No.2,1970, pp.158-159.威廉（William of Cuneo）则提出了“场所支配行为”的主张。马丁沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第25页。
⑤李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第129页。
⑥Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, translated into English by Joseph Henry Beale, Cambridge Havard UniversityPress, London: Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press,1914.
⑦J. A. Clarence Smith. Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws.
①Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.17-22.
②Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.23-24；李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第127页。
③具体内容见Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.25-27；李建忠，《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第127页。
④Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, p.30.
⑤Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, p.33.
⑥Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, p.48.
⑦Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.30-32.
⑧Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.33-47,48-61.
⑨马丁沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第27页；Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.14.
⑩黄进：《国际私法》，第95页。
①法国的“法则区别说”以杜穆兰（1500-1566）、达让特雷（1519-1590）为代表。“法则区别说”的法兰西学派也为国际私法的发展做出了不可磨灭的贡献，其成果，如当事人意思自治等，沿用至今。见马丁沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第28-29页。
②“法则区别说”的荷兰学派在17世纪盛极一时，以胡伯（1636-1694）为代表。他所提出的著名的“胡伯三原则”对后世国际私法的发展产生了深远的影响，被认为是19世纪至20世纪前期风行一时的“既得权说”的先驱。见Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.89-90.
③博丹（Jean Bodin）、格劳秀斯（Hugo Grotius）等荷兰学者有关主权理论的学说对17世纪荷兰国际私法发展进程的影响，见李建忠：《古代国际私法溯源：从古希腊、古罗马社会到法则理论的荷兰学派》，第253-255页。
④译文见李建忠，《古代国际私法溯源：从古希腊、古罗马社会到法则理论的荷兰学派》，第273页。
⑤斯托里对胡伯“礼让说”观点的关注与接受，见Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (SixEdition), Boston: Little, Brown, And Company,1865, pp.34-36;另见Alan Watson, Joseph Story and the Comityof Errors: A Case Study in Conflict of Laws, pp.19-20。戴西对胡伯“礼让说”观点的批判与继受，见Albert V.Dicey. A Digest of the Laws of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws(Second Edition), London: Stevensand Sons, Ltd., Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd.,1908, pp.10-11,15-16,23-33.
⑥Albert V. Dicey, A Digest of the Laws of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws(Second Edition), pp.23-33; pp.58-59.
⑦General Principle No. I.:“Any right which has been duly acquired under the law of any civilized country isrecognized and, in general, enforced by English Courts, and no right which has not been duly acquired is enforcedor, in general, recognized by English Courts.”, Albert V. Dicey. A Digest of the Laws of England with Reference tothe Conflict of Laws(Second Edition), pp.23.
①贝尔对“既得权说”的接受，见Joseph Henry Beale,ATreatise on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. I-Part I., pp.105-113; Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, as Adopted and Promulgated by the American Law Instituteat Washington, D. C., May11,1934, American Law Institute Publishers St. Paul.,§1.
②“The law annexes to the event a certain consequence, namely, the creation of a legal right…When a right hasbeen created by law, this right itself becomes a fact;…the existing right should everywhere be recognized; since todo so is merely to recognize the existence of a fact.”“A right having been created by the appropriate law, therecognition of its existence should follow everywhere. Thus an act valid where done cannot be called in questionanywhere.”, Joseph Henry Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, p.107.
③Symeon C. Symeonides, American Private International Law, p.67；David McClean, J. H. C. Morris,theConflict of Laws, p.443; Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.90.
④正如有学者所指出的，一方面承认根据外国法所获得的权利，另一方面又拒不承认外国法的效力，这实在有些难以令人信服，黄进：《国际私法》，第107页。这种颇似掩耳盗铃的观点，或许反映了在国际交往的现实需要面前维护严格的法律属地主义观念的艰难与困窘。
⑤Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.90.
⑥American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, St Paul: American Law InstitutePublishers,1934,§332.
⑦American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§333.
⑧American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§334.
⑨American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§337.
⑩American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§338.
11American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§339.
12Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II), p.1080,1083.
13Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§378
①Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§379
②Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§383,384
③Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§385
④Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§386
⑤Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§388.
⑦冲突法学者对“既得权说”理论的批判，见Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.32.
⑧萨维尼著；李双元、张茂等译：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版。
①“the law of the proper state is the proper law”, Symeon C. Symeonides.“American Choice of Law at the Dawnof the21stCentury”, Willamette L. Rev., Vol.37, No.1,2001, p.61; Symeon C. Symeonides,“Result-Selectivism inConflicts Law”, p.1-2.
②“substantive law aims at the materially best solution, PIL aims at the spatially best solution”, Gerhard Kegel.“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers”, p.616.
①详细论述参见本章第一节内容。
②参加黄进：《国际私法》，第430页；邓杰：《国际私法分论》，北京：知识产权出版社，2005年版，第122页至123页；秦瑞亭：《冲突法的理论与实务》，北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2007年版，第265页至266页；韩德培：《国际私法新论》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2009年版。
③马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第536页。
①李丽、温悦：《侵权法律适用中侵权行为地的确定》，《法制与社会》，2006年第11期，第73页。
④David McClean, J. H. C. Morri. the Conflict of Laws, pp.276-280.
⑤J. H. C. Morris. the Conflict of Laws, pp.276-280.
⑥刘静：《产品责任论》，第232页。
⑦Gunther Kuhne.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, pp.12-13.
①而关于产品生产地在具体案件中如何认定，按照一些学者的观点，也存在不确定性，见David F. Cavers,“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, pp.705-706.
②例如在一起美国发生的集团诉讼案件中，母亲在怀孕期间服用的药物（DES）导致产生的女婴在成年后罹患癌症和其他疾病的几率大大增加，而这些疾病在服用DES的母亲生产的女婴身上的潜伏期至少在10到12年以上，见Judith Sindell v.Abbott Laboratories (26Cal.3d588).
④Joseph H. Beale. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§378.
⑤“state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place”, see Joseph H. Beale.Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§377.
⑥除了学者以外，法官在判决中也对第一次冲突法重述制定的规则公开地进行批判，例如在Kilberg v.Northeast Airlines (9N. Y.2d34)一案的判决中，法院认为对于空难事故的赔偿问题适用飞机失事地点的法律是“不公正且反常的（unjust and anomalous）”;再如Emery v. Emery (45Cal.2d421,289P.2d218);Haumschild v. Continental Cas. Co.(7Wis2d130,95N. W.2d814); Grant v. McAuliffe (41Cal.2d859,264P.2d944).
⑦Martin Wolff. Private international Law, pp.2-3; Cavers.“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, p.178;Lorenze,“Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws”, P.736; Cheatman,“American Theories ofConflict of Laws: Their Role and Utility”, pp.379-385; Cook.“The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict ofLaws”, p.479; Willis L. M. Reese.“American Choice of Law”, pp.135-146,138; Symeon C. Symeonides.“TheFirst Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes of Old: As Bad As Its Reputation?”, p.39; Symeon C. Symeonides.“Choice of Law in Cross-Border Torts: Why Plaintiffs Win and Should”, Hastings L.J. Vol.61(2009), pp.341-342.
⑧Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
⑨Symeon C. Symeonides.“Choice of Law in Cross-Border Torts: Why Plaintiffs Win and Should”,pp.341-342.
①在1963年出版的63期《哥伦比亚法律评论》上，数位学者应邀对该案进行了评述，包括：David F. Cavers,Ellliott E. Cheatham, Brainerd Currie, Albert A. Ehrezweig, Robert A. Leflar and Willis L. M. Reese, see Babcockv. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963), Columbia Law Review, Vol.63, No.7,1963, pp.1212-1257.
②9N.Y.2d34,172N.E.2d526,211N.Y.S.2d133(1961).在该案中，一名纽约州居民在马萨诸塞州发生的一起空难事故中身亡。审理该案件的纽约州上诉法院适用了纽约州的法律，给予原告全额赔偿，而没有按照马萨诸塞州的法律限制赔偿数额。在判决中，法官认为“当今现实使得令本州居民在旅行过程中受各个途经的州的法律的管辖的做法显得不公正且不适当。(“modern conditions make it unjust and anomalous to subject thetraveling citizen of this state to the varying laws of other States through and over which” they move.”)”汉堡国际私法学会也以一起类似的假设案件，说明了在涉外产品责任案件中适用与案件只有偶然联系的“损害发生地”的法律的不合理之处。在该假设的案例中，一名欧洲游客在旅行途径印度尼西亚时，随身携带的在本国购买的饮料爆炸，致使其受到人身伤害。汉堡国际私法学会认为，在这样的案件中适用印度尼西亚法律，对于被侵权人和侵权人而言都是不能预见的，Hamburg Group for Private International Law.“Comments on theEuropean Commission’s Draft Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-ContractualObligations”, p.17.
③Shimon A. Rosenfeld.“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization of State’sInterests”, pp.142-143.
①Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, p.477.
②“Note: Products Liability and the Choice of Law”, p.1458; Michael Ena.“Choice of Law and Predictability ofDecisions in Products Liability Cases”, Fordham Urb. L. J., Vol.34, pp.1424-1425.
③P. John Kozyris.“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should Be Done About Choiceof Law for Products Liability?”; Hamburg Group for Private International Law.“Comments on the EuropeanCommission’s Draft Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations”, p.17; Thomas Kadner Graziano,“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, pp.481-482.
④比如2006年修订的日本《法律适用通则法》（《法の適用に関する通則法》）第18条规定，在通常情况下适用受害人获得产品地法；但是如果受害人获得产品地在一般情形下不能合理预见，则适用生产商主营业所所在地。
①Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, pp.481-482.
②Hamburg Group for Private International Law,“Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for aCouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations”, p.17.
③Andrew Dickinson. The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, New York:Oxford Uninversity Press,2008, pp.382-383.
④关于该事件的始末和评析见，《人民网》，http://japan.people.com.cn/zhuanti/Zhuanti_26.html （最近检索日期：2012年4月27日）；《搜狐网》http://news.sohu.com/54/76/sohu_subject144807654.shtml （最近检索日期：2012年4月27日），刘益灯：《国际消费者保护法律制度研究》，第59、64页。
①实现判决一致性一直是为数不少的冲突法学者光荣而伟大的梦想，尤以萨维尼为首。见萨维尼：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》，第14页。
①“Note: Products Liability and the Choice of Law”, p.1458; Michael Ena.“Choice of Law and Predictability ofDecisions in Products Liability Cases”, pp.1424-1425.
③Cavers.“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, pp.191-192.
④David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, pp.717-718.
⑤Cavers.“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, pp.180-181.
⑥“The choice-of-law rule is an odd creature among laws. It never tells what the result will be, but only where tolook to find the result; and the author of the rule cannot foresee the outcome.”, Brainerd Currie, Selected Essays ofthe Conflict of Laws, Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press,1963, p.170.
⑧Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.45.
①Symeon C. Symeonides,“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.45.根据荣格的考证，以达成“较好的”判决结果为涉外民商事案件中法律选择和适用的目标，早在意大利“法则区别说”时代便有学者提出。注释法学者阿德瑞克斯（MagisterAldricus）提出，从相互冲突的法律中选择更好、更有用的法律适用，见Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.12.在美国冲突法革命时期和当下，不少学者都对在冲突法领域实现“实质正义”的话题表现出浓厚的兴趣，如卡弗斯、拉弗拉尔、荣格、卢瑟·麦克道格尔等。相关论著见，Cavers.“ACritique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”,; RobertA. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”; Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice,2005; Luther M. McDougal.“Towards the Application of the Best Rule of Law in Choice of Law Cases”.
②Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, p.10.
③格哈德·可格尔：《冲突法的危机》；Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe ofAmerican ‘Coflict Revolution’”;Gerhard Kegel.“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers”, pp.615-633; FrankVischer; Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?.
①Note: Babcock v. Jackson, p.1214.
②当时不少论文都对以《第一次冲突法重述》为代表的传统冲突理论和规范提出批评意见，其中影响力较大的有：Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays of the Conflict of Laws, Durham, p.170; Brainerd Currie,“Conflict, Crisisand Confusion in New York”, pp.17-21; Willis L. M. Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”,pp.68-682; David F. Cavers, Elliott E. Cheatham, Brainerd Currie, Albert A. Ehrenzweig, Robert A. Leflar, WillisL. M. Reese,“Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963)”, Columbia LawReview, Vol.63, No.7(Nov.,1963), pp.1212-1257.等等。
③坚定地追随柯里学说的学者如赛德勒（Robert A. Sedler）、盖伊（Herma Hill Kay）等。见Sedler.“Choice ofLaw: How it Ought to Be: Responses to Transcript: A Real World Perspective on Choice of Law”, Mercer L. Rev.Vol.48, p.781; Sedler.“Interest Analysis and Forum Preference in the Conflict of Laws: A Response to the ‘NewCritics’”; Robert A. Sedler.“Professor Juenger’s Challenge to the Interest Analysis Approach to Choice-of-Law:An Appreciation and a Response”, U. C. Davis L. Rev., Vol.23,1989-1990, p.865; Herma Hill Kay.“A Defense ofCurrie’s Govermental Interest Analysis”, Recueil des cours, Vol.215. No.9,1989; Herma Hill Kay.“Currie’sInterest Analysis in the21stCentury: Losing the Battle, But Winning the War”, Willamette L. Rev. Vol.37,2001,p.123.
④比如提出“损害比较说”的巴克斯特（Willliam F. Baxter）和“实体法”方法的冯·梅仑。二者都是从如何解决按照“政府利益分析说”的标准划分出的“真实冲突”的角度，发展了柯里的学说。见Baxter.“Choice of Law andthe Federal System”, Stan. L. Rev. Vol.16, p.1; Arthur T. von Mehren.“Special Substantive Rules for MultistateProblems: Their Role and Siginficance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, Harv. L. Rev. Vol.88,p.347.
①比如1985年《俄亥俄州法律杂志》登载了以“政府利益分析说”为主题的研讨会论文集，柯则瑞斯（P. JohnKozyris）、荣格（Juenger）、布莱梅尔（Lea Brilmayer）、赛德勒（Robert A. Sedler）、温特劳布（Russell Weintraub）等学者纷纷撰文，见”Symposium on InterestAnalysis in Conflict of Laws: an Inquiry into Fundamentals with aside Glance at Products Liability”, Ohio St. L.J., Vol.46,1985, p.569。类似的研讨会论文集时有出现，如1994年出版的《布鲁克林法律评论》、1997年的《梅赛法律评论》。见”Symposium: InterestAnalysis, PartyExpectations and Judicial Method in Conflicts Torts Cases: Reflections On Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.fn.”,Brooklyn Law Review, Winter,1994;“Choice of Law: How It Ought to BE: Responses to Transcript: Choice ofLaw: How it Ought Not To Be”, Mercer L. Rev.(Winter,1997).
②以西蒙尼德斯对美国各州法院在2009年涉外侵权案件中采用学说、方法为例，采用第二次冲突法重述的包括阿拉斯加、亚利桑那州、科罗拉多州、康涅狄格州、特拉华州、弗罗里达州等地的法院；采用“较好的法律说”的包括阿拉斯加州、密执根州、明尼苏达州、罗德岛等地的法院；采用“政府利益分析说”的有加利福尼亚州、哥伦比亚特区等地的法院。见Symeon C. Symeonides.“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey”, p.231.
③Alaska Packers Association v. Industrial Accident Commission,294U. S.532(1935)
④Pacific Emplyers Insurance Co. Industrial Accident Commission,306U. S.493(1939).
⑤Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper,286U. S.145(1932)
⑥关于“政府利益分析说”的提出与最高法院在劳工赔偿案上的判决之间的关系，见Friedrich K. Juenger.Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.93-96,98-99；格哈德·可格尔：《冲突法的危机》，第18页。
①Brainerd Currie.“Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws”, p.178.
②“those in which it appears that each state would be constitutionally justified in asserting an interest, but onreflection conflic tis avoided by a moderate defintion of the policy or interest of one state or the other.”, BrainerdCurrie.“The Disinterested Third State”, p.763.
③Juenger.“Govermental Interests—Real and Suprious—in Multistate Disputes”, p.518; Juenger,“Choice-of-Lawin Interstate Torts”, p.209;格哈德·可格尔：《冲突法的危机》，第101至104页。
④9N.Y.2d34,172N.E.2d526,211N.Y.S.2d133(1961).在该案中，审理该案件的纽约州上诉法院适用了纽约州的法律，给予原告全额赔偿，而没有按照马萨诸塞州的法律限制赔偿数额。
①Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, p.704.
②Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, pp.704-705.
③Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, p.189.
①Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, p.29.
②还有一类冲突被称为“表面冲突”（”appparent conflict”），它是柯里最后提出的冲突类型。所谓“表面冲突”是指看似不止一个法域在使本法域法律得到适用上有合法利益，也即存在“真实冲突”的情况。但是，通过法院对某个州的政策或利益进行更加温和的、限制性的解释，这种“真实冲突”可以被转化为“虚假冲突”。由于这类冲突是处于变动状态的，其发展的方向要不是“真实冲突”，要不就是“虚假冲突”，且最终的解决也必须遵循这两种冲突类型，因此本文不将之作为独立的冲突类型列出。关于建立在柯里学说基础上的各类法律冲突类型的归纳，见Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, pp.30-36.
①Selected, pp.180-181.
②“The justification for the interest analysis approach--the "foundation" of that approach, to use ProfessorBrilmayer's term--is that it provides a rational basis for making choice of law decisions. It is rational to makechoice of law decisions with reference to the policies reflected in the laws of the involved states and the interest ofeach state, in light of those policies, in having its law applied on the point in issue in the particular case.Precisely because it is rational to make choice of law decisions on this basis, the application of the interest analysisapproach in practice generally will produce functionally sound and fair results.” See: Robert A. Sedler,“InterestAnalysis as the Preferred Approach to Choice of Law: A Response to Professor Brilmayer's ‘Foundational Attack’”,p.491.
②“In sum, therefore, under Currie’s analysis, almost all roads lead homeward.”，见Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, p.35.
③Robert A. Leflar. Distinguised Professor of Law, University of Arkansas, and Professor of Law, New YorkUniversity; Consulting Director of Appellate Judges Seminars, Institute of Judicail Administration, New York.
④Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”,p.267.
①Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.304.
②Yntema.“The Objectives of Private International Law”, Can. B. Rev. Vol.35; Cheatham, Reese.“Choice of theApplicable Law”, p.959.
③Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, pp.56-62; Symeonides C.Symeonides. The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, pp.26-27.
④Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.282.
⑤Robert A. Leflar,“Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing Considerations”, pp.1585-1586.
⑥Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.285.
⑦Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, pp.56-57.
⑧Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.286-287.
①Robert A. Leflar.“Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing Considerations”, p.1586.
②Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.290.
③Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.295-303.
④Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.295.
⑤Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.300-302.
⑥Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.299-304.
⑦Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.296-297.
①Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.297.
②Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.297-298.
③Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflcits Law”, pp.3-7.
④Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.327.
⑤根据荣格的考证，适用更好、更有用的法解决法律冲突的观点，早在中世纪便由一位注释法学派学者马吉斯特·阿德瑞克斯（MagisterAldricus）提出，见Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justic, p.12.
①“There is contradiction within them, because all the opposing values are restated in the list of considerations”,Luther L. McDougal III, Robert L. Felix, Ralph U. Whitten, American Conflicts Law, p.348.
②Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.299-301,303-304.
①Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.300.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, p.5; Maier.“Coordination of Laws in aNational Federal System: An Analysis of the Writings of Elliot Evans Cheatham”, Vand. L. Rev., Vol.26, p.256.
③“However much…in practice the judge’s choice of law may be influenced by his preference for the content ofone law or another, it is inadvisable to evelate a fact of human weakness to a principle of legislative policy.” See,Kahn Freund.“General Problems of Private International Law”, Recueil des Cours, Vol.143,1974. p.466.
①由齐特曼和里斯首先提出，见Cheatham and Reese.“Choice of theApplicable Law”, P.959.
②由卡弗斯提出，见David F. Cavers. Contemporary Conflicts Law in American Perspective, Rec. des Cours, Vol.131,1970; David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, pp.703-733,719-728; David F. Cavers.
“The Value of Principled Preferences”, Texas Law Review, Vol.49, pp.211-223.
①由柯里提出，见Brainerd Currie.“Married Women’s Contracts: AStudy in Conflict-of-Laws Method”, TheUniversity of Chicago Law Review, Vol.25, No.2,1958, pp.227-268; Brainerd Currie.“Notes on Methods andObjectives in the Conflict of Laws”, pp.171-181.
②时任加利福尼亚州法院法官的Roger Traynor在其1956年写作的论文中对美国法院的法官当时的困境有如下描述：“In certain fields, as currently in Conflict of Laws, the wilderness grows wilder, faster than the axes ofdiscriminating men can keep it under control.…The demolition of obsolete thories makes the judge’s task harder,as he works his way out of the wreckage; but it leaves him free to weigh competing policies withoutpreconceptions that purpost to compel the decision, but in fact do not. He has a better chance to arrive at the leasterroneous answer is the scholars have labored in advance to break ground for new paths. If they have not, he mustchop his own way through, however asymmetrically, and hope that scholars will speed their reinforcements to thejob in hand.”, Roger Traynor.“Law and Social Change in a Democratic Society”, U. ILL. L. F.,1956, p.230.；alsoRoger J. Traynor.“War and Peace in the Conflict of Laws”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol.25, No.1,1976, pp.121-155,122-123.
③“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”, Charles Dickens, A tale of two cities, Delhi: GlobalMedia,2007, p.3.
④The American Law Institute.ed. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., St Paul: American LawInstitute Publishers,1969.
⑤Introduction by by Herbert Wechsler, Director of the American Law Institute, The American Law Institute.Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d.
⑥The American Law Institute. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.10.
⑦The American Law Institute. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.13.
①Elliott E. Cheatham; Willis L. M. Reese.“Choice of the Applicable Law”, pp.959-982.
②Willis L. M. Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, pp.681-699; Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.268.
③荣格认为因145条之类的规则的存在，第二次重述成为“多种不相协调的方法的混合体”，见Friedrich K.Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.105-106.
④对第二次重述规则的分类及相关研究，见Symeon C. Symeonides,“Symposium: The SilverAnniversary ofthe Second Conflicts Restate-ment”, Md. L. Rev., Vol.56, pp.1248-1273.
⑤Peter Hay,“Flexibility Versus Predictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law: Reflections on Current Europeanand United States Conflicts Law”, Recueil des cours, Vol.215, p.359,371.
①The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d.,§6(2)
②The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.13.
③The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.15.
④萨维尼：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》,第14页。
⑤Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.105.
⑥The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.15.
⑦里斯在于1952年阐述影响法律选择的因素的论文中，将要求法官考虑相关法域政策利益的因素和考虑“相关实体法领域的基本政策”的因素合并为同一类。此类因素要求权衡相关实体法的内容和适用结果。1952年论文中的考虑实体法内容和适用结果的因素正与第6条中的(b)、(c)、€项相对应。见Elliott E.Cheatham; Willis L. M. Reese.“Choice of the Applicable Law”, pp.959-982,981.
①The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.1280.
②Gerhard Kegel,“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers”,p.616.
③对于第6条对于多种理论和思想的杂合及其本身的不协调，不少学者提出了尖锐的评判，有学者甚至将之称为“大杂烩”(“mishmash”)、“厨房的下水道”(“kitchen-sink”)，见Friedrich K. Juenger,“AThird ConflictsRestatement?”, p.406.
④The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.14.
⑤The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.12.
⑥不少学者对于第二次冲突法重述给予法官的自由裁量权是否过大的问题进行了讨论，例如Luther L.McDougal III, Robert L. Felix, Ralph U. Whitten, American Conflicts Law, p.467.; Friedrich K. Juenger,“A ThirdConflicts Restatement?”, pp.406-407; Russell J. Weintraub.“‘At least, To Do No Harm’: Does the SecondRestatement of Conflicts Meet the Hippocratic Standard?”, Md. L. Rev., Vol.56, p.1284; Louise Weinberg,“AStructural Revision of the Conflicts Restatement”, pp.478-480;法官通过第二次冲突法重述的运用，获得不受限制的自由裁量权，被Symeonides认为是第二次冲突法重述获得法院较为普遍的认可的首要原因，SymeonC. Symeonides.“The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A Mixed Blessing”, pp.1270-1273.
⑦“Many Courts seem to like the ‘mishmash,’ or ‘kitchen-sink’, concoction the restaters produced; after all, itenables judges to decide conflicts cases any which way they wish.”, Friedrich K. Juenge.“A Third ConflictsRestatement?”.
①“All rules of law, and choice-of-law rules are no exception, are the product of policies. A rule is constructedinitially to further what the law-maker conceives to be the basic policies involved. And the ultimate success of arule will depend upon how effective it is in in furthering these policies. During the early stages of a rule’sdevelopment, reference should constantly be made to the underlying policies to determine whether the rule is inneed of amendment and whether it should be given a broad or narrow application.” See, Willis L. M Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, p.681.
②“Care must be taken not to state rules that will prive wrong when applied to new problems, for if this were to bedone with any freuency the Restatement would prove to be a hindrance, rather than an aid, in the furhterdevelopment of the subject. Hence, as a general proposition, it is probably better to err on the side of a rule thatmay be too fluid and uncertain in application than to take one’s chances with a precise and hard-and-fast rule thatmay be proved wrong in the future.…Of necessity, many conflicts rules must be fluid in operation and leave muchto be worked out by the courts.”, Willis L. M Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, p.681.
①Joseph Henry Beale. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, pp.106-107,159-160.
②Lea Brilmayer.“The role of substantive and choice of law policies in the formation and application of choice oflaw rules”, p.47.
③对美国法律现实主义的介绍，特别是在其与法律实证主义之间的比较，见Stephen M. Feldman. AmericanLegal Thought From Premodernism to Postmodernism: An Intellectual Voyage, Oxford University Press, Inc.,2000, pp.105-115.
④Holmes. The Common Law, Boston: Little, Brown And Company,1923, p.1.
①Lea Brilmayer.“The role of substantive and choice of law policies in the formation and application of choice oflaw rules”, pp.32-33.
①Willis L. M Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, p.681.
②Symeon C. Symeonides,“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey”, p.231.
③582NW2d866(Mich. App.1998).
①NC Gen Stat1-50(6).
②MCL6005850(10).
①Symeonides C. Symeonides. The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, p.289..
②Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, pp.704-705.
③学者对此的批判的整理，见Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, pp.39-40，及注释56,58-59.
④见柯里对于Milliken v. Pratt案、Grant v. McAuliffe案和Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.案的分析，Selected,p.610, p.144, pp.704-705。对于柯里在“政策”分析上立场的说明，见Robert A. Sedler.“The GovernmentalInterest Approach to Choice of Law: An Analysis And A Reformulation”, pp.184-185;格哈德·可格尔著，《冲突法的危机》，第21-22页。
⑤WL910373(CD Cal.1997).
①2004WL1398024(DNJ2004).
②Lea Brilamyer.“Interest Analysis And the Myth of Legislative Intent”, pp.416-417, p.430; R. Leflar, L.McDougal III&R. Felix, American Conflicts Law (4thed.), p.269; Silberman.“Can the State of Minnesota Bindthe Nation? Federal Choice-of-Law Constranits After Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague”, pp.109-110.
①Custom Products, Inc. v. Fluor Daniel Canada, Inc.(262F. supp.2d767).
②Kelly v. Ford Motor Co.(933F. Supp.465).
③“Thus in reasoning about conflicts problems, scholars and courts can and should heed some of the values thatinterest analysts condemned as ‘metaphysical’, such as evenhandedness and predictability.”, see Lea Brilamyer.“Interest Analysis And the Myth of Legislative Intent”, p.430.
①Symeon C. Symeonides.“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey”, p.231.
②Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”.
③27F.3d731.
④Colo. Rev. Stat.§13-21-102.5(1987&1993Supp.)
①The Rhode Island Supreme court would “undoubtedly favor a compensatory damage standard without limits”.
①Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition),p.58.
②Symeon C. Symeonides,“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey”, p.231.
①Michael Ena.“Choice of Law and Predictability of Decisions in Products Liability Cases”, pp.1444-1450;Michael H. Gottesman.“Draining the Dismal Swamp: The Case for Federal Choice of Law Statutes”, GEo. L.J.,Vol.80, pp.9-10; Shimon A. Rosenfeld,“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization ofState’s Interests”, pp.152-156.
②The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d,, p.12.
③51S. W.3d643.
①Symeon C. Symeonides.“The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A Mixed Blessing”,pp.1270.
②Friedrich K. Juenge,“A Third Conflicts Restatement?”.提出类似观点的还有Peter Hay,“Flexibility VersusPredictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law: Reflections on Current European and United States ConflictsLaw”, p.359; James A. Meschewski,“Choice of Law in Alaska: A Survival Guide for Using the SecondRestatement”, p.2.
③对第二次重述下法官享有过度自由裁量权并可导致“法院地法偏好”状况的讨论，见Peter Hay, Patrick J.Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws, pp.70-71..分析说”、“较好法律说”在内的新学说的法院司法实践的通病，见Russell J. Weintraub,“SYMPOSIUM:Choice of Law for Products Liability: Demagnetizing the United States Forum”, Vol.52, pp.164-165; Courtland H.Peterson,“Article: Section II: Private International Law at the End of the Twentieth Century: Progress orRegress?”, pp.210-211.
①比如有学者指出，“几乎一切具体规则的法律效力在最密切联系原则面前都是动摇不确定的，它们所指引的准据法随时有可能被另一个‘更密切联系的国家的法律’所取代”。“（最密切联系原则）在增加传统法律体系的灵活性的同时，其本身‘虚无规则’的性质可能最终会损害国际私法的基础……。”宋晓，《当代国际私法的实体取向》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2004年，第126-127页。又如美国学者在1999年总结阿拉斯加州法院在判决中多年采用第二次重述的状况时，指出“第二次重述的模糊性”将“对于阿拉斯加州法院和法律从业者而言原本就不清澈的水池搅得愈发浑浊”，JamesA. Meschewski,“Choice of Law inAlaska:ASurvival Guide for Using the Second Restatement”, p.3.
②“Many Courts seem to like the ‘mishmash,’ or ‘kitchen-sink’, concoction the restaters produced; after all, itenables judges to decide conflicts cases any which way they wish.”, Friedrich K. Juenge.“A Third ConflictsRestatement?”.
①12N.Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
②卡弗斯、里斯、拉弗拉尔、艾因茨威格等学者对此案判决的评论见David F. Cavers, Ellliott E. Cheatham,Brainerd Currie, Albert A. Ehrezweig, Robert A. Leflar and Willis L. M. Reese, see Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963), Columbia Law Review, Vol.63, No.7(Nov.,1963), pp.1212-1257.
③32N.Y.2d121,286N. E.2d454,335N. Y. S.2d64(1972)
④32N.Y.2d121,286N. E.2d454,335N. Y. S.2d64(1972)
⑤Paris Air Crash,399F. Supp., p.739.
⑥Rosenberg,“Two Views on Kell v. Henderson, An Opinion for the New York Court of Appeals”, p.459,464.
⑦Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, P.126.
①Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of American ‘Coflict Revolution’”, pp.3-4.
②“…there is little doubt that the conflicts revolution has prevailed over the traditional theory. But to prevail is onething and to succeed is another. Te latter cannont be judged by numbers alone. It can be judged by examiningwhether the revolution has produced a new system to replace the old one, and by how well the new system attedsto the basic needs and aspirations of the choice-of-law process, such as uniformity of result and predictability ofdecisions. Judged in this light, the revolution did not and could not have succeeded.”, Peter Hay. Patrick J.Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition), pp.56-62; Symeonides C. Symeonides. TheAmerican Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, p.121.
③As qutoed from his original words:“The problem, is, however, that this record comes at a high cost in litigationexpenses for the parties, and a heavy utilization of judicial resources that are needed elsewhere. Long delays inresolving a conflict and high uncertainties regarding the outcome commensurably reduce the value of even a goodoutcome. Predicatability of outcomes is as important in this area of the law as it is elsewhere.” Symeon C.Symeonides,“Party Choice of Law in Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.266.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?(General Report)”, p.26.
③Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, p.10.
①以奥地利和瑞士为首，大陆法系国家自上世纪70、80年代开始掀起了国际私法法典化的风潮。相关评述可见肖永平，王承志：《晚近欧洲冲突法之发展》，第170-171页。
②Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, pp.11-14.
③Frank Vischer. General course on private international law, Recueil des Cours, pp.106-112,116-125.
④Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, pp.10-27.
⑤Symeon C. Symeonides. Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?, pp.48-62.
⑥“These are rules that are designed to accomplish a certain substantive result that is considered a priori asdesirable”.见Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private international law at the end of the20th century: progress orregress?: XVth International Congress of Comparative Law”, p.38.
⑦Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, p.10.
①Fausto Pocar and Costanza Honorati,“Italian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progressor Regress?”, p284.
②Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.195-196.
③Alain Prujiner,“Canadian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.140.
⑤对结果选择规则所实现的“结果”的归纳与分类，见Symeon C. Symeonides,“Private International Law at theEnd of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.38; Tomasz Pajor,“Polish Private International Law at the Endof the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.334.
⑥黄进：《国际私法》，第334页。
①Art.3539, Louisiana Acts1991.“A person is capable of contracting if he possesses that capacity under the lawof either the state in which he is domiciled at the time of making the contract or the state whose law is applicableto the contract under Article3537.”
②邹国勇译注：《外国国际私法立法精选》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2011年版，第188页。
③日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号），Art.4，英译本见Okudaand Anderson.“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules of Application of Laws,Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006),” Asian-Pacific Law&Policy Journal139.
④黄进：《国际私法》，北京：法律出版社，1999年，第419页。
⑤Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.50-51.
①80/934/EEC: Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on19June1980, Art.9(2)；Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Art.11(2).
②Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.56(Gifts).
③Switzerland’s Federal Code on Private International Law of December18,1987as amended until January1,2007, Art.124(1),(2).
④EGBGB, Art.11(1),(2)，中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第536-537页。
⑤Acts1991, No.923,§1, eff. Jan.1,1992, Art.3538.
⑥日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号）。
⑦Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.50-51.
⑧Katharina Boele-Woelki, Carla Joustra, and Gert Steenhoff.“Dutch Private International Law at the End of the
20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: KluwerLaw International,1999, p.311.
①对中西古代遗嘱继承形式要件的比较研究，见夏婷婷：《中西古代遗嘱继承比较研究》，《山东理工大学学报（社会科学版）》，2011年1月第1期，第41页至42页。
②Convention on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (Concluded5October1961), Art.1.
③其中包括奥地利、比利时、丹麦、埃及、芬兰、法国、德国、西班牙、波兰、瑞士、瑞典、卢森堡、日本、荷兰、英国等，见李双元主编：《中国与国际私法统一化进程》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1993年版，第466页至468页。
④Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.48.
⑤Uniform Probate Code (Last Amended or Revised in2006),§2-506.
⑥Quebec Civil Code Art.3109(3).
⑦《匈牙利国际私法》第36条第2款，见李双元、欧永福、熊之才：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京：北京大学出版社，2002年版，第262页。
①台湾《涉外民事法律适用法》（台湾2010年4月30日立法院第7届第5会期第11次会议通过），第61条。
②Louisiana Acts1991, No.923, Art.3529.
③Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law, Art.30(1).
④Swiss PIL Art.94.
①有关涉外婚姻双方当事人本国法的重叠适用造成的不利后果研究，见张超汉：《跛脚婚姻产生及其协调浅论》，《吉林广播电视大学学报》，2009年第4期，第103页；林碧冰：《涉外离婚准据法选择方法的发展新趋势及启示》，2007年2月第1期，《湛江师范学院学报》，第96页至98页。
②宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第158-159页。
③Swiss PIL Code, Art.44(2).“If the conditions under Swiss law are not satisfied, a marriage between foreignersmay ne vertheless be performed if the conditions of the law of the State of citizenship of either the bride or thebridegroom are satisfied.
④Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.28.
①EGBGB, Art.13(1)(2),中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第536-537页。
②Katharina Boele-Woelki, Carla Joustra, and Gert Steenhoff,“Dutch Private International Law at the End of the
20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.309-310.
③根据K. Boele-Woelki和D. van Iterson的介绍，荷兰国际私法的法典化将在2011-2012年完成。K.Boele-Woelki&D. van Iterson,“The Dutch Private International Law Codification: Principles, Objectives andOpportunities”, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.14.3, p.1, p.17.
④台湾《涉外民事法律适用法》，第45条。
⑤台湾《涉外民事法律适用法》，第46条
⑥Convention Relating to the Settlement of the Conflict of Laws and Jurisdictions as Regards to Divorce andSeparation.
⑦Outline Hague Divorce Convention, see http://www.hcch.net/upload/outline18e.pdf（2012年4月27日）
⑧EGBGB, Art.17(1),中译本见杜涛，《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第539页。
⑨Swiss PIL. Art.61(3).
①Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.31.
②Christa Jessel-Holst,“The32Private International Law Code of2005”, Yearbook of Private International Law,Volume9(2007), pp.380-381.
③Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law, Art.21.
④Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.34(1).
⑤日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号），Art.28(1)，英译本见Okuda and Anderson,“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules of Applicationof Laws, Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006)”.
⑥日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号），Art.30(1)，英译本见Okuda and Anderson,“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules of Applicationof Laws, Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006)”.
⑦EGBGB, Art.23,中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第543页。
⑧Swiss PIL Art.72(1)&73.中译本见陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》，北京：法律出版社，1998年版，第284页。
①Quebec Civil Code, Art.3091.
②K. Boele-Woelki&D. van Iterson,“The Dutch Private International Law Codification: Principles, Objectivesand Opportunities”, p.1,18.
③《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》，第二十五条。
①Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Oblications opened for signature in Rome on19June1980(80/934/EEC), Art.5(2).
②Quebec Civil Code Art.3117,[1991, c.64, a.3117].“3117. The choice by the parties of the law applicable to a consumer contract does not result in depriving theconsumer of the protection to which he is entitled under the mandatory provisions of the law of the country wherehe has his residence if the formation of the contract was preceded by a special offer or an advertisement in thatcountry and the consumer took all the necessary steps for the formation of the contract in that country or if theorder was received from the consumer in that country.The same rule also applies where the consumer was induced by the other contracting party to travel to a foreigncountry for the purpose of forming the contract.If no law is designated by the parties, the law of the place where the consumer has his residence is, in the samecircumstances, applicable to the consumer contract.”
③《德国民法典实施法》第29条规定：消费者合同中，当事人的法律选择不得导致消费者惯常居所地国法律中的强行规范所提供的保护被排除，如果（1）合同的缔结是基于发生在该国的明示要约或广告，并且消费者在该国实施了缔结合同所必须的法律行为；（2）消费者的合同对方当事人或其代理人是在该国接受消费者的订货，或（3）合同涉及的是货物的销售，而消费者已经从该国旅行到另一国并在当地提出他的订货，而该旅行是销售方安排的，其目的在于让消费者订立该合同。中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第546页。
④《奥地利国际私法》在针对消费者合同的专门立法中指出，如果消费者的惯常居所地的法律有给予消费者的特殊保护，而合同是因企业家或其雇佣者在该国进行活动并有意缔结的，则适用消费者惯常居所地法；当事人之间合意选择的准据法，不得违反消费者惯常居所地的强行法规范，否则不发生效力。AustrianFederal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law, Art.41,中译本见李双元、欧永福、熊之才：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，第369页。
⑤日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号），Art.11(1)，英译本见Okuda and Anderson,“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules of Applicationof Laws, Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006),”.
①沈涓：《冲突法及其价值导向》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2002年版，第248-249页。
①Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Oblications opened for signature in Rome on19June1980(80/934/EEC), Art.6.
③《奥地利国际私法》第44条规定，只有明示的法律选择协议才予以考虑。并且在（1）受雇佣方通常从事工作地国的强行法范围内，即使受雇方被派往他国工作，也是如此；或者（2）当受雇方通常在一个以上国家进行工作或无惯常工作地点的情况发生时，在受雇佣方的惯常居所地的强行法范围内，明示的法律选择对受雇佣方不利的，则选择无效。Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law,Art.44,中译本见李双元、欧永福、熊之才：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，第370页。
④中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第548页。
①Joseph H. Beale, Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, as Adopted and Promulgated by the AmericanLaw Institute at Washington, D. C., May11,1934, American Law Institute Publishers St. Paul.,§378.
②萨维尼：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》，第142页。
③关于现代国际社会在涉外侵权领域出现的实体取向研究，参见杜新丽，王克玉：《论涉外侵权法律适用法的价值目标及实现路径》，《法学杂志》，2010年第2期，第12页至16页。
④中译本见杜涛，《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第551-552页。
⑤意大利国际私法规定，除非侵权行为只涉及一国国民，而所有当事人的住所地也在该国，则该国法律必须适用；否则，受害人可以在损害发生地法和侵权行为地法之间选择准据法，Reform of the Italian System ofPrivate International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.62.关于意大利在一般侵权行为法律适用规定上的变化，参见Tito BALLARINO and Andrea BONOMI,“The Italian Statute on Private International Law of1995”, Yearbook of Private International Law, Volume II-2000, sellier. European Law Publishers, pp.124-125.
⑥Venezuelan Act on Private International Law (No.36.511,6August1998), Art.32.按照该法条的规定，侵权行为的受害人可以在损害发生地法和侵权行为发生地法之间选择准据法。
⑦László Burián,“Hungarian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”,XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999. p.265.
①Swiss PIL Act Art.138，中译本见陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》，第303页。
②Swiss PIL Act Art.139.
③László Burián,“Hungarian Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress or Regress?”,XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999, p.264.
①有关国际扶养制度的发展状况讨论，见卫荣辉：《论国际扶养制度与我国实践》，《宁波广播电视大学学报》，2009年9月第3期，第106页至107页。
②Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (Concluded2October1973), Art.4,5&6.该公约得到奥地利、比利时、法国、德国、荷兰、日本、意大利、卢森堡、西班牙、瑞士、土耳其、葡萄牙等国家的批准。
③Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (Concluded23November2007), Art.3&4.
④EGBGB, Art.18,中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第541页。
⑤Quebec Civil Code, Art.3094.
①Symeonides教授的原话是“These are rules that are designed to accomplish a certain substantive result that isconsidered a priori as desirable”.见Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private international law at the end of the20thcentury: progress or regress?“, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law,, p.38.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, p.10.
③Fausto Pocar and Costanza Honorati,“Italian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progressor Regress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999,p284.
④Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.195-196.
⑤《魁北克民法典》3091条规定，父母子女关系的建立，依据子女出生时子女或父母的居所地法或国籍国法中对子女更为有利的法律。关于该条的举例，见上文。
⑥Alain Prujiner,“Canadian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”,XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999, p.140.
①对于这种观点的介绍见Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.120.
①Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.120.
②对于此观点的介绍，见Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.120；宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第162页。
③两国在自然人民事行为能力上的具体规定，见本章第1节的内容。
①Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”,p.11.
②Max Rheinstein.“LawTrends in Marriage and Divorce Law of Western Countries”, Law and ContemporaryProblems, Vol.18, No.1. pp.3-19.
③William Latey.“Some International Aspects of Divorce and Nullity”, Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol.17,1931, pp.113-138.
④宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第158页；Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”,p.18.
⑤宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第157页；Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”,p.15.
①宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第187页。对于儿童权益的保护从其他公约的组成部分发展为专门性公约，内容也越来越具体化，这也体现了国际社会在儿童保护事业上的发展。比如1966年《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》（International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights）中直接规定保护儿童人权的条款主要是第10条、第12条和第13条；1989年则出现了专门的《儿童权利公约》（Convention on theRights of the Child）该公约于1989年11月20日第44届联合国大会第25号决议通过，1990年9月2日生效。到1993年出现了专门针对收养问题的公约，海牙国际私法会议第17次外交大会上通过了《跨国收养方面保护儿童及合作公约》（The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption）。
③屈广清：《论保护弱者的国际私法方法及其立法完善—以冲突规范的保护方法为中心》，《法商研究》，2006年第5期，第45-49页；贾舜宁：《论国际私法对弱者权益的保护》，第26-28页；徐冬根：《人文关怀与国际私法中弱者利益保护》，《当代法学》，2004年9月，第12-22页；马丹青：《国际私法中的弱者保护原则研究》，《法制与经济》，2009年6月，第61-62页。
④Frank Vischer,“General course on private international law”, p.121.
①“Permitting one party, after a controversy has arisen, to select the law more favorable to his position runscounter to ideas of equality that are basic to Western views of justice”, Arthur Taylor von Mehren.“SpecialSubstantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role and Significance in Contemporary Choice of LawMethodology”, p.350.对于此类观点的引用和论述见Frank Vischer.“General course on private internationallaw”, p.120.
①对此观点的引述见Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.120; Friedrich K. Juenger.Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.207.
②宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第189页。
③见Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.123.
④F Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.207；宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第189页。
⑤宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第188-189页。
①相关评述见Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.196.
①Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.121.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, p.30.
①“§1(1) Factual situations with foreign contacts shall be judged, in regard to private law, according to the legalorder to which the strongest connection exists.(2) The special rules on the applicable legal order which arecontained in this Federal Statute (conflicts rules) shall be considered as expressions of this principle.”, AustrianFederal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.34.
③相关意见的介绍见Edith Palmer,“The Austrian Codification of Conflicts Law”, The American Journal ofComparative Law, Vol.28, No.2,1980, pp.204-205.
④Art.15III., Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law “Exception clause:1. The law designated by this Code shall not be applied in those exceptional situations where, in light of allcircumstances, it is manifest that the case has only a very limited connection with that law and has a much closerconnection with another law.2. This article is not applicable in the case of a choice of law by the parties.”
⑤Frank Vischer,“Drafting National Legislation on Conflict of Laws: The Swiss Experience”, Law andContemporary Problems, Vol.41, No.2, p.138.
①宋晓，《当代国际私法的实体取向》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2004年，第195页。
②Frank Vischer,“Drafting National Legislation on Conflict of Laws: The Swiss Experience”, p.138.
③Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations(80/934/EEC)。该公约已被2009年生效的新的“罗马公约”所取代，但有关“例外条款”的规定在新公约中得到保留。
④Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Concluded December22,1986)
①Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the LawApplicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), Rectial14.
②Art.4, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the LawApplicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
①Art.5, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the LawApplicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
①对于滥用“例外条款”赋予的自由裁量权将会导致的不良后果的分析，见宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第192、200-201页。
②摘自邹国勇译注：《外国国际私法立法精选》，第13-14页。
③Art.5, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the LawApplicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
④Frank Vischer,“General course on private international law”,.106.
⑤“If anything, judges are more likely to be influenced by such considerations for reasons that are too obvious toneed explanation here. It therefore goes without saying that material-justice considerations always play some rolewhen a judge ponders whether to invoke any of the escape clauses described above, or whether to use any of theold mechanisms of avoiding the result ordained by a jurisdiction-selecting rule, such as the traditional mechanismsof characterization, ordre public and renvoi.”, Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the
20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.60-61.
①在赋予原告准据法选择权的同时，除了上述对于原告准据法选择权的限制之外，瑞士国际私法还有一项比较特殊的限定，即在适用外国法的场合，除非瑞士本国法认可损害赔偿，否则，赔偿将不能获准。The Swissfederal Staute on Private international Law on Dec.18,1987, Art.135.
②“Product liability shall be governed, depending on the choice of the person suffering damage, either by the lawof the State in which the manufacturer is domiciled or has his head-office, or by the law of the State in which theproduct was purchased, unless the manufacturer proves that the product was marketed in that State without hisconsent.”, Art.63, Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995).
③Quebec Civil Code, Art.3128.
①The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (with the Additions and Amendments of February20, August12,1996,October24,1997, July8, December17,1999, April16, May15, November26,2001, March21, November14,26,2002, January10, March26, November11, December23,2003), Art.1221.
②Turkish Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, Art.36.
③中国台湾《涉外民事法律适用法》，（台湾2010年4月30日立法院第7届第5会期第11次会议通过），第26条。
④《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》，第45条规定：“产品责任，适用被侵权人经常居所地法律；被侵权人选择适用侵权人主营业地法律、损害发生地法律的，或者侵权人在被侵权人经常居所地没有从事相关经营活动的，适用侵权人主营业地法律或者损害发生地法律。”《法律适用法》虽生效不久，却已有不少学者对其加以论述，如齐湘泉：《〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉原理与精要》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版；黄进，姜茹娇：《〈中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法〉释义与分析》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版；黄进：《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法建议稿及说明》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011年版；杜涛：《涉外民事关系法律适用法释评》，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年版；万鄂湘：《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法条文理解与适用》，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年版。
⑤瑞士的Kurt Siehr教授指出瑞士国际私法法规中给予原告准据法选择权，目的是实现“实质正义”，即判决结果的合理、公正，而其方法是通过对相关法律的内容的选择，而不是传统的对法域的选择，见Kurt Siehr,“Swiss Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress or Regress?”, p.386,398-399.
①需要说明的是，该观点并非针对涉外产品责任案件提出的，而是就一般涉外民商事案件而言。原文为“Permitting one party, after a controversy has arisen, to select the law more favorable to his position runs counterto ideas of equality that are basic to Western views of justice”, Arthur Taylor von Mehren.“Special SubstantiveRules for Multistate Problems: Their Role and Significance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, p.350.
②Shimon A. Rosenfeld.“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization of State’sInterests”, p.157.
③Michael I. Krauss.“Product Liability and Game Theory: One More Trip to the Choice-of-Law Well”, p.766,768.
④Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.54, No.2, p.480.
⑤Art.1, United Nations Consumer Protection (A/RES/39/248,16April1985),http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r248.htm.（2012年4月27日）
①比如在陆慧诉日本三菱“帕杰罗”越野车一案中，一方是财力雄厚的跨国汽车制造公司，一方是因为车祸导致全身瘫痪的受害人，根据《人民网》的报道，为了支付受害人的医疗费、诉讼费，受害人的丈夫甚至考虑出卖身体器官。《三菱帕杰罗事件：受害者丈夫愿卖肾给妻子治病》（2001年11月24日），http://japan.people.com.cn/2001/11/24/riben20011124_13979.html （2012年4月28日）
②相关论述见刘益灯：《国际消费者保护法律制度研究》，第42-69页；赵相林，曹俊主编：《国际产品责任法》，第287-295页；贾舜宁：《论国际私法对弱者权益的保护》，第26页；Willis L. M. Reese.“Draft Conventionon the Law Appplicable to Products Liability”, p.38; David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”,pp.723-724; Gunther Kuhne.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, pp.27-28; Albert A. Ehrenzweig.“ProductsLiability in the Conflict of Laws—Toward a Theory of Enterprise Liability under ‘Foreseeable and InsurableLaws’: II”, Yale L. J., Vol.69,p.803.
③James A. Henderson, Jr.&Aaron D.Twerski,“The Politics of The Product Liability Restatement”; James A.Henderson, Jr.&Theodore Eisenberg,“The Quite Revolution in Products Liability: An Empirical Study of LegalChange”.
①西蒙尼德斯教授也提出了类似的观点，即原告应该自行考虑究竟适用哪个法域的法律会产生对自身最为有利的结果，这可以节约法院的时间，也可避免对于法院决定的批评。Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choiceof Law In Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.274.
②按照里斯教授的观点，产品责任案件的原告应该可以在“（a）产品生产地法”、“（b）产品获得地法”和“（c）损害发生地法”中间选择准据法，（b）（c）两项法律可以得到适用的条件是，被告可以合理预见该产品或同类产品会进入该法域。Willis L. M. Reese.“Draft Convention on the Law Appplicable to Products Liability”, p.32.
③David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, pp.728-729.
④Russell J. Weintraub.“A Defense of Interest Analysis in the Conflict of Laws and the Use of that Analysis inProducts Liability Cases”, p.509.
⑤Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choice of Law In Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.268.
①Hamburg Group for Private International Law.“Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for ACouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations”, p.18; Willis L. M. Reese.“ProductsLiability and Choice of Law: The United States Proposals to the Hague Conference”, p.32.
②P. John Kozyris,“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should Be Done About Choiceof Law for Products Liability?”, p.586.
③Symeon C. Symeonides.“Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity”, pp.208-209; P. John Kozyris.“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should Be Done About Choice of Law for ProductsLiability?”, p.586.
①我国《法律适用法》45条也将损害发生地法列为原告可选择的法律之一。对此，将在第六章予以说明。
②Joseph H. Beale. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, as Adopted and Promulgated by the American LawInstitute at Washington, D. C., May11,1934, American Law Institute Publishers St. Paul.,§378.
③Willis L. M. Reese.“Products Liability and Choice of Law: The United States Proposals to the HagueConference”,, p.32.
④Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choice of Law in Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.275.
⑤徐莉、高霞：《我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法之完善》，第136页；丁利明：《完善我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法的思考与建议》，第57页。
⑥Hamburg Group for Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for ACouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, p.16.
⑧比如卡弗斯教授和西蒙尼德斯教授也持类似的观点，见David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’sLiability”, p.728; Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choice of Law in Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.275.
①认为“损害发生地法”可以作为涉外产品责任案件的原告准据法选择的对象之一，但是应该以被告“合理预见”为限制条件的观点，见Willis L. M. Reese.“Products Liability and Choice of Law: The United StatesProposals to the Hague Conference”, p.32.
②P. John Kozyris.“Values and Methods in Choice of Law for Products Liability: A Comparative Comment onStatutory Solutions”, p.504.
③P. John Kozyris.“Values and Methods in Choice of Law for Products Liability: A Comparative Comment onStatutory Solutions”, p.504.
④Hamburg Group for Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for ACouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, p.17.
⑤P. John Kozyris.“Values and Methods in Choice of Law for Products Liability: A Comparative Comment onStatutory Solutions”, p.504.
⑥Hamburg Group for Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for ACouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, p.17.
⑦Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, pp.481-482.
⑧P. John Kozyris,“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should Be Done About Choiceof Law for Products Liability?”, pp.582-586; Jan von Hein.“Something Old and Something Borrowed, butNothing New? Rome II and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution”, p.1698.
⑨Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, pp.481-482.
①Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, p.482.
②比如在2001年德克萨斯州上诉法院审理的一起产品责任损害赔偿案件中，原告Ramos夫妇是墨西哥居民，1995年2月19日，原告Ramos夫妇带领他们10岁的儿子在墨西哥驾驶该车的过程中，发生事故，其子死亡。被认为应该承担产品责任的是一辆日本本田汽车公司设计生产的三轮全地形车（ATV），该车最初是由美国德克萨斯州的一所大学购买，最终出现在墨西哥市场上，被原告购买，其间的转手过程已不可考。见Hipolito Ramos Sanchez&Alma Laura Galvan de Ramos v. Brownsville Sports Center, Inc., Honda MotorCo.(51S. W.3d643.)。
②Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law§48.(1) Noncontractual damage claims shall be judged according to the law of the state in which the damagecausing conduct occurred. However, if the persons involved have a stronger connection to the law of one and thesame other state, that law shall be determinative.作为欧盟成员，欧盟《非合同之债法律适用公约》（《罗马条例II》）生效后，奥地利对本国国际私法中第48条的内容作出了相应的调整。最主要的变化就是明确认可《罗马条例II》在非合同之债法律适用上的效力，并规定第48条自2009年之后便只调整罗马II未加规定的非合同之债的法律适用问题。
④Edith Palmer.“The Austrian Codification of Conflicts Law”, p.220.
①摘自邹国勇译注：《外国国际私法立法精选》，第13-14页。
②Art.4(2)&Art.5(1). Art.4(2):“However, where the person claimed to be liable and the person sustainingdamage both have their habitual residence in the same country at the time when the damage occurs, the law of thatcountry shall apply.”
③Art.5(1)(a).
④Art.5(1)(b).
⑤Art.5(1)(c).
⑥Art.5(2).
①§3.3.“However, if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that there is a substantially closer connectionwith another country and there is no significant connection between the non-contractual obligation and the countrywhose law would be the applicable law under paragraphs1and2, the law of that other country shall beapplicable.”
③COM(2003)427final,2003/0168(COD).
①A6-0211/2005.
②COM(2006)83final, Brussels,21.02.2006.
①对《法律适用法》生效前后我国冲突法规范体系的比较研究，见周后春：《我国〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉关于人权保护的规定评析》，《广州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2011年第10卷第9期，第22页；肖永平：《中国国际私法立法的里程碑》，《法学论坛》，2011年第2期，第44页；徐丽：《〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉颁布前后我国国际私法立法状况浅析》，《济宁学院学报》，2011年第4期，第81页；齐湘泉：《论〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉的立法特点》，《西北大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》，2011年3月，第41卷第2期，第141页。
①黄进：《国际私法》，第430-431页。
②Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
③David F. Cavers, Ellliott E. Cheatham, Brainerd Currie, Albert A. Ehrezweig, Robert A. Leflar and Willis L. M.Reese, see Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963), Columbia LawReview, Vol.63, No.7(Nov.,1963), pp.1212-1257.
④匈牙利《国际私法法规》32条第3款；德国《民法典施行法》40条第2款；《俄罗斯联邦民法典》1219条第2款；《立陶宛共和国民法典》1.43条第4款；意大利《国际私法法规》62条第2款；瑞士《关于国际私法的联邦法》133条第1款；欧盟《关于非合同之债的法律适用条例》（《罗马条例II》）第4条。
⑤黄进：《国际私法》，第432页；马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第536页。
①黄进：《国际私法》，第432页；马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第536页。
⑤匈牙利《国际私法法规》第32条。
⑥德国《民法典施行法》第40条第1款、《意大利国际私法》第62条、委内瑞拉《关于国际私法的法令》第32条。
③赵相林,曹俊主编，《国际产品责任法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年，第385页至386页；刘静，《产品责任论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年，第270页；王克玉，《涉外产品责任的法律适用及我国产品责任法律制度的完善》，《法律适用月刊》，2003年12月（总第213期），第36页；段卫华，王强，《涉外产品责任的法律冲突与法律适用》，《河北法学》，第24卷第9期，第86页。
①《中华人民共和国民法通则》第119条规定，“侵害公民身体造成伤害的，应当赔偿医疗费、因误工减少的收入、残废者生活补助费等费用”。
②《中华人民共和国民法通则》第121条规定，“因产品质量不合格造成他人财产、人身损害的，产品制造者、销售者应当依法承担民事责任。”
③《张某某诉日本国丰田汽车股份有限公司赔偿纠纷案，《找法网》http://china.findlaw.cn/xfwq/xiaofeizhedequanyi/xfztsal/6011.html（2012年4月27日）
④金铭，《赢了官司，钱却赔了》，《南方周末》，1995年5月26日。
⑤赵相林、曹俊主编，《国际产品责任法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年，第329页；郭宏，《国际产品责任法律适用的价值取向》，《吉林师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）》，2006年2月第1期，第48页。
①赵相林、曹俊主编：《国际产品责任法》，第330-331页。
②刘益灯：《跨国消费者保护的法律冲突及其解决对策》，第19页；刘益灯：《跨国消费者保护的法律冲突及其解决对策》，北京：法律出版社，2008年版。
③吕西萍：《对“三菱帕杰罗”案件的法律思考》，《外经贸实务》，2002年第11期，第7页。
④受害人陆慧于2002年3月向长沙市芙蓉区人民法院提起赔偿诉讼。该事件受到了我国新闻媒体以及法学
①Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflcits Law”, p.3.
②Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition), U.S.: WEST., pp.56-62; Symeonides C. Symeonides, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, TheNeverlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006, p.121.
①西蒙尼德斯提出，“立法者的结果选择主义”预先设定希望实现的结果，并且经过集体民主程序的合意机制；而在“司法者的法律选择主义”，结果是事后选择的，并通常由法官一人判断，无论意图多么美好，也难以避免主观主义的危险。“I believe that there is an important qualitative difference betweenresult-selectivism in legislation and result-selectivism in adjudication as advocated by Leflar and especiallyJuenger. In the former, the desirable result is determined in advance and in abstracto through the consensusmechanisms of the collective democratic processes. In the latter, the result is chosen ex post facto and in concretoand often by a single judge who, with the best of intentions, cannot easily avoid the dangers of subjectivism.”,Symeon C. Symeonides,“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”,46Willamette L. Rev.1(2009-2010), p.31.
陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》，北京：法律出版社，1998年版
杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，北京：法律出版社，2006年版。
杜涛：《涉外民事关系法律适用法释评》，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年版。
邓杰：《国际私法分论》，北京：知识产权出版社，2005年版。
亨利巴迪福尔、保罗拉加德著，陈洪武等译：《国际私法总论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1989年版。
黄进：《国际私法》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版。
黄进，姜茹娇：《〈中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法〉释义与分析》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版。
黄进：《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法建议稿及说明》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011年版。
韩德培：《国际私法新论》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2009年。
格哈德·可格尔；萧凯、邹国勇译：《冲突法的危机》，武汉大学出版社，2008年版。
刘静：《产品责任论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版。
李建忠：《古代国际私法溯源：从古希腊、古罗马社会到法则理论的荷兰学派》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版。
李双元、欧永福、熊之才：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京：北京大学出版社，2002年版
李双元主编：《中国与国际私法统一化进程》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1993年版。
刘益灯：《国际消费者保护法律制度研究》，北京：中国方正出版社，2005年版。
刘益灯：《跨国消费者保护的法律冲突及其解决对策》，北京：法律出版社，2008年版。
马丁沃尔夫著；李浩培、汤宗舜译：《国际私法》，北京：北京大学出版社，2009年版。
秦瑞亭：《冲突法的理论与实务》，北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2007年版。
齐湘泉：《〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉原理与精要》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版。
萨维尼著；李双元、张茂等译：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版。
沈涓：《冲突法及其价值导向》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2002年版。
宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2004年版。
万鄂湘：《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法条文理解与适用》，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年版。
赵相林，曹俊主编：《国际产品责任法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版。
邹国勇译注：《外国国际私法立法精选》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2011年版。
丁利明：《完善我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法的思考与建议》，《行政与法》，2009年第5期，第57页。
段卫华、王强：《涉外产品责任的法律冲突与法律适用》，《河北法学》，2006年第24卷第9期，第86页。
杜新丽，王克玉：《论涉外侵权法律适用法的价值目标及实现路径》，《法学杂志》，2010年第2期，第12页至16页。
巩丽霞：《试论我国涉外产品责任法律制度的不足》，《经济问题》，2005年第9期，第72页。
郭宏：《国际产品责任法律适用的价值取向》，《吉林师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）》，2006年第1期，第49页
贾舜宁：《论国际私法对弱者权益的保护》，《辽宁师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，2007年第30卷第2期，第26页。
李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，《法学评论》，2011年第6期。
李丽、温悦：《侵权法律适用中侵权行为地的确定》，《法制与社会》，2006年第11期，第73页。
李清萍：《对<消费者权益保护法>中惩罚性赔偿制度的思考》，《沈阳大学学报》，2011年第23卷第2期，第30-32页。
林碧冰：《涉外离婚准据法选择方法的发展新趋势及启示》，2007年2月第1期，《湛江师范学院学报》，第96页至98页。
吕西萍：《对“三菱帕杰罗”案件的法律思考》，《外经贸实务》，2002年第11期。
马丹青：《国际私法中的弱者保护原则研究》，《法制与经济》，2009年6月，第61-62页。
屈广清：《论保护弱者的国际私法方法及其立法完善—以冲突规范的保护方法为中心》，《法商研究》，2006年第5期，第45-49页。
齐湘泉：《论〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉的立法特点》，《西北大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》，2011年3月，第41卷第2期，第141页。
沈涓：《法官裁量对结果选择的实现之认识》，赵建文主编：《国际法研究》（第四卷），北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2011年版。
孙娟、李晓梅：《论完善我国涉外产品的法律责任制度》，《理论界》，2005年第9期，第93页。
汤诤：《涉外产品责任法律适用原则评析》，《武汉理工大学学报》，2003年第4期，第385页。
王克玉：《涉外产品责任的法律适用及我国产品责任法律制度的完善》，《法律适用月刊》，2003年12月（总第213期），第36页
魏干：《从食品安全问题看我国消费者权益保护》，《红旗文稿》，2011年第11期，第21-23页。
卫荣辉：《论国际扶养制度与我国实践》，《宁波广播电视大学学报》，2009年9月第3期，第106页至107页。
肖永平、王承志：《晚近欧洲冲突法之发展》，《中国法学》，2004年第5期，第173-174页。
肖永平：《中国国际私法立法的里程碑》，《法学论坛》，2011年第2期，第44页。
徐丽：《〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉颁布前后我国国际私法立法状况浅析》，《济宁学院学报》，2011年第4期，第81页。
夏婷婷：《中西古代遗嘱继承比较研究》，《山东理工大学学报（社会科学版）》，2011年1月第1期，第41页至42页。
谢新胜：《不当“冤大头”就要灵活运用国际私法》，《法制日报》，2009年3月19日，第3版
许庆坤：《消费者保护的冲突法之维》，《政治与法律》，2006年第6期，第77页。
许新：《保护消费者权利—论国家干预的手段》，《兰州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2010年10月第38卷，第18-20页。
徐冬根：《人文关怀与国际私法中弱者利益保护》，《当代法学》，2004年9月，第12-22页。
徐莉、高霞：《我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法之完善》，《法学杂志》，2010年第12期，第136页
杨辉：《浅议消费者权益法律保护机制建设》，《中国质量技术监督》，2011年3月，第48-50页。
尹力：《论涉外侵权行为的法律适用原则—兼评我国民法通则及国际私法示范法的有关规定》，《贵州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2000年第18卷第1期，第29-30页。
周后春：《我国〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉关于人权保护的规定评析》，《广州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2011年第10卷第9期，第22页。
American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, St Paul: American LawInstitute Publishers,1934
The American Law Institute.ed. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., St Paul:American Law Institute Publishers,1969.
Anton, A. E. Private International Law—a treatise from the standpoint of Scots Law, eninburgh:W. GREEN&SON LTD,1967.
Bartolus.“Bartolus in the Conflict of Laws”, Cambridge Harvard University Press,1914,translated by Joseph Henry Beale; J. A. Clarence Smith, Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws, TheAmerican Journal of Legal History, Vol.14, No.2,1970.
Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, translated into English by Joseph Henry Beale, CambridgeHavard University Press, London: Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press,1914.
Baxter.“Choice of Law and the Federal System”, Stan. L. Rev. Vol.16, p.1.
Beale, Joseph Henry. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. I-Part I., Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press,1916
Beale, Joseph Henry. Jr.“Dicey’s ‘Conflict of Laws’”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.10, No.3,1896,pp.168-174.
Boele-Woelki, Katharina; Carla Joustra, and Gert Steenhoff.“Dutch Private International Law atthe End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, XVth International Congress ofComparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999.
Brilamayer, Lea.“The Role of Substantive And Choice of Law Policies in the Formation AndApplication of Choice of Law Rules”, Recueil des cours, Vol.252,1995.
Brilamayer, Lea.“Interest Analysis And the Myth of Legislative Intent”, Michigan Law Review,Vol.78, No.3. p.430.
Burián, László.“Hungarian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress orRegress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer LawInternational,1999, p.264.
Cavers, David F.“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, Harv. L. Rev, Vol.47.
Cavers, David F.; Elliott E. Cheatham; Brainerd Currie; Albert A. Ehrenzweig; Robert A. Leflar;Willis L. M. Reese.“Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963)”, Columbia Law Review, Vol.63, No.7,1963, pp.1212-1257.
Cavers, David F. Contemporary Conflicts Law in American Perspective, Rec. des Cours, Vol.131,1970.
Cavers, David F.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, The International and ComparativeLaw Quarterly, Vol.26, No.4,1977.
Cavers, David F.“The Value of Principled Preferences”, Texas Law Review, Vol.49, pp.211-223.
Cheatham, Elliott E.; Willis L. M. Reese.“Choice of the Applicable Law”, Columbia Law Review,Vol.52, No.8,1952, pp.959-982.
Cheatman, Elliott E.“American Theories of Conflict of Laws: Their Role and Utility”, Harv. L.Rev., Vol.58(1944-1945), pp.365-385.
Cook.“The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws”, Yale L. J, Vol.33.
Cox, Stanley E.“Applying the Best Law”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.9.
Currie, Brainerd. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, Duke University Press,1963.
Currie, Brainerd.“Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws”, Duke Law Journal,Vol.1959, No.2,1959, pp.171-181.
Currie, Brainerd.“Married Women’s Contracts: A Study in Conflict-of-Laws Method”, TheUniversity of Chicago Law Review, Vol.25, No.2,1958, pp.227-268
Currie, Brainerd.“The Disinterested Third State”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.28, No.4,1963, pp.754-794.
Dicey, Albert V. A Digest of the Laws of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws(SecondEdition), London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd., Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd.,1908
Dicey, Albert V. The late A. V. A Digest of the Law of England: With Reference to the Conflict ofLaws, London: Stevens&Sons, Lted.,1927.
Dickens, Charles. A tale of two cities, Delh: Global Media,2007.
Dickinson, Andrew. The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations,New York: Oxford Uninversity Press,2008.
Ehrenzweig, Albert A.“Products Liability in the Conflict of Laws—Toward a Theory ofEnterprise Liability under ‘Foreseeable and Insurable Laws’: II”, Yale L. J., Vol.69, p.794-803.
Ena, Michael.“Choice of Law and Predictability of Decisions in Products Liability Cases”,Fordham Urb. L. J., Vol.34, pp.1417-1425.
Fallon, Marc, Johan Meeusen.“Belgian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century:Progress or Regress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston:Kluwer Law International,1999, pp.109-110.
Fawcett, J. J.“Products Liability in Private International Law: A European Perspective”, Recueildes Cours, Vol.238, pp.57-246.
Felix, Robert L.“Leflar in the Courts: Judicial Adoptions of Choice-Influencing Considerations”,Ark. L. Rev, Vol.52, p.35.
Feldman, Stephen M. American Legal Thought From Premodernism to Postmodernism: AnIntellectual Voyage, Oxford University Press, Inc.,2000.
Freund, Kahn.“General Problems of Private International Law”, Recueil des Cours, Vol.143,1974.p.466.
Gottesman, Michael H.“Draining the Dismal Swamp: The Case for Federal Choice of LawStatutes”, GEo. L.J., Vol.80, pp.1-10.
Graziano, Thomas Kadner.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of theLaw in Europe and Current Proposals for Reform”, The International and Comparative LawQuarterly, Vol.54, No.2, p.480.
Hay, Peter; Patrick J. Borchers; Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition), U.S.:WEST.
Hay, Peter.“Flexibility Versus Predictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law: Reflections onCurrent European and United States Conflicts Law”, Recueil des cours, Vol.215, pp.218-371.
Holmes. The Common Law, Boston: Little, Brown And Company,1923.
Juenger, Friedrich K. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice (Special Edition), N.Y.: TransnationalPublishers,2005.
Juenger.“Governmental Interests—Real and Spurious—in Multistate Disputes”, U. C. Davis L.Rev. Vol.21(1987-1988), p.515.
Juenger.“Choice-of-Law in Interstate Torts”, U. Pa. L. Rev. Vol.118, No.2(1969), p.202.
Juenger, Friedrich K.“A Third Conflicts Restatement?”, Ind. L. J., Vol.75, pp.403-407.
Juenger, Friedrich K.“Choice of Law: How It Ought to be: Responses to Transcript: Choice ofLaw: How it Ought Not To Be”, Mercer L. Rev., Vol.48,1997, p.757-762.
Kay, Herma Hill.“A Defense of Currie’s Governmental Interest Analysis”, Recueil des cours,Vol.215. No.9,1989.
Kay, Herma Hill.“Currie’s Interest Analysis in the21stCentury: Losing the Battle, But Winningthe War”, Willamette L. Rev. Vol.37,2001, p.123.
Kegel, Gerhard.“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and theAmerican Reformers”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.27, No.4,1979, pp.615-633.
Kozyris, Phaedon John.“Conflicts Theory for Dummies: Apres le Deluge, Where Are We OnProducers Liability?”, La. L. Rev., Vol.60, p.1161.
Kozyris, Phaedon John.“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should BeDone About Choice of Law for Products Liability?”, Ohio St. L.J., Vol.46, p.569.
Kozyris, Phaedon John, Juenger, Lea Brilmaye, Robert A. Sedler, Russell Weintraub.“Symposiumon Interest Analysis in Conflict of Laws: an Inquiry into Fundamentals with a side Glance atProducts Liability”, Ohio St. L.J., Vol.46,1985, p.569.
Krauss, Michael I.“Product Liability and Game Theory: One More Trip to the Choice-of-LawWell”, BYU L. Rev.,2002, p.759.
Kuhne, Gunther.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, California Law Review, Vol.60, No.1,1972.
Latey, William.“Some International Aspects of Divorce and Nullity”, Transactions of the GrotiusSociety, Vol.17,1931, pp.113-138.
Leflar, Robert A., L. McDougal III&R. Felix, American Conflicts Law (4thed.), Lexis LawPublisher,1986, p.269
Leflar, Robert A.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, N. Y. U. L. Rev, Vol.41,pp.267-282.
Leflar, Robert A.“Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing considerations”, Califorina LawReview, Vol.54, No.4, pp.1584-1598.
Lorenze.“Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws”, Yale L. J., Vol.33, p.736.
Maier.“Coordination of Laws in a National Federal System: An Analysis of the Writings of ElliotEvans Cheatham”, Vand. L. Rev., Vol.26, pp.209-256.
McClean, David; J. H. C. Morris. the Conflict of Laws, fourth edition, London Sweet&MaxwellLtd.,1993.
McDougal, Luther L. III; Robert L. Felix; Ralph U. Whitten. American Conflicts Law (5thedition),Transnational Publishers, Inc.
McDougal, Luther L. III.“Leflar's Choice-Influencing Considerations: Revisited, Refined andReaffirmed”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.105.
Mehren, Arthur T. von.“Some Reflections on Codification and Case Law in the Twenty-FirstCentury”, U.C. Davis L. Rev., Vol.31,1998, p.659.
Mehren, Arthur T. von.“Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role andSiginficance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, Harv. L. Rev., Vol.88, p.347.
Meschewski, James A.“Choice of Law in Alaska: A Survival Guide for Using the SecondRestatement”, Alaska L. Rev, Vol.16,1999, p.1.
Morse, Joseph.“Characterization: Shadow or Substance”, Columbia Law Review, Vol.49, No.8(Dec.,1949), p.1029.
Okuda, Anderson,“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules ofApplication of Laws, Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006),”Asian-Pacific Law&Policy Journal139.
Palmer, Edith.“The Austrian Codification of Conflicts Law”, The American Journal ofComparative Law, Vol.28, No.2,1980, pp.204-205.
Peterson, Courtland H.“Article: Section II: Private International Law at the End of the TwentiethCentury: Progress or Regress?”, Am. J. Comp. L. Vol.46, p.197.
Pocar, Fausto; Costanza Honorati,“Italian Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress or Regress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London,Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999, p284.
Prujiner, Alain.“Canadian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress orRegress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer LawInternational,1999, p.140.
Reese, Willis L. M.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, Law and ContemporaryProblems, Vol.28, No.4, p.681.
Reese, Willis L. M.“Draft Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability”, TheAmerican Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.21, No.1,1973.
Reese, Willis L. M.“American Choice of Law”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.30, No.1,1982, pp.135-146.
Reynolds, William L.“Legal Process And Choice of Law”, Md. L. Rev, Vol.56, p.1371.
Rheinstein, Max.“Law Trends in Marriage and Divorce Law of Western Countries”, Law andContemporary Problems, Vol.18, No.1. pp.3-19.
Rosenfeld, Shimon A.“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization ofState’s Interests”, Hofstra L. Rev., Vol.15, p.139.
Rosenberg.“Two Views on Kell v. Henderson, An Opinion for the New York Court of Appeals”,Colum. L. Rev. Vol.67, p.459.
Sedler, Robert A.“Interest Analysis as the Preferred Approach to Choice of Law: A Response toProfessor Brilmayer's ‘Foundational Attack’”, Ohio St. L.J, Vol.46(1985), pp.483-491.
Sedler, Robert A.“Choice of Law: How it Ought to Be: Responses to Transcript: A Real WorldPerspective on Choice of Law”, Mercer L. Rev. Vol.48, p.781.
Sedler, Robert A.“Professor Juenger’s Challenge to the Interest Analysis Approach toChoice-of-Law: An Appreciation and a Response”, U. C. Davis L. Rev., Vol.23,1989-1990,p.865
Sedler, Robert A.,“Symposium: Interest Analysis, Party Expectations and Judicial Method inConflicts Torts Cases: Reflections On Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.fn.”, Brooklyn LawReview, Brooklyn L. Rev., Vol.59, p.1323.
Silberman.“Can the State of Minnesota Bind the Nation? Federal Choice-of-Law ConstranitsAfter Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague”, HOFSTRAL L. Rev., Vol.10, pp.103-110.
Siehr, Kurt.“Swiss Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress orRegress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, the Hague-London-Boston:Kluwer Law International,1999, p.386-399.
Simson, Gary J.“Resisting the Allure of Better Rule of Law”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.141.
Smith, J. A. Clarence.“Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws”, The American Journal of Legal History,Vol.14, No.2,1970, pp.158-159.
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (Six Edition), Boston: Little, Brown, AndCompany,1865.
Symeonides, Symeon C ed. Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress orRegress?, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer LawInternational,1999.
Symeonides, Symeon C. The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, TheNeverlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006.
Symeonides, Symeon C. American Private International Law, The Netherlands: Kluwer LawInternational,2008.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A MixedBlessing”, Md. L. Rev, Vol.56,1997, p.1248.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“The Need for a Third Conflicts Restatement”, Ind. L.J., Vol.75,2000, p.437.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Party Choice of Law In Product-Liability Conflicts”, willamette J. Int’lL.&Dis. Res. Vol.12,2004, p.263.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity”, Am. J. Comp. L.,Vol.56,2008, p.173.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, Willamette L. Rev., Vol.46,1,2009-2010.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“The First Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes of Old: As Bad As ItsReputation?”, Southern Illinois University Law Journal, Vol.32.(2007), p.39.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Choice of Law in Cross-Border Torts: Why Plaintiffs Win and Should”,Hastings L.J. Vol.61(2009), pp.337-342.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Symposium: The Silver Anniversary of the Second ConflictsRestate-ment”, Md. L. Rev., Vol.56, pp.1248-1273.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“American Choice of Law at the Dawn of the21stCentury”, Willamette L.Rev., Vol.37No.12001.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third AnnualSurvey”, Am. J. Comp. L., Vol.58,2010, p.227-231.
Traynor, Roger.“Law and Social Change in a Democratic Society”, U. ILL. L. F.,1956, p.230.
Traynor, Roger.“War and Peace in the Conflict of Laws”, The International and ComparativeLaw Quarterly, Vol.25, No.1,1976, pp.121-155.
Vischer, Frank.“General course on private international law”, Recueil des Cours, Vol.232, No.1,1992.
Vitta, Edoardo.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, The AmericanJournal of Comparative Law, Vol.30, No.1,1982.
von Mehren, Arthur Taylor.“Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role andSignificance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.88, No.2,1974.
Watson, Alan. Joseph Story and the Comity of Errors: A Case Study in Conflict of Laws, Athensand London: The University of Gergia Press,1992.
Weinberg, Louise.“A Structural Revision of the Conflicts Restatement”, Ind. L.J., Vol.75, pp.475-480.
Weintraub, Russell J.“‘At least, To Do No Harm’: Does the Second Restatement of ConflictsMeet the Hippocratic Standard?”, Md. L. Rev, Vol.56, p.1284.
Weintraub, Russell J.“Symposium: Choice of Law for Products Liability: Demagnetizing theUnited States Forum”, Ark. L. Rev., Vol.52, p.157.
Weintraub, Russell J.“A Defense of Interest Analysis in the Conflict of Laws and the Use of thatAnalysis in Products Liability Cases”, Ohio St. L.J., Vo.46, pp.493-509.
Weintraub, Russell J.“‘At least, To Do No Harm’: Does the Second Restatement of ConflictsMeet the Hippocratic Standard?”, Md. L. Rev., Vol.56, p.1284.
Whitten, Ralph U.“Improving the ‘Better Law’ System: Some Impudent Suggestions forReordering and Reformulating Leflar's Choice-Influencing Considerations”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52,p.177.
Wolff, Martin. Private international Law (second edition), Oxford at the Clarendon Press,1950.
Yntema.“The Objectives of Private International Law”, Can. B. Rev., Vol.35.
Alaska Packers Association v. Industrial Accident Commission,294U. S.532(1935)
Pacific Emplyers Insurance Co. Industrial Accident Commission,306U. S.493(1939).
Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper,286U. S.145(1932)
Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.,9N.Y.2d34,172N.E.2d526,211N.Y.S.2d133(1961)
Hall v. General Motors Corp.,582NW2d866,Mich. App.(1998).
Custom Products, Inc. v. Fluor Daniel Canada, Inc.(262F. supp.2d767).
Kelly v. Ford Motor Co.(933F. Supp.465).
Neumeier v. Kuehner,32N.Y.2d121,286N. E.2d454,335N. Y. S.2d64(1972)
Babcock v. Jackson,12N.Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
La Plante v. American Honda Motor Co,27F.3d731(1994)
Custom Products, Inc. v. Fluor Daniel Canada, Inc,262F. supp.2d767.
Kelly v. Ford Motor Co.,933F. Supp.465.
2004WL1398024(DNJ2004)
Hipolito Ramos Sanchez&Alma Laura Galvan de Ramos v. Brownsville Sports Center, Inc.,
Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.56(Gifts).
Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.48.
Switzerland’s Federal Code on Private International Law of December18,1987as amended untilJanuary1,2007, Art.124(1),(2).
Convention on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions(Concluded5October1961), Art.1.
Uniform Probate Code (Last Amended or Revised in2006)
Quebec Civil Code Art.3109(3).
Louisiana Acts1991, No.923, Art.3529.
Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law, Art.30(1).
Swiss PIL Art.94.
Quebec Civil Code, Art.3091.
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Oblications opened for signature in Rome on19June1980(80/934/EEC), Art.5(2).
Quebec Civil Code Art.3117,[1991, c.64, a.3117].
Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (Concluded2October1973), Art.4,5&6.
Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (Concluded23November2007), Art.3&4.
Quebec Civil Code, Art.3094.
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations(80/934/EEC).
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (ConcludedDecember22,1986)
Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007onthe Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), Rectial14.
Art.4, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
Art.5, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (with the Additions and Amendments of February20,August12,1996, October24,1997, July8, December17,1999, April16, May15, November26,2001, March21, November14,26,2002, January10, March26, November11, December23,2003), Art.1221.
Turkish Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, Art.36.Art.1, United Nations Consumer Protection (A/RES/39/248,16April1985)
①Cavers,“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, Harv. L. Rev. Vol.47, P.173.; Cook,“The Logical andLegal Bases of the Conflict of Laws”, Yale L. J., Vol.33, P.457.
②Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice (Special Edition), N.Y.:Transnational Publishers,2005.
③Symeon C. Symeonides,“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, Willamette L. Vol.46, Rev.1(2009-2010).
④Gerhard Kegel.“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers”,The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.27, No.4,1979, pp.615-633.
⑤Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, The American Journal ofComparative Law, Vol.30, No.1,1982.
⑥Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, Recueil des Cours, Vol.232, No.1,1992.
⑦该年会的五个基本议题包括：多边主义方法、单边主义方法和实体法方法的对抗与共存，法律确定性和灵活性之间的紧张关系、“法域选择规则”和“内容中心”规则和方法之间的对抗与共存、“冲突正义”和“实质正义”之间的困境、实现国际统一性的目标和保护国家利益的需要之间的冲突。见Private International Lawat the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London,Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999.
⑧宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2004年版。
①沈涓：《法官裁量对结果选择的实现之认识》，赵建文主编：《国际法研究》（第四卷），北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2011年版。
②Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, Duke University Press,1963.
③Brainerd Currie,“Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws”, Duke Law Journal, Vol.1959, No.2,1959, pp.171-181.
④Brainerd Currie,“The Disinterested Third State”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.28, No.4,1963, pp.754-794.
⑤格哈德·可格尔著；萧凯、邹国勇译：《冲突法的危机》武汉：武汉大学出版社，2008年版。
⑥Juenger.“Govermental Interests—Real and Spurious—in Multistate Disputes”, U. C. Davis L. Rev. Vol.21(1987-1988), p.515.
⑦Juenger.“Choice-of-Law in Interstate Torts”, U. Pa. L. Rev. Vol.118, No.2(1969), p.202.
⑧Robert A. Sedler.“Interest Analysis as the Preferred Approach to Choice of Law: A Response to ProfessorBrilmayer's ‘Foundational Attack’”, Ohio St. L.J, Vol.46(1985), p.491.
⑨Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, N. Y. U. L. Rev, Vol.41, p.267.
⑩Robert A. Leflar,“Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing considerations”, Califorina Law Review, Vol.54,No.4.
11Stanley E. Cox,“Applying the Best Law”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.9; Ralph U. Whitten:“Improving the ‘BetterLaw’ System: Some Impudent Suggestions for Reordering and Reformulating Leflar's Choice-InfluencingConsiderations”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.177.; Robert L. Felix,“Leflar in the Courts: Judicial Adoptions ofChoice-Influencing Considerations”, Ark. L. Rev, Vol.52, p.35; Gary J. Simson,“Resisting the Allure of BetterRule of Law”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.141.; Luther L. McDougal III,“Leflar's Choice-Influencing Considerations:Revisited, Refined and Reaffirmed”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.105.
12Elliott E. Cheatham; Willis L. M. Reese.“Choice of the Applicable Law”, Columbia Law Review, Vol.52, No.8,1952, pp.959-982.
13The American Law Institute. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d, As Adopted and Promulgatedby the American Law Institute as Washington, D. C.(May23,1969), St. Pual, Minn.: American Law InstitutePublishers,1971.
①Willis L. M Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.28,No.4, p.681.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A Mixed Blessing”,Md. L. Rev, Vol.56,1997, p.1248.
③William L. Reynolds,“Legal Process And Choice of Law”, Md. L. Rev. Vol.56, p.1371.
④Luther L. McDougal III, Robert L. Felix, Ralph U. Whitten, American Conflicts Law (5thEdition), pp.467-472.
⑤Russell J. Weintraub.“‘At least, To Do No Harm’: Does the Second Restatement of Conflicts Meet theHippocratic Standard?”, Md. L. Rev, Vol.56, p.1284.
⑥Friedrich K. Juenger.“A Third Conflicts Restatement?”, Ind. L. J., Vol.75, pp.406-407.
⑦Louise Weinberg.“A Structural Revision of the Conflicts Restatement”, Ind. L.J., Vol.75, pp.478-480.
⑧582NW2d866(Mich. App.1998).
⑨27F.3d731.
①51S. W.3d643.
②Symeonides C. Symeonides. The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, TheNeverlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006.
③Symeon C. Symeonides.“The Need for a Third Conflicts Restatement”, Ind. L.J., Vol.75,2000, p.437.
④Lea Brilmayer.“The role of substantive and choice of law policies in the formation and application of choice oflaw rules”, Recueil des cours, Vol.252,1995.
⑤James A. Meschewski.“Choice of Law in Alaska: A Survival Guide for Using the Second Restatement”, AlaskaL. Rev. Vol.16,1999, p.1.
⑥Phaedon John Kozyris.“Conflicts Theory for Dummies: Apres le Deluge, Where Are We On ProducersLiability?”, La. L. Rev. Vol.60, p.1161; P. John Kozyris,“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally,What Should Be Done About Choice of Law for Products Liability?”, Ohio St. L.J., Vol.46, p.569.
⑦Rosenberg.“Two Views on Kell v. Henderson, An Opinion for the New York Court of Appeals”, Colum. L. Rev.Vol.67, p.459.
⑧Arthur T. von Mehren.“Some Reflections on Codification and Case Law in the Twenty-First Century”, U.C.Davis L. Rev., Vol.31,1998, p.659.
⑨R. Leflar, L. McDougal III&R. Felix, American Conflicts Law (4thed.), Lexis Law Publisher,1986, p.269.
⑩Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition), U.S.: WEST. p.58.
11Russell J. Weintraub,“SYMPOSIUM: Choice of Law for Products Liability: Demagnetizing the United StatesForum”, Ark. L. Rev., Vol.52, p.157.
12Courtland H. Peterson,“ARTICLE: SECTION II: Private International Law at the End of the Twentieth Century:Progress or Regress?”, Am. J. Comp. L. Vol.46, p.197.
13Kurt Siehr,“Swiss Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress or Regress?”, XVthInternational Congress of Comparative Law, The Hague-London-Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999, pp.398-399.
14Frank Vischer, General course on private international law, pp.116-125.
①Gunther Kuhne.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, California Law Review, Vol.60, No.1,1972.
②J. J. Fawcett,“Products Liability in Private International Law: A European Perspective”, Recueil des Cours,Vol.238, pp.57-246.
③Arthur Taylor von Mehren,“Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role and Significance inContemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.88, No.2,1974; Shimon A. Rosenfeld,“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization of State’s Interests”, Hofstra L. Rev. Vol.15,p.139; Michael I. Krauss.“Product Liability and Game Theory: One More Trip to the Choice-of-Law Well”, BYUL. Rev.,2002, p.759; Thomas Kadner Graziano,“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of theLaw in Europe and Current Proposals for Reform”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.54,No.2, p.480.
④Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choice of Law In Product-Liability Conflicts”, willamette J. Int’l L.&Dis. Res.Vol.12,2004, p.263.
⑤Willis L. M. Reese,“Draft Convention on the Law Appplicable to Products Liability”, The American Journal ofComparative Law, Vol.21, No.1,1973; David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, TheInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.26, No.4,1977; Russell J. Weintraub.“A Defense of InterestAnalysis in the Conflict of Laws and the Use of that Analysis in Products Liability Cases”,46Ohio St. L.J.493, p.509.
⑥Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.106.Symeon C. Symeonides,“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.60-61; Symeon C. Symeonides.“Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity”, Am. J. Comp. L., Vol.56,2008, p.173.
⑦宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第192、200-201页。
⑧肖永平、王承志：《晚近欧洲冲突法之发展》，《中国法学》，2004年第5期，第173-174页。
⑨赵相林、曹俊主编：《国际产品责任法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版。
①刘益灯：《国际消费者保护法律制度研究》，北京：中国方正出版社，2005年版。
②刘静：《产品责任论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版；王克玉：《涉外产品责任的法律适用及我国产品责任法律制度的完善》，《法律适用月刊》，2003年12月（总第213期），第36页；段卫华、王强：《涉外产品责任的法律冲突与法律适用》，《河北法学》，2006年第24卷第9期，第86页；贾舜宁：《论国际私法对弱者权益的保护》，《辽宁师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，2007年第30卷第2期，第26页；杨辉：《浅议消费者权益法律保护机制建设》，《中国质量技术监督》，2011年3月，第48-50页；许新：《保护消费者权利—论国家干预的手段》，《兰州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2010年第38卷，第18-20页；李清萍：《对<消费者权益保护法>中惩罚性赔偿制度的思考》，《沈阳大学学报》，2011年第23卷第2期，第30-32页；魏干：《从食品安全问题看我国消费者权益保护》，《红旗文稿》，2011年第11期，第21-23页；郭宏：《国际产品责任法律适用的价值取向》，《吉林师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）》，2006年第1期，第49页；许庆坤：《消费者保护的冲突法之维》，《政治与法律》，2006年第6期，第77页。
③谢新胜：《不当“冤大头”就要灵活运用国际私法》，《法制日报》，2009年3月19日，第3版；尹力：《论涉外侵权行为的法律适用原则—兼评我国民法通则及国际私法示范法的有关规定》，《贵州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2000年第18卷第1期，第29-30页；孙娟、李晓梅：《论完善我国涉外产品的法律责任制度》，《理论界》，2005年第9期，第93页；巩丽霞：《试论我国涉外产品责任法律制度的不足》，《经济问题》，2005年第9期，第72页；丁利明：《完善我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法的思考与建议》，《行政与法》，2009年第5期，第57页；徐莉、高霞：《我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法之完善》，《法学杂志》，2010年第12期，第136页；汤诤：《涉外产品责任法律适用原则评析》，《武汉理工大学学报》，2003年第4期，第385页。
④Bartolus,“Bartolus in the Conflict of Laws”, Cambridge Harvard University Press,1914, translated by JosephHenry Beale; J. A. Clarence Smith, Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol.14, No.2,1970.
⑤李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，《法学评论》，2011年第6期；李建忠：《古代国际私法溯源：从古希腊、古罗马社会到法则理论的荷兰学派》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版；Friedrich K. Juenger. p.11.
⑥The late A. V. Dicey, A Digest of the Law of England: With Reference to the Conflict of Laws, London: Stevens&Sons, Lted.,1927.
①Joseph Henry Beale. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. I-Part I, Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1916, pp.105-113.
②Alan Watson. Joseph Story and the Comity of Errors: A Case Study in Conflict of Laws, Athens and London: TheUniversity of Gergia Press,1992, pp.19-20; Symeon C. Symeonides. American Private International Law, TheNetherlands: Kluwer Law International,2008, p.67；David McClean; J. H. C. Morris. the Conflict of Laws, fourthedition, London Sweet&Maxwell Ltd.,1993, p.443.
③Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines (9N. Y.2d34); Emery v. Emery (45Cal.2d421,289P.2d218); Haumschild v.Continental Cas. Co.(7Wis2d130,95N. W.2d814); Grant v. McAuliffe (41Cal.2d859,264P.2d944);Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
④12N.Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
⑤David F. Cavers; Elliott E. Cheatham; Brainerd Currie; Albert A. Ehrenzweig; Robert A. Leflar; Willis L. M.Reese.“Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963)”, Columbia LawReview, Vol.63, No.7,1963, pp.1212-1257.
⑥亨利巴迪福尔、保罗拉加德著；陈洪武等译：《国际私法总论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1989年版，第305页；Gunther Kuhne.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, pp.12-13; David McClean, J. H. C.Morris, the Conflict of Laws, pp.276-280; J. H. Beale, Jr.,“Dicey’s ‘Conflict of Laws’”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.
10, No.3,1896, pp.168-174; A. E. Anton, Private International Law—a treatise from the standpoint of Scots Law,eninburgh: W. GREEN&SON LTD,1967, p.28; Martin Wolff. Private international Law (second edition), Oxfordat the Clarendon Press,1950, pp.2-3; Lorenze,“Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws”, Yale L. J.,Vol.33, p.736; Cheatman,“American Theories of Conflict of Laws: Their Role and Utility”, Harv. L. Rev., Vol.58,pp.379-385; Willis L. M. Reese.,“American Choice of Law”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.30,No.1,1982, p.138; Symeon C. Symeonides.“The First Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes of Old: As BadAs Its Reputation?”, Southern Illinois University Law Journal, Vol.32.(2007), p.39.
①关于“近代国际私法”与“当代国际私法”的划分，参见黄进：《国际私法》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版，第102、113-114页。
②据说从埃及托勒密王朝时期的一个鳄鱼墓的鳄鱼木乃伊腹中发现一张具有希腊风格的法律规定的纸草纸。纸上记载着颁布于公元前120年至118年的法令，其中一条规定了希腊语埃及法院各自的管辖权，见Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.7.
③马丁沃尔夫著；李浩培、汤宗舜译：《国际私法》，北京：北京大学出版社，2009年版，第24页。
①Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.11.
②Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.11.阿库修斯、巴尔杜纳斯国际私法方面观点的介绍，见李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第125页。
③阿库修斯于1228年时通过对《查士丁尼法典》“三位一体大全篇”的“罗马人民共同体”原则的注释，得出了“法则区别说”的一个首要原则：城邦无权为其他城邦的市民立法，也无权将本邦法律强加适用于外邦人。巴尔杜纳斯则于1235年提出了根据法则本身的性质将所有法则区分为程序法则和实体法则的观点。见李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第125页
④此外，雅克还于1270年提出了“继承问题（包括动词和不动产）适用物之所在地法”的主张，李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第126页；J. A. Clarence Smith.“Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws”,The American Journal of Legal History, Vol.14, No.2,1970, pp.158-159.威廉（William of Cuneo）则提出了“场所支配行为”的主张。马丁沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第25页。
⑤李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第129页。
⑥Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, translated into English by Joseph Henry Beale, Cambridge Havard UniversityPress, London: Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press,1914.
⑦J. A. Clarence Smith. Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws.
①Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.17-22.
②Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.23-24；李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第127页。
③具体内容见Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.25-27；李建忠，《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，第127页。
④Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, p.30.
⑤Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, p.33.
⑥Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, p.48.
⑦Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.30-32.
⑧Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, pp.33-47,48-61.
⑨马丁沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第27页；Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.14.
⑩黄进：《国际私法》，第95页。
①法国的“法则区别说”以杜穆兰（1500-1566）、达让特雷（1519-1590）为代表。“法则区别说”的法兰西学派也为国际私法的发展做出了不可磨灭的贡献，其成果，如当事人意思自治等，沿用至今。见马丁沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第28-29页。
②“法则区别说”的荷兰学派在17世纪盛极一时，以胡伯（1636-1694）为代表。他所提出的著名的“胡伯三原则”对后世国际私法的发展产生了深远的影响，被认为是19世纪至20世纪前期风行一时的“既得权说”的先驱。见Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.89-90.
③博丹（Jean Bodin）、格劳秀斯（Hugo Grotius）等荷兰学者有关主权理论的学说对17世纪荷兰国际私法发展进程的影响，见李建忠：《古代国际私法溯源：从古希腊、古罗马社会到法则理论的荷兰学派》，第253-255页。
④译文见李建忠，《古代国际私法溯源：从古希腊、古罗马社会到法则理论的荷兰学派》，第273页。
⑤斯托里对胡伯“礼让说”观点的关注与接受，见Joseph Story. Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (SixEdition), Boston: Little, Brown, And Company,1865, pp.34-36;另见Alan Watson, Joseph Story and the Comityof Errors: A Case Study in Conflict of Laws, pp.19-20。戴西对胡伯“礼让说”观点的批判与继受，见Albert V.Dicey. A Digest of the Laws of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws(Second Edition), London: Stevensand Sons, Ltd., Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd.,1908, pp.10-11,15-16,23-33.
⑥Albert V. Dicey, A Digest of the Laws of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws(Second Edition), pp.23-33; pp.58-59.
⑦General Principle No. I.:“Any right which has been duly acquired under the law of any civilized country isrecognized and, in general, enforced by English Courts, and no right which has not been duly acquired is enforcedor, in general, recognized by English Courts.”, Albert V. Dicey. A Digest of the Laws of England with Reference tothe Conflict of Laws(Second Edition), pp.23.
①贝尔对“既得权说”的接受，见Joseph Henry Beale,ATreatise on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. I-Part I., pp.105-113; Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, as Adopted and Promulgated by the American Law Instituteat Washington, D. C., May11,1934, American Law Institute Publishers St. Paul.,§1.
②“The law annexes to the event a certain consequence, namely, the creation of a legal right…When a right hasbeen created by law, this right itself becomes a fact;…the existing right should everywhere be recognized; since todo so is merely to recognize the existence of a fact.”“A right having been created by the appropriate law, therecognition of its existence should follow everywhere. Thus an act valid where done cannot be called in questionanywhere.”, Joseph Henry Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, p.107.
③Symeon C. Symeonides, American Private International Law, p.67；David McClean, J. H. C. Morris,theConflict of Laws, p.443; Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.90.
④正如有学者所指出的，一方面承认根据外国法所获得的权利，另一方面又拒不承认外国法的效力，这实在有些难以令人信服，黄进：《国际私法》，第107页。这种颇似掩耳盗铃的观点，或许反映了在国际交往的现实需要面前维护严格的法律属地主义观念的艰难与困窘。
⑤Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.90.
⑥American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, St Paul: American Law InstitutePublishers,1934,§332.
⑦American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§333.
⑧American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§334.
⑨American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§337.
⑩American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§338.
11American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§339.
12Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II), p.1080,1083.
13Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§378
①Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§379
②Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§383,384
③Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§385
④Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§386
⑤Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws (Vol. II),§388.
⑦冲突法学者对“既得权说”理论的批判，见Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.32.
⑧萨维尼著；李双元、张茂等译：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版。
①“the law of the proper state is the proper law”, Symeon C. Symeonides.“American Choice of Law at the Dawnof the21stCentury”, Willamette L. Rev., Vol.37, No.1,2001, p.61; Symeon C. Symeonides,“Result-Selectivism inConflicts Law”, p.1-2.
②“substantive law aims at the materially best solution, PIL aims at the spatially best solution”, Gerhard Kegel.“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers”, p.616.
①详细论述参见本章第一节内容。
②参加黄进：《国际私法》，第430页；邓杰：《国际私法分论》，北京：知识产权出版社，2005年版，第122页至123页；秦瑞亭：《冲突法的理论与实务》，北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2007年版，第265页至266页；韩德培：《国际私法新论》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2009年版。
③马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第536页。
①李丽、温悦：《侵权法律适用中侵权行为地的确定》，《法制与社会》，2006年第11期，第73页。
④David McClean, J. H. C. Morri. the Conflict of Laws, pp.276-280.
⑤J. H. C. Morris. the Conflict of Laws, pp.276-280.
⑥刘静：《产品责任论》，第232页。
⑦Gunther Kuhne.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, pp.12-13.
①而关于产品生产地在具体案件中如何认定，按照一些学者的观点，也存在不确定性，见David F. Cavers,“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, pp.705-706.
②例如在一起美国发生的集团诉讼案件中，母亲在怀孕期间服用的药物（DES）导致产生的女婴在成年后罹患癌症和其他疾病的几率大大增加，而这些疾病在服用DES的母亲生产的女婴身上的潜伏期至少在10到12年以上，见Judith Sindell v.Abbott Laboratories (26Cal.3d588).
④Joseph H. Beale. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§378.
⑤“state where the last event necessary to make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place”, see Joseph H. Beale.Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws,§377.
⑥除了学者以外，法官在判决中也对第一次冲突法重述制定的规则公开地进行批判，例如在Kilberg v.Northeast Airlines (9N. Y.2d34)一案的判决中，法院认为对于空难事故的赔偿问题适用飞机失事地点的法律是“不公正且反常的（unjust and anomalous）”;再如Emery v. Emery (45Cal.2d421,289P.2d218);Haumschild v. Continental Cas. Co.(7Wis2d130,95N. W.2d814); Grant v. McAuliffe (41Cal.2d859,264P.2d944).
⑦Martin Wolff. Private international Law, pp.2-3; Cavers.“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, p.178;Lorenze,“Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws”, P.736; Cheatman,“American Theories ofConflict of Laws: Their Role and Utility”, pp.379-385; Cook.“The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict ofLaws”, p.479; Willis L. M. Reese.“American Choice of Law”, pp.135-146,138; Symeon C. Symeonides.“TheFirst Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes of Old: As Bad As Its Reputation?”, p.39; Symeon C. Symeonides.“Choice of Law in Cross-Border Torts: Why Plaintiffs Win and Should”, Hastings L.J. Vol.61(2009), pp.341-342.
⑧Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
⑨Symeon C. Symeonides.“Choice of Law in Cross-Border Torts: Why Plaintiffs Win and Should”,pp.341-342.
①在1963年出版的63期《哥伦比亚法律评论》上，数位学者应邀对该案进行了评述，包括：David F. Cavers,Ellliott E. Cheatham, Brainerd Currie, Albert A. Ehrezweig, Robert A. Leflar and Willis L. M. Reese, see Babcockv. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963), Columbia Law Review, Vol.63, No.7,1963, pp.1212-1257.
②9N.Y.2d34,172N.E.2d526,211N.Y.S.2d133(1961).在该案中，一名纽约州居民在马萨诸塞州发生的一起空难事故中身亡。审理该案件的纽约州上诉法院适用了纽约州的法律，给予原告全额赔偿，而没有按照马萨诸塞州的法律限制赔偿数额。在判决中，法官认为“当今现实使得令本州居民在旅行过程中受各个途经的州的法律的管辖的做法显得不公正且不适当。(“modern conditions make it unjust and anomalous to subject thetraveling citizen of this state to the varying laws of other States through and over which” they move.”)”汉堡国际私法学会也以一起类似的假设案件，说明了在涉外产品责任案件中适用与案件只有偶然联系的“损害发生地”的法律的不合理之处。在该假设的案例中，一名欧洲游客在旅行途径印度尼西亚时，随身携带的在本国购买的饮料爆炸，致使其受到人身伤害。汉堡国际私法学会认为，在这样的案件中适用印度尼西亚法律，对于被侵权人和侵权人而言都是不能预见的，Hamburg Group for Private International Law.“Comments on theEuropean Commission’s Draft Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-ContractualObligations”, p.17.
③Shimon A. Rosenfeld.“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization of State’sInterests”, pp.142-143.
①Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, p.477.
②“Note: Products Liability and the Choice of Law”, p.1458; Michael Ena.“Choice of Law and Predictability ofDecisions in Products Liability Cases”, Fordham Urb. L. J., Vol.34, pp.1424-1425.
③P. John Kozyris.“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should Be Done About Choiceof Law for Products Liability?”; Hamburg Group for Private International Law.“Comments on the EuropeanCommission’s Draft Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations”, p.17; Thomas Kadner Graziano,“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, pp.481-482.
④比如2006年修订的日本《法律适用通则法》（《法の適用に関する通則法》）第18条规定，在通常情况下适用受害人获得产品地法；但是如果受害人获得产品地在一般情形下不能合理预见，则适用生产商主营业所所在地。
①Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, pp.481-482.
②Hamburg Group for Private International Law,“Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for aCouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations”, p.17.
③Andrew Dickinson. The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, New York:Oxford Uninversity Press,2008, pp.382-383.
④关于该事件的始末和评析见，《人民网》，http://japan.people.com.cn/zhuanti/Zhuanti_26.html （最近检索日期：2012年4月27日）；《搜狐网》http://news.sohu.com/54/76/sohu_subject144807654.shtml （最近检索日期：2012年4月27日），刘益灯：《国际消费者保护法律制度研究》，第59、64页。
①实现判决一致性一直是为数不少的冲突法学者光荣而伟大的梦想，尤以萨维尼为首。见萨维尼：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》，第14页。
①“Note: Products Liability and the Choice of Law”, p.1458; Michael Ena.“Choice of Law and Predictability ofDecisions in Products Liability Cases”, pp.1424-1425.
③Cavers.“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, pp.191-192.
④David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, pp.717-718.
⑤Cavers.“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, pp.180-181.
⑥“The choice-of-law rule is an odd creature among laws. It never tells what the result will be, but only where tolook to find the result; and the author of the rule cannot foresee the outcome.”, Brainerd Currie, Selected Essays ofthe Conflict of Laws, Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press,1963, p.170.
⑧Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.45.
①Symeon C. Symeonides,“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.45.根据荣格的考证，以达成“较好的”判决结果为涉外民商事案件中法律选择和适用的目标，早在意大利“法则区别说”时代便有学者提出。注释法学者阿德瑞克斯（MagisterAldricus）提出，从相互冲突的法律中选择更好、更有用的法律适用，见Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.12.在美国冲突法革命时期和当下，不少学者都对在冲突法领域实现“实质正义”的话题表现出浓厚的兴趣，如卡弗斯、拉弗拉尔、荣格、卢瑟·麦克道格尔等。相关论著见，Cavers.“ACritique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”,; RobertA. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”; Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice,2005; Luther M. McDougal.“Towards the Application of the Best Rule of Law in Choice of Law Cases”.
②Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, p.10.
③格哈德·可格尔：《冲突法的危机》；Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe ofAmerican ‘Coflict Revolution’”;Gerhard Kegel.“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers”, pp.615-633; FrankVischer; Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?.
①Note: Babcock v. Jackson, p.1214.
②当时不少论文都对以《第一次冲突法重述》为代表的传统冲突理论和规范提出批评意见，其中影响力较大的有：Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays of the Conflict of Laws, Durham, p.170; Brainerd Currie,“Conflict, Crisisand Confusion in New York”, pp.17-21; Willis L. M. Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”,pp.68-682; David F. Cavers, Elliott E. Cheatham, Brainerd Currie, Albert A. Ehrenzweig, Robert A. Leflar, WillisL. M. Reese,“Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963)”, Columbia LawReview, Vol.63, No.7(Nov.,1963), pp.1212-1257.等等。
③坚定地追随柯里学说的学者如赛德勒（Robert A. Sedler）、盖伊（Herma Hill Kay）等。见Sedler.“Choice ofLaw: How it Ought to Be: Responses to Transcript: A Real World Perspective on Choice of Law”, Mercer L. Rev.Vol.48, p.781; Sedler.“Interest Analysis and Forum Preference in the Conflict of Laws: A Response to the ‘NewCritics’”; Robert A. Sedler.“Professor Juenger’s Challenge to the Interest Analysis Approach to Choice-of-Law:An Appreciation and a Response”, U. C. Davis L. Rev., Vol.23,1989-1990, p.865; Herma Hill Kay.“A Defense ofCurrie’s Govermental Interest Analysis”, Recueil des cours, Vol.215. No.9,1989; Herma Hill Kay.“Currie’sInterest Analysis in the21stCentury: Losing the Battle, But Winning the War”, Willamette L. Rev. Vol.37,2001,p.123.
④比如提出“损害比较说”的巴克斯特（Willliam F. Baxter）和“实体法”方法的冯·梅仑。二者都是从如何解决按照“政府利益分析说”的标准划分出的“真实冲突”的角度，发展了柯里的学说。见Baxter.“Choice of Law andthe Federal System”, Stan. L. Rev. Vol.16, p.1; Arthur T. von Mehren.“Special Substantive Rules for MultistateProblems: Their Role and Siginficance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, Harv. L. Rev. Vol.88,p.347.
①比如1985年《俄亥俄州法律杂志》登载了以“政府利益分析说”为主题的研讨会论文集，柯则瑞斯（P. JohnKozyris）、荣格（Juenger）、布莱梅尔（Lea Brilmayer）、赛德勒（Robert A. Sedler）、温特劳布（Russell Weintraub）等学者纷纷撰文，见”Symposium on InterestAnalysis in Conflict of Laws: an Inquiry into Fundamentals with aside Glance at Products Liability”, Ohio St. L.J., Vol.46,1985, p.569。类似的研讨会论文集时有出现，如1994年出版的《布鲁克林法律评论》、1997年的《梅赛法律评论》。见”Symposium: InterestAnalysis, PartyExpectations and Judicial Method in Conflicts Torts Cases: Reflections On Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.fn.”,Brooklyn Law Review, Winter,1994;“Choice of Law: How It Ought to BE: Responses to Transcript: Choice ofLaw: How it Ought Not To Be”, Mercer L. Rev.(Winter,1997).
②以西蒙尼德斯对美国各州法院在2009年涉外侵权案件中采用学说、方法为例，采用第二次冲突法重述的包括阿拉斯加、亚利桑那州、科罗拉多州、康涅狄格州、特拉华州、弗罗里达州等地的法院；采用“较好的法律说”的包括阿拉斯加州、密执根州、明尼苏达州、罗德岛等地的法院；采用“政府利益分析说”的有加利福尼亚州、哥伦比亚特区等地的法院。见Symeon C. Symeonides.“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey”, p.231.
③Alaska Packers Association v. Industrial Accident Commission,294U. S.532(1935)
④Pacific Emplyers Insurance Co. Industrial Accident Commission,306U. S.493(1939).
⑤Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper,286U. S.145(1932)
⑥关于“政府利益分析说”的提出与最高法院在劳工赔偿案上的判决之间的关系，见Friedrich K. Juenger.Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.93-96,98-99；格哈德·可格尔：《冲突法的危机》，第18页。
①Brainerd Currie.“Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws”, p.178.
②“those in which it appears that each state would be constitutionally justified in asserting an interest, but onreflection conflic tis avoided by a moderate defintion of the policy or interest of one state or the other.”, BrainerdCurrie.“The Disinterested Third State”, p.763.
③Juenger.“Govermental Interests—Real and Suprious—in Multistate Disputes”, p.518; Juenger,“Choice-of-Lawin Interstate Torts”, p.209;格哈德·可格尔：《冲突法的危机》，第101至104页。
④9N.Y.2d34,172N.E.2d526,211N.Y.S.2d133(1961).在该案中，审理该案件的纽约州上诉法院适用了纽约州的法律，给予原告全额赔偿，而没有按照马萨诸塞州的法律限制赔偿数额。
①Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, p.704.
②Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, pp.704-705.
③Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, p.189.
①Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, p.29.
②还有一类冲突被称为“表面冲突”（”appparent conflict”），它是柯里最后提出的冲突类型。所谓“表面冲突”是指看似不止一个法域在使本法域法律得到适用上有合法利益，也即存在“真实冲突”的情况。但是，通过法院对某个州的政策或利益进行更加温和的、限制性的解释，这种“真实冲突”可以被转化为“虚假冲突”。由于这类冲突是处于变动状态的，其发展的方向要不是“真实冲突”，要不就是“虚假冲突”，且最终的解决也必须遵循这两种冲突类型，因此本文不将之作为独立的冲突类型列出。关于建立在柯里学说基础上的各类法律冲突类型的归纳，见Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, pp.30-36.
①Selected, pp.180-181.
②“The justification for the interest analysis approach--the "foundation" of that approach, to use ProfessorBrilmayer's term--is that it provides a rational basis for making choice of law decisions. It is rational to makechoice of law decisions with reference to the policies reflected in the laws of the involved states and the interest ofeach state, in light of those policies, in having its law applied on the point in issue in the particular case.Precisely because it is rational to make choice of law decisions on this basis, the application of the interest analysisapproach in practice generally will produce functionally sound and fair results.” See: Robert A. Sedler,“InterestAnalysis as the Preferred Approach to Choice of Law: A Response to Professor Brilmayer's ‘Foundational Attack’”,p.491.
②“In sum, therefore, under Currie’s analysis, almost all roads lead homeward.”，见Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, p.35.
③Robert A. Leflar. Distinguised Professor of Law, University of Arkansas, and Professor of Law, New YorkUniversity; Consulting Director of Appellate Judges Seminars, Institute of Judicail Administration, New York.
④Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”,p.267.
①Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.304.
②Yntema.“The Objectives of Private International Law”, Can. B. Rev. Vol.35; Cheatham, Reese.“Choice of theApplicable Law”, p.959.
③Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, pp.56-62; Symeonides C.Symeonides. The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, pp.26-27.
④Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.282.
⑤Robert A. Leflar,“Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing Considerations”, pp.1585-1586.
⑥Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.285.
⑦Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, pp.56-57.
⑧Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.286-287.
①Robert A. Leflar.“Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing Considerations”, p.1586.
②Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.290.
③Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.295-303.
④Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.295.
⑤Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.300-302.
⑥Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.299-304.
⑦Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.296-297.
①Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.297.
②Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.297-298.
③Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflcits Law”, pp.3-7.
④Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.327.
⑤根据荣格的考证，适用更好、更有用的法解决法律冲突的观点，早在中世纪便由一位注释法学派学者马吉斯特·阿德瑞克斯（MagisterAldricus）提出，见Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justic, p.12.
①“There is contradiction within them, because all the opposing values are restated in the list of considerations”,Luther L. McDougal III, Robert L. Felix, Ralph U. Whitten, American Conflicts Law, p.348.
②Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, pp.299-301,303-304.
①Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.300.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, p.5; Maier.“Coordination of Laws in aNational Federal System: An Analysis of the Writings of Elliot Evans Cheatham”, Vand. L. Rev., Vol.26, p.256.
③“However much…in practice the judge’s choice of law may be influenced by his preference for the content ofone law or another, it is inadvisable to evelate a fact of human weakness to a principle of legislative policy.” See,Kahn Freund.“General Problems of Private International Law”, Recueil des Cours, Vol.143,1974. p.466.
①由齐特曼和里斯首先提出，见Cheatham and Reese.“Choice of theApplicable Law”, P.959.
②由卡弗斯提出，见David F. Cavers. Contemporary Conflicts Law in American Perspective, Rec. des Cours, Vol.131,1970; David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, pp.703-733,719-728; David F. Cavers.
“The Value of Principled Preferences”, Texas Law Review, Vol.49, pp.211-223.
①由柯里提出，见Brainerd Currie.“Married Women’s Contracts: AStudy in Conflict-of-Laws Method”, TheUniversity of Chicago Law Review, Vol.25, No.2,1958, pp.227-268; Brainerd Currie.“Notes on Methods andObjectives in the Conflict of Laws”, pp.171-181.
②时任加利福尼亚州法院法官的Roger Traynor在其1956年写作的论文中对美国法院的法官当时的困境有如下描述：“In certain fields, as currently in Conflict of Laws, the wilderness grows wilder, faster than the axes ofdiscriminating men can keep it under control.…The demolition of obsolete thories makes the judge’s task harder,as he works his way out of the wreckage; but it leaves him free to weigh competing policies withoutpreconceptions that purpost to compel the decision, but in fact do not. He has a better chance to arrive at the leasterroneous answer is the scholars have labored in advance to break ground for new paths. If they have not, he mustchop his own way through, however asymmetrically, and hope that scholars will speed their reinforcements to thejob in hand.”, Roger Traynor.“Law and Social Change in a Democratic Society”, U. ILL. L. F.,1956, p.230.；alsoRoger J. Traynor.“War and Peace in the Conflict of Laws”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,Vol.25, No.1,1976, pp.121-155,122-123.
③“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”, Charles Dickens, A tale of two cities, Delhi: GlobalMedia,2007, p.3.
④The American Law Institute.ed. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., St Paul: American LawInstitute Publishers,1969.
⑤Introduction by by Herbert Wechsler, Director of the American Law Institute, The American Law Institute.Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d.
⑥The American Law Institute. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.10.
⑦The American Law Institute. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.13.
①Elliott E. Cheatham; Willis L. M. Reese.“Choice of the Applicable Law”, pp.959-982.
②Willis L. M. Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, pp.681-699; Robert A. Leflar,“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, p.268.
③荣格认为因145条之类的规则的存在，第二次重述成为“多种不相协调的方法的混合体”，见Friedrich K.Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.105-106.
④对第二次重述规则的分类及相关研究，见Symeon C. Symeonides,“Symposium: The SilverAnniversary ofthe Second Conflicts Restate-ment”, Md. L. Rev., Vol.56, pp.1248-1273.
⑤Peter Hay,“Flexibility Versus Predictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law: Reflections on Current Europeanand United States Conflicts Law”, Recueil des cours, Vol.215, p.359,371.
①The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d.,§6(2)
②The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.13.
③The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.15.
④萨维尼：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》,第14页。
⑤Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.105.
⑥The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.15.
⑦里斯在于1952年阐述影响法律选择的因素的论文中，将要求法官考虑相关法域政策利益的因素和考虑“相关实体法领域的基本政策”的因素合并为同一类。此类因素要求权衡相关实体法的内容和适用结果。1952年论文中的考虑实体法内容和适用结果的因素正与第6条中的(b)、(c)、€项相对应。见Elliott E.Cheatham; Willis L. M. Reese.“Choice of the Applicable Law”, pp.959-982,981.
①The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.1280.
②Gerhard Kegel,“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers”,p.616.
③对于第6条对于多种理论和思想的杂合及其本身的不协调，不少学者提出了尖锐的评判，有学者甚至将之称为“大杂烩”(“mishmash”)、“厨房的下水道”(“kitchen-sink”)，见Friedrich K. Juenger,“AThird ConflictsRestatement?”, p.406.
④The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.14.
⑤The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., p.12.
⑥不少学者对于第二次冲突法重述给予法官的自由裁量权是否过大的问题进行了讨论，例如Luther L.McDougal III, Robert L. Felix, Ralph U. Whitten, American Conflicts Law, p.467.; Friedrich K. Juenger,“A ThirdConflicts Restatement?”, pp.406-407; Russell J. Weintraub.“‘At least, To Do No Harm’: Does the SecondRestatement of Conflicts Meet the Hippocratic Standard?”, Md. L. Rev., Vol.56, p.1284; Louise Weinberg,“AStructural Revision of the Conflicts Restatement”, pp.478-480;法官通过第二次冲突法重述的运用，获得不受限制的自由裁量权，被Symeonides认为是第二次冲突法重述获得法院较为普遍的认可的首要原因，SymeonC. Symeonides.“The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A Mixed Blessing”, pp.1270-1273.
⑦“Many Courts seem to like the ‘mishmash,’ or ‘kitchen-sink’, concoction the restaters produced; after all, itenables judges to decide conflicts cases any which way they wish.”, Friedrich K. Juenge.“A Third ConflictsRestatement?”.
①“All rules of law, and choice-of-law rules are no exception, are the product of policies. A rule is constructedinitially to further what the law-maker conceives to be the basic policies involved. And the ultimate success of arule will depend upon how effective it is in in furthering these policies. During the early stages of a rule’sdevelopment, reference should constantly be made to the underlying policies to determine whether the rule is inneed of amendment and whether it should be given a broad or narrow application.” See, Willis L. M Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, p.681.
②“Care must be taken not to state rules that will prive wrong when applied to new problems, for if this were to bedone with any freuency the Restatement would prove to be a hindrance, rather than an aid, in the furhterdevelopment of the subject. Hence, as a general proposition, it is probably better to err on the side of a rule thatmay be too fluid and uncertain in application than to take one’s chances with a precise and hard-and-fast rule thatmay be proved wrong in the future.…Of necessity, many conflicts rules must be fluid in operation and leave muchto be worked out by the courts.”, Willis L. M Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, p.681.
①Joseph Henry Beale. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, pp.106-107,159-160.
②Lea Brilmayer.“The role of substantive and choice of law policies in the formation and application of choice oflaw rules”, p.47.
③对美国法律现实主义的介绍，特别是在其与法律实证主义之间的比较，见Stephen M. Feldman. AmericanLegal Thought From Premodernism to Postmodernism: An Intellectual Voyage, Oxford University Press, Inc.,2000, pp.105-115.
④Holmes. The Common Law, Boston: Little, Brown And Company,1923, p.1.
①Lea Brilmayer.“The role of substantive and choice of law policies in the formation and application of choice oflaw rules”, pp.32-33.
①Willis L. M Reese.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, p.681.
②Symeon C. Symeonides,“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey”, p.231.
③582NW2d866(Mich. App.1998).
①NC Gen Stat1-50(6).
②MCL6005850(10).
①Symeonides C. Symeonides. The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, p.289..
②Brainerd Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, pp.704-705.
③学者对此的批判的整理，见Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides. Conflict of Laws, pp.39-40，及注释56,58-59.
④见柯里对于Milliken v. Pratt案、Grant v. McAuliffe案和Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.案的分析，Selected,p.610, p.144, pp.704-705。对于柯里在“政策”分析上立场的说明，见Robert A. Sedler.“The GovernmentalInterest Approach to Choice of Law: An Analysis And A Reformulation”, pp.184-185;格哈德·可格尔著，《冲突法的危机》，第21-22页。
⑤WL910373(CD Cal.1997).
①2004WL1398024(DNJ2004).
②Lea Brilamyer.“Interest Analysis And the Myth of Legislative Intent”, pp.416-417, p.430; R. Leflar, L.McDougal III&R. Felix, American Conflicts Law (4thed.), p.269; Silberman.“Can the State of Minnesota Bindthe Nation? Federal Choice-of-Law Constranits After Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague”, pp.109-110.
①Custom Products, Inc. v. Fluor Daniel Canada, Inc.(262F. supp.2d767).
②Kelly v. Ford Motor Co.(933F. Supp.465).
③“Thus in reasoning about conflicts problems, scholars and courts can and should heed some of the values thatinterest analysts condemned as ‘metaphysical’, such as evenhandedness and predictability.”, see Lea Brilamyer.“Interest Analysis And the Myth of Legislative Intent”, p.430.
①Symeon C. Symeonides.“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey”, p.231.
②Robert A. Leflar.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”.
③27F.3d731.
④Colo. Rev. Stat.§13-21-102.5(1987&1993Supp.)
①The Rhode Island Supreme court would “undoubtedly favor a compensatory damage standard without limits”.
①Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition),p.58.
②Symeon C. Symeonides,“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third Annual Survey”, p.231.
①Michael Ena.“Choice of Law and Predictability of Decisions in Products Liability Cases”, pp.1444-1450;Michael H. Gottesman.“Draining the Dismal Swamp: The Case for Federal Choice of Law Statutes”, GEo. L.J.,Vol.80, pp.9-10; Shimon A. Rosenfeld,“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization ofState’s Interests”, pp.152-156.
②The American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d,, p.12.
③51S. W.3d643.
①Symeon C. Symeonides.“The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A Mixed Blessing”,pp.1270.
②Friedrich K. Juenge,“A Third Conflicts Restatement?”.提出类似观点的还有Peter Hay,“Flexibility VersusPredictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law: Reflections on Current European and United States ConflictsLaw”, p.359; James A. Meschewski,“Choice of Law in Alaska: A Survival Guide for Using the SecondRestatement”, p.2.
③对第二次重述下法官享有过度自由裁量权并可导致“法院地法偏好”状况的讨论，见Peter Hay, Patrick J.Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws, pp.70-71..分析说”、“较好法律说”在内的新学说的法院司法实践的通病，见Russell J. Weintraub,“SYMPOSIUM:Choice of Law for Products Liability: Demagnetizing the United States Forum”, Vol.52, pp.164-165; Courtland H.Peterson,“Article: Section II: Private International Law at the End of the Twentieth Century: Progress orRegress?”, pp.210-211.
①比如有学者指出，“几乎一切具体规则的法律效力在最密切联系原则面前都是动摇不确定的，它们所指引的准据法随时有可能被另一个‘更密切联系的国家的法律’所取代”。“（最密切联系原则）在增加传统法律体系的灵活性的同时，其本身‘虚无规则’的性质可能最终会损害国际私法的基础……。”宋晓，《当代国际私法的实体取向》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2004年，第126-127页。又如美国学者在1999年总结阿拉斯加州法院在判决中多年采用第二次重述的状况时，指出“第二次重述的模糊性”将“对于阿拉斯加州法院和法律从业者而言原本就不清澈的水池搅得愈发浑浊”，JamesA. Meschewski,“Choice of Law inAlaska:ASurvival Guide for Using the Second Restatement”, p.3.
②“Many Courts seem to like the ‘mishmash,’ or ‘kitchen-sink’, concoction the restaters produced; after all, itenables judges to decide conflicts cases any which way they wish.”, Friedrich K. Juenge.“A Third ConflictsRestatement?”.
①12N.Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
②卡弗斯、里斯、拉弗拉尔、艾因茨威格等学者对此案判决的评论见David F. Cavers, Ellliott E. Cheatham,Brainerd Currie, Albert A. Ehrezweig, Robert A. Leflar and Willis L. M. Reese, see Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963), Columbia Law Review, Vol.63, No.7(Nov.,1963), pp.1212-1257.
③32N.Y.2d121,286N. E.2d454,335N. Y. S.2d64(1972)
④32N.Y.2d121,286N. E.2d454,335N. Y. S.2d64(1972)
⑤Paris Air Crash,399F. Supp., p.739.
⑥Rosenberg,“Two Views on Kell v. Henderson, An Opinion for the New York Court of Appeals”, p.459,464.
⑦Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, P.126.
①Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of American ‘Coflict Revolution’”, pp.3-4.
②“…there is little doubt that the conflicts revolution has prevailed over the traditional theory. But to prevail is onething and to succeed is another. Te latter cannont be judged by numbers alone. It can be judged by examiningwhether the revolution has produced a new system to replace the old one, and by how well the new system attedsto the basic needs and aspirations of the choice-of-law process, such as uniformity of result and predictability ofdecisions. Judged in this light, the revolution did not and could not have succeeded.”, Peter Hay. Patrick J.Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition), pp.56-62; Symeonides C. Symeonides. TheAmerican Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, p.121.
③As qutoed from his original words:“The problem, is, however, that this record comes at a high cost in litigationexpenses for the parties, and a heavy utilization of judicial resources that are needed elsewhere. Long delays inresolving a conflict and high uncertainties regarding the outcome commensurably reduce the value of even a goodoutcome. Predicatability of outcomes is as important in this area of the law as it is elsewhere.” Symeon C.Symeonides,“Party Choice of Law in Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.266.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?(General Report)”, p.26.
③Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, p.10.
①以奥地利和瑞士为首，大陆法系国家自上世纪70、80年代开始掀起了国际私法法典化的风潮。相关评述可见肖永平，王承志：《晚近欧洲冲突法之发展》，第170-171页。
②Edoardo Vitta.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, pp.11-14.
③Frank Vischer. General course on private international law, Recueil des Cours, pp.106-112,116-125.
④Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, pp.10-27.
⑤Symeon C. Symeonides. Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?, pp.48-62.
⑥“These are rules that are designed to accomplish a certain substantive result that is considered a priori asdesirable”.见Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private international law at the end of the20th century: progress orregress?: XVth International Congress of Comparative Law”, p.38.
⑦Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, p.10.
①Fausto Pocar and Costanza Honorati,“Italian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progressor Regress?”, p284.
②Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.195-196.
③Alain Prujiner,“Canadian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.140.
⑤对结果选择规则所实现的“结果”的归纳与分类，见Symeon C. Symeonides,“Private International Law at theEnd of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.38; Tomasz Pajor,“Polish Private International Law at the Endof the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.334.
⑥黄进：《国际私法》，第334页。
①Art.3539, Louisiana Acts1991.“A person is capable of contracting if he possesses that capacity under the lawof either the state in which he is domiciled at the time of making the contract or the state whose law is applicableto the contract under Article3537.”
②邹国勇译注：《外国国际私法立法精选》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2011年版，第188页。
③日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号），Art.4，英译本见Okudaand Anderson.“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules of Application of Laws,Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006),” Asian-Pacific Law&Policy Journal139.
④黄进：《国际私法》，北京：法律出版社，1999年，第419页。
⑤Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.50-51.
①80/934/EEC: Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on19June1980, Art.9(2)；Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Art.11(2).
②Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.56(Gifts).
③Switzerland’s Federal Code on Private International Law of December18,1987as amended until January1,2007, Art.124(1),(2).
④EGBGB, Art.11(1),(2)，中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第536-537页。
⑤Acts1991, No.923,§1, eff. Jan.1,1992, Art.3538.
⑥日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号）。
⑦Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.50-51.
⑧Katharina Boele-Woelki, Carla Joustra, and Gert Steenhoff.“Dutch Private International Law at the End of the
20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: KluwerLaw International,1999, p.311.
①对中西古代遗嘱继承形式要件的比较研究，见夏婷婷：《中西古代遗嘱继承比较研究》，《山东理工大学学报（社会科学版）》，2011年1月第1期，第41页至42页。
②Convention on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (Concluded5October1961), Art.1.
③其中包括奥地利、比利时、丹麦、埃及、芬兰、法国、德国、西班牙、波兰、瑞士、瑞典、卢森堡、日本、荷兰、英国等，见李双元主编：《中国与国际私法统一化进程》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1993年版，第466页至468页。
④Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.48.
⑤Uniform Probate Code (Last Amended or Revised in2006),§2-506.
⑥Quebec Civil Code Art.3109(3).
⑦《匈牙利国际私法》第36条第2款，见李双元、欧永福、熊之才：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京：北京大学出版社，2002年版，第262页。
①台湾《涉外民事法律适用法》（台湾2010年4月30日立法院第7届第5会期第11次会议通过），第61条。
②Louisiana Acts1991, No.923, Art.3529.
③Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law, Art.30(1).
④Swiss PIL Art.94.
①有关涉外婚姻双方当事人本国法的重叠适用造成的不利后果研究，见张超汉：《跛脚婚姻产生及其协调浅论》，《吉林广播电视大学学报》，2009年第4期，第103页；林碧冰：《涉外离婚准据法选择方法的发展新趋势及启示》，2007年2月第1期，《湛江师范学院学报》，第96页至98页。
②宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第158-159页。
③Swiss PIL Code, Art.44(2).“If the conditions under Swiss law are not satisfied, a marriage between foreignersmay ne vertheless be performed if the conditions of the law of the State of citizenship of either the bride or thebridegroom are satisfied.
④Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.28.
①EGBGB, Art.13(1)(2),中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第536-537页。
②Katharina Boele-Woelki, Carla Joustra, and Gert Steenhoff,“Dutch Private International Law at the End of the
20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.309-310.
③根据K. Boele-Woelki和D. van Iterson的介绍，荷兰国际私法的法典化将在2011-2012年完成。K.Boele-Woelki&D. van Iterson,“The Dutch Private International Law Codification: Principles, Objectives andOpportunities”, Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.14.3, p.1, p.17.
④台湾《涉外民事法律适用法》，第45条。
⑤台湾《涉外民事法律适用法》，第46条
⑥Convention Relating to the Settlement of the Conflict of Laws and Jurisdictions as Regards to Divorce andSeparation.
⑦Outline Hague Divorce Convention, see http://www.hcch.net/upload/outline18e.pdf（2012年4月27日）
⑧EGBGB, Art.17(1),中译本见杜涛，《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第539页。
⑨Swiss PIL. Art.61(3).
①Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.31.
②Christa Jessel-Holst,“The32Private International Law Code of2005”, Yearbook of Private International Law,Volume9(2007), pp.380-381.
③Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law, Art.21.
④Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.34(1).
⑤日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号），Art.28(1)，英译本见Okuda and Anderson,“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules of Applicationof Laws, Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006)”.
⑥日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号），Art.30(1)，英译本见Okuda and Anderson,“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules of Applicationof Laws, Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006)”.
⑦EGBGB, Art.23,中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第543页。
⑧Swiss PIL Art.72(1)&73.中译本见陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》，北京：法律出版社，1998年版，第284页。
①Quebec Civil Code, Art.3091.
②K. Boele-Woelki&D. van Iterson,“The Dutch Private International Law Codification: Principles, Objectivesand Opportunities”, p.1,18.
③《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》，第二十五条。
①Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Oblications opened for signature in Rome on19June1980(80/934/EEC), Art.5(2).
②Quebec Civil Code Art.3117,[1991, c.64, a.3117].“3117. The choice by the parties of the law applicable to a consumer contract does not result in depriving theconsumer of the protection to which he is entitled under the mandatory provisions of the law of the country wherehe has his residence if the formation of the contract was preceded by a special offer or an advertisement in thatcountry and the consumer took all the necessary steps for the formation of the contract in that country or if theorder was received from the consumer in that country.The same rule also applies where the consumer was induced by the other contracting party to travel to a foreigncountry for the purpose of forming the contract.If no law is designated by the parties, the law of the place where the consumer has his residence is, in the samecircumstances, applicable to the consumer contract.”
③《德国民法典实施法》第29条规定：消费者合同中，当事人的法律选择不得导致消费者惯常居所地国法律中的强行规范所提供的保护被排除，如果（1）合同的缔结是基于发生在该国的明示要约或广告，并且消费者在该国实施了缔结合同所必须的法律行为；（2）消费者的合同对方当事人或其代理人是在该国接受消费者的订货，或（3）合同涉及的是货物的销售，而消费者已经从该国旅行到另一国并在当地提出他的订货，而该旅行是销售方安排的，其目的在于让消费者订立该合同。中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第546页。
④《奥地利国际私法》在针对消费者合同的专门立法中指出，如果消费者的惯常居所地的法律有给予消费者的特殊保护，而合同是因企业家或其雇佣者在该国进行活动并有意缔结的，则适用消费者惯常居所地法；当事人之间合意选择的准据法，不得违反消费者惯常居所地的强行法规范，否则不发生效力。AustrianFederal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law, Art.41,中译本见李双元、欧永福、熊之才：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，第369页。
⑤日本《法の適用に関する通則法》（平成十八年六月二十一日法律第七十八号），Art.11(1)，英译本见Okuda and Anderson,“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules of Applicationof Laws, Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006),”.
①沈涓：《冲突法及其价值导向》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2002年版，第248-249页。
①Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Oblications opened for signature in Rome on19June1980(80/934/EEC), Art.6.
③《奥地利国际私法》第44条规定，只有明示的法律选择协议才予以考虑。并且在（1）受雇佣方通常从事工作地国的强行法范围内，即使受雇方被派往他国工作，也是如此；或者（2）当受雇方通常在一个以上国家进行工作或无惯常工作地点的情况发生时，在受雇佣方的惯常居所地的强行法范围内，明示的法律选择对受雇佣方不利的，则选择无效。Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law,Art.44,中译本见李双元、欧永福、熊之才：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，第370页。
④中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第548页。
①Joseph H. Beale, Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, as Adopted and Promulgated by the AmericanLaw Institute at Washington, D. C., May11,1934, American Law Institute Publishers St. Paul.,§378.
②萨维尼：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》，第142页。
③关于现代国际社会在涉外侵权领域出现的实体取向研究，参见杜新丽，王克玉：《论涉外侵权法律适用法的价值目标及实现路径》，《法学杂志》，2010年第2期，第12页至16页。
④中译本见杜涛，《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第551-552页。
⑤意大利国际私法规定，除非侵权行为只涉及一国国民，而所有当事人的住所地也在该国，则该国法律必须适用；否则，受害人可以在损害发生地法和侵权行为地法之间选择准据法，Reform of the Italian System ofPrivate International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.62.关于意大利在一般侵权行为法律适用规定上的变化，参见Tito BALLARINO and Andrea BONOMI,“The Italian Statute on Private International Law of1995”, Yearbook of Private International Law, Volume II-2000, sellier. European Law Publishers, pp.124-125.
⑥Venezuelan Act on Private International Law (No.36.511,6August1998), Art.32.按照该法条的规定，侵权行为的受害人可以在损害发生地法和侵权行为发生地法之间选择准据法。
⑦László Burián,“Hungarian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”,XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999. p.265.
①Swiss PIL Act Art.138，中译本见陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》，第303页。
②Swiss PIL Act Art.139.
③László Burián,“Hungarian Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress or Regress?”,XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999, p.264.
①有关国际扶养制度的发展状况讨论，见卫荣辉：《论国际扶养制度与我国实践》，《宁波广播电视大学学报》，2009年9月第3期，第106页至107页。
②Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (Concluded2October1973), Art.4,5&6.该公约得到奥地利、比利时、法国、德国、荷兰、日本、意大利、卢森堡、西班牙、瑞士、土耳其、葡萄牙等国家的批准。
③Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (Concluded23November2007), Art.3&4.
④EGBGB, Art.18,中译本见杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，第541页。
⑤Quebec Civil Code, Art.3094.
①Symeonides教授的原话是“These are rules that are designed to accomplish a certain substantive result that isconsidered a priori as desirable”.见Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private international law at the end of the20thcentury: progress or regress?“, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law,, p.38.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, p.10.
③Fausto Pocar and Costanza Honorati,“Italian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progressor Regress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999,p284.
④Friedrich K. Juenger, Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, pp.195-196.
⑤《魁北克民法典》3091条规定，父母子女关系的建立，依据子女出生时子女或父母的居所地法或国籍国法中对子女更为有利的法律。关于该条的举例，见上文。
⑥Alain Prujiner,“Canadian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”,XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999, p.140.
①对于这种观点的介绍见Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.120.
①Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.120.
②对于此观点的介绍，见Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.120；宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第162页。
③两国在自然人民事行为能力上的具体规定，见本章第1节的内容。
①Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”,p.11.
②Max Rheinstein.“LawTrends in Marriage and Divorce Law of Western Countries”, Law and ContemporaryProblems, Vol.18, No.1. pp.3-19.
③William Latey.“Some International Aspects of Divorce and Nullity”, Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol.17,1931, pp.113-138.
④宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第158页；Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”,p.18.
⑤宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第157页；Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”,p.15.
①宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第187页。对于儿童权益的保护从其他公约的组成部分发展为专门性公约，内容也越来越具体化，这也体现了国际社会在儿童保护事业上的发展。比如1966年《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》（International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights）中直接规定保护儿童人权的条款主要是第10条、第12条和第13条；1989年则出现了专门的《儿童权利公约》（Convention on theRights of the Child）该公约于1989年11月20日第44届联合国大会第25号决议通过，1990年9月2日生效。到1993年出现了专门针对收养问题的公约，海牙国际私法会议第17次外交大会上通过了《跨国收养方面保护儿童及合作公约》（The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption）。
③屈广清：《论保护弱者的国际私法方法及其立法完善—以冲突规范的保护方法为中心》，《法商研究》，2006年第5期，第45-49页；贾舜宁：《论国际私法对弱者权益的保护》，第26-28页；徐冬根：《人文关怀与国际私法中弱者利益保护》，《当代法学》，2004年9月，第12-22页；马丹青：《国际私法中的弱者保护原则研究》，《法制与经济》，2009年6月，第61-62页。
④Frank Vischer,“General course on private international law”, p.121.
①“Permitting one party, after a controversy has arisen, to select the law more favorable to his position runscounter to ideas of equality that are basic to Western views of justice”, Arthur Taylor von Mehren.“SpecialSubstantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role and Significance in Contemporary Choice of LawMethodology”, p.350.对于此类观点的引用和论述见Frank Vischer.“General course on private internationallaw”, p.120.
①对此观点的引述见Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.120; Friedrich K. Juenger.Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.207.
②宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第189页。
③见Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.123.
④F Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.207；宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第189页。
⑤宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第188-189页。
①相关评述见Friedrich K. Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice, p.196.
①Frank Vischer.“General course on private international law”, p.121.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, p.30.
①“§1(1) Factual situations with foreign contacts shall be judged, in regard to private law, according to the legalorder to which the strongest connection exists.(2) The special rules on the applicable legal order which arecontained in this Federal Statute (conflicts rules) shall be considered as expressions of this principle.”, AustrianFederal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law.
②Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, p.34.
③相关意见的介绍见Edith Palmer,“The Austrian Codification of Conflicts Law”, The American Journal ofComparative Law, Vol.28, No.2,1980, pp.204-205.
④Art.15III., Switzerland's Federal Code on Private International Law “Exception clause:1. The law designated by this Code shall not be applied in those exceptional situations where, in light of allcircumstances, it is manifest that the case has only a very limited connection with that law and has a much closerconnection with another law.2. This article is not applicable in the case of a choice of law by the parties.”
⑤Frank Vischer,“Drafting National Legislation on Conflict of Laws: The Swiss Experience”, Law andContemporary Problems, Vol.41, No.2, p.138.
①宋晓，《当代国际私法的实体取向》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2004年，第195页。
②Frank Vischer,“Drafting National Legislation on Conflict of Laws: The Swiss Experience”, p.138.
③Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations(80/934/EEC)。该公约已被2009年生效的新的“罗马公约”所取代，但有关“例外条款”的规定在新公约中得到保留。
④Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Concluded December22,1986)
①Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the LawApplicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), Rectial14.
②Art.4, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the LawApplicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
①Art.5, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the LawApplicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
①对于滥用“例外条款”赋予的自由裁量权将会导致的不良后果的分析，见宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，第192、200-201页。
②摘自邹国勇译注：《外国国际私法立法精选》，第13-14页。
③Art.5, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the LawApplicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
④Frank Vischer,“General course on private international law”,.106.
⑤“If anything, judges are more likely to be influenced by such considerations for reasons that are too obvious toneed explanation here. It therefore goes without saying that material-justice considerations always play some rolewhen a judge ponders whether to invoke any of the escape clauses described above, or whether to use any of theold mechanisms of avoiding the result ordained by a jurisdiction-selecting rule, such as the traditional mechanismsof characterization, ordre public and renvoi.”, Symeon C. Symeonides.“Private International Law at the End of the
20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, pp.60-61.
①在赋予原告准据法选择权的同时，除了上述对于原告准据法选择权的限制之外，瑞士国际私法还有一项比较特殊的限定，即在适用外国法的场合，除非瑞士本国法认可损害赔偿，否则，赔偿将不能获准。The Swissfederal Staute on Private international Law on Dec.18,1987, Art.135.
②“Product liability shall be governed, depending on the choice of the person suffering damage, either by the lawof the State in which the manufacturer is domiciled or has his head-office, or by the law of the State in which theproduct was purchased, unless the manufacturer proves that the product was marketed in that State without hisconsent.”, Art.63, Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995).
③Quebec Civil Code, Art.3128.
①The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (with the Additions and Amendments of February20, August12,1996,October24,1997, July8, December17,1999, April16, May15, November26,2001, March21, November14,26,2002, January10, March26, November11, December23,2003), Art.1221.
②Turkish Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, Art.36.
③中国台湾《涉外民事法律适用法》，（台湾2010年4月30日立法院第7届第5会期第11次会议通过），第26条。
④《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》，第45条规定：“产品责任，适用被侵权人经常居所地法律；被侵权人选择适用侵权人主营业地法律、损害发生地法律的，或者侵权人在被侵权人经常居所地没有从事相关经营活动的，适用侵权人主营业地法律或者损害发生地法律。”《法律适用法》虽生效不久，却已有不少学者对其加以论述，如齐湘泉：《〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉原理与精要》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版；黄进，姜茹娇：《〈中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法〉释义与分析》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版；黄进：《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法建议稿及说明》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011年版；杜涛：《涉外民事关系法律适用法释评》，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年版；万鄂湘：《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法条文理解与适用》，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年版。
⑤瑞士的Kurt Siehr教授指出瑞士国际私法法规中给予原告准据法选择权，目的是实现“实质正义”，即判决结果的合理、公正，而其方法是通过对相关法律的内容的选择，而不是传统的对法域的选择，见Kurt Siehr,“Swiss Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress or Regress?”, p.386,398-399.
①需要说明的是，该观点并非针对涉外产品责任案件提出的，而是就一般涉外民商事案件而言。原文为“Permitting one party, after a controversy has arisen, to select the law more favorable to his position runs counterto ideas of equality that are basic to Western views of justice”, Arthur Taylor von Mehren.“Special SubstantiveRules for Multistate Problems: Their Role and Significance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, p.350.
②Shimon A. Rosenfeld.“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization of State’sInterests”, p.157.
③Michael I. Krauss.“Product Liability and Game Theory: One More Trip to the Choice-of-Law Well”, p.766,768.
④Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.54, No.2, p.480.
⑤Art.1, United Nations Consumer Protection (A/RES/39/248,16April1985),http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r248.htm.（2012年4月27日）
①比如在陆慧诉日本三菱“帕杰罗”越野车一案中，一方是财力雄厚的跨国汽车制造公司，一方是因为车祸导致全身瘫痪的受害人，根据《人民网》的报道，为了支付受害人的医疗费、诉讼费，受害人的丈夫甚至考虑出卖身体器官。《三菱帕杰罗事件：受害者丈夫愿卖肾给妻子治病》（2001年11月24日），http://japan.people.com.cn/2001/11/24/riben20011124_13979.html （2012年4月28日）
②相关论述见刘益灯：《国际消费者保护法律制度研究》，第42-69页；赵相林，曹俊主编：《国际产品责任法》，第287-295页；贾舜宁：《论国际私法对弱者权益的保护》，第26页；Willis L. M. Reese.“Draft Conventionon the Law Appplicable to Products Liability”, p.38; David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”,pp.723-724; Gunther Kuhne.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, pp.27-28; Albert A. Ehrenzweig.“ProductsLiability in the Conflict of Laws—Toward a Theory of Enterprise Liability under ‘Foreseeable and InsurableLaws’: II”, Yale L. J., Vol.69,p.803.
③James A. Henderson, Jr.&Aaron D.Twerski,“The Politics of The Product Liability Restatement”; James A.Henderson, Jr.&Theodore Eisenberg,“The Quite Revolution in Products Liability: An Empirical Study of LegalChange”.
①西蒙尼德斯教授也提出了类似的观点，即原告应该自行考虑究竟适用哪个法域的法律会产生对自身最为有利的结果，这可以节约法院的时间，也可避免对于法院决定的批评。Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choiceof Law In Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.274.
②按照里斯教授的观点，产品责任案件的原告应该可以在“（a）产品生产地法”、“（b）产品获得地法”和“（c）损害发生地法”中间选择准据法，（b）（c）两项法律可以得到适用的条件是，被告可以合理预见该产品或同类产品会进入该法域。Willis L. M. Reese.“Draft Convention on the Law Appplicable to Products Liability”, p.32.
③David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, pp.728-729.
④Russell J. Weintraub.“A Defense of Interest Analysis in the Conflict of Laws and the Use of that Analysis inProducts Liability Cases”, p.509.
⑤Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choice of Law In Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.268.
①Hamburg Group for Private International Law.“Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for ACouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations”, p.18; Willis L. M. Reese.“ProductsLiability and Choice of Law: The United States Proposals to the Hague Conference”, p.32.
②P. John Kozyris,“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should Be Done About Choiceof Law for Products Liability?”, p.586.
③Symeon C. Symeonides.“Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity”, pp.208-209; P. John Kozyris.“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should Be Done About Choice of Law for ProductsLiability?”, p.586.
①我国《法律适用法》45条也将损害发生地法列为原告可选择的法律之一。对此，将在第六章予以说明。
②Joseph H. Beale. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, as Adopted and Promulgated by the American LawInstitute at Washington, D. C., May11,1934, American Law Institute Publishers St. Paul.,§378.
③Willis L. M. Reese.“Products Liability and Choice of Law: The United States Proposals to the HagueConference”,, p.32.
④Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choice of Law in Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.275.
⑤徐莉、高霞：《我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法之完善》，第136页；丁利明：《完善我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法的思考与建议》，第57页。
⑥Hamburg Group for Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for ACouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, p.16.
⑧比如卡弗斯教授和西蒙尼德斯教授也持类似的观点，见David F. Cavers.“The Proper Law of Producer’sLiability”, p.728; Symeon C. Symeonides.“Party Choice of Law in Product-Liability Conflicts”, p.275.
①认为“损害发生地法”可以作为涉外产品责任案件的原告准据法选择的对象之一，但是应该以被告“合理预见”为限制条件的观点，见Willis L. M. Reese.“Products Liability and Choice of Law: The United StatesProposals to the Hague Conference”, p.32.
②P. John Kozyris.“Values and Methods in Choice of Law for Products Liability: A Comparative Comment onStatutory Solutions”, p.504.
③P. John Kozyris.“Values and Methods in Choice of Law for Products Liability: A Comparative Comment onStatutory Solutions”, p.504.
④Hamburg Group for Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for ACouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, p.17.
⑤P. John Kozyris.“Values and Methods in Choice of Law for Products Liability: A Comparative Comment onStatutory Solutions”, p.504.
⑥Hamburg Group for Private International Law, Comments on the European Commission’s Draft Proposal for ACouncil Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, p.17.
⑦Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, pp.481-482.
⑧P. John Kozyris,“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should Be Done About Choiceof Law for Products Liability?”, pp.582-586; Jan von Hein.“Something Old and Something Borrowed, butNothing New? Rome II and the European Choice-of-Law Evolution”, p.1698.
⑨Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, pp.481-482.
①Thomas Kadner Graziano.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of the Law in Europeand Current Proposals for Reform”, p.482.
②比如在2001年德克萨斯州上诉法院审理的一起产品责任损害赔偿案件中，原告Ramos夫妇是墨西哥居民，1995年2月19日，原告Ramos夫妇带领他们10岁的儿子在墨西哥驾驶该车的过程中，发生事故，其子死亡。被认为应该承担产品责任的是一辆日本本田汽车公司设计生产的三轮全地形车（ATV），该车最初是由美国德克萨斯州的一所大学购买，最终出现在墨西哥市场上，被原告购买，其间的转手过程已不可考。见Hipolito Ramos Sanchez&Alma Laura Galvan de Ramos v. Brownsville Sports Center, Inc., Honda MotorCo.(51S. W.3d643.)。
②Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law§48.(1) Noncontractual damage claims shall be judged according to the law of the state in which the damagecausing conduct occurred. However, if the persons involved have a stronger connection to the law of one and thesame other state, that law shall be determinative.作为欧盟成员，欧盟《非合同之债法律适用公约》（《罗马条例II》）生效后，奥地利对本国国际私法中第48条的内容作出了相应的调整。最主要的变化就是明确认可《罗马条例II》在非合同之债法律适用上的效力，并规定第48条自2009年之后便只调整罗马II未加规定的非合同之债的法律适用问题。
④Edith Palmer.“The Austrian Codification of Conflicts Law”, p.220.
①摘自邹国勇译注：《外国国际私法立法精选》，第13-14页。
②Art.4(2)&Art.5(1). Art.4(2):“However, where the person claimed to be liable and the person sustainingdamage both have their habitual residence in the same country at the time when the damage occurs, the law of thatcountry shall apply.”
③Art.5(1)(a).
④Art.5(1)(b).
⑤Art.5(1)(c).
⑥Art.5(2).
①§3.3.“However, if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that there is a substantially closer connectionwith another country and there is no significant connection between the non-contractual obligation and the countrywhose law would be the applicable law under paragraphs1and2, the law of that other country shall beapplicable.”
③COM(2003)427final,2003/0168(COD).
①A6-0211/2005.
②COM(2006)83final, Brussels,21.02.2006.
①对《法律适用法》生效前后我国冲突法规范体系的比较研究，见周后春：《我国〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉关于人权保护的规定评析》，《广州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2011年第10卷第9期，第22页；肖永平：《中国国际私法立法的里程碑》，《法学论坛》，2011年第2期，第44页；徐丽：《〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉颁布前后我国国际私法立法状况浅析》，《济宁学院学报》，2011年第4期，第81页；齐湘泉：《论〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉的立法特点》，《西北大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》，2011年3月，第41卷第2期，第141页。
①黄进：《国际私法》，第430-431页。
②Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
③David F. Cavers, Ellliott E. Cheatham, Brainerd Currie, Albert A. Ehrezweig, Robert A. Leflar and Willis L. M.Reese, see Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963), Columbia LawReview, Vol.63, No.7(Nov.,1963), pp.1212-1257.
④匈牙利《国际私法法规》32条第3款；德国《民法典施行法》40条第2款；《俄罗斯联邦民法典》1219条第2款；《立陶宛共和国民法典》1.43条第4款；意大利《国际私法法规》62条第2款；瑞士《关于国际私法的联邦法》133条第1款；欧盟《关于非合同之债的法律适用条例》（《罗马条例II》）第4条。
⑤黄进：《国际私法》，第432页；马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第536页。
①黄进：《国际私法》，第432页；马丁·沃尔夫：《国际私法》，第536页。
⑤匈牙利《国际私法法规》第32条。
⑥德国《民法典施行法》第40条第1款、《意大利国际私法》第62条、委内瑞拉《关于国际私法的法令》第32条。
③赵相林,曹俊主编，《国际产品责任法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年，第385页至386页；刘静，《产品责任论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年，第270页；王克玉，《涉外产品责任的法律适用及我国产品责任法律制度的完善》，《法律适用月刊》，2003年12月（总第213期），第36页；段卫华，王强，《涉外产品责任的法律冲突与法律适用》，《河北法学》，第24卷第9期，第86页。
①《中华人民共和国民法通则》第119条规定，“侵害公民身体造成伤害的，应当赔偿医疗费、因误工减少的收入、残废者生活补助费等费用”。
②《中华人民共和国民法通则》第121条规定，“因产品质量不合格造成他人财产、人身损害的，产品制造者、销售者应当依法承担民事责任。”
③《张某某诉日本国丰田汽车股份有限公司赔偿纠纷案，《找法网》http://china.findlaw.cn/xfwq/xiaofeizhedequanyi/xfztsal/6011.html（2012年4月27日）
④金铭，《赢了官司，钱却赔了》，《南方周末》，1995年5月26日。
⑤赵相林、曹俊主编，《国际产品责任法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年，第329页；郭宏，《国际产品责任法律适用的价值取向》，《吉林师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）》，2006年2月第1期，第48页。
①赵相林、曹俊主编：《国际产品责任法》，第330-331页。
②刘益灯：《跨国消费者保护的法律冲突及其解决对策》，第19页；刘益灯：《跨国消费者保护的法律冲突及其解决对策》，北京：法律出版社，2008年版。
③吕西萍：《对“三菱帕杰罗”案件的法律思考》，《外经贸实务》，2002年第11期，第7页。
④受害人陆慧于2002年3月向长沙市芙蓉区人民法院提起赔偿诉讼。该事件受到了我国新闻媒体以及法学
①Symeon C. Symeonides.“Result-Selectivism in Conflcits Law”, p.3.
②Peter Hay, Patrick J. Borchers&Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition), U.S.: WEST., pp.56-62; Symeonides C. Symeonides, The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, TheNeverlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006, p.121.
①西蒙尼德斯提出，“立法者的结果选择主义”预先设定希望实现的结果，并且经过集体民主程序的合意机制；而在“司法者的法律选择主义”，结果是事后选择的，并通常由法官一人判断，无论意图多么美好，也难以避免主观主义的危险。“I believe that there is an important qualitative difference betweenresult-selectivism in legislation and result-selectivism in adjudication as advocated by Leflar and especiallyJuenger. In the former, the desirable result is determined in advance and in abstracto through the consensusmechanisms of the collective democratic processes. In the latter, the result is chosen ex post facto and in concretoand often by a single judge who, with the best of intentions, cannot easily avoid the dangers of subjectivism.”,Symeon C. Symeonides,“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”,46Willamette L. Rev.1(2009-2010), p.31.
陈卫佐：《瑞士国际私法法典研究》，北京：法律出版社，1998年版
杜涛：《德国国际私法：理论、方法和立法的变迁》，北京：法律出版社，2006年版。
杜涛：《涉外民事关系法律适用法释评》，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年版。
邓杰：《国际私法分论》，北京：知识产权出版社，2005年版。
亨利巴迪福尔、保罗拉加德著，陈洪武等译：《国际私法总论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1989年版。
黄进：《国际私法》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版。
黄进，姜茹娇：《〈中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法〉释义与分析》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版。
黄进：《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法建议稿及说明》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011年版。
韩德培：《国际私法新论》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2009年。
格哈德·可格尔；萧凯、邹国勇译：《冲突法的危机》，武汉大学出版社，2008年版。
刘静：《产品责任论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版。
李建忠：《古代国际私法溯源：从古希腊、古罗马社会到法则理论的荷兰学派》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版。
李双元、欧永福、熊之才：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》，北京：北京大学出版社，2002年版
李双元主编：《中国与国际私法统一化进程》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，1993年版。
刘益灯：《国际消费者保护法律制度研究》，北京：中国方正出版社，2005年版。
刘益灯：《跨国消费者保护的法律冲突及其解决对策》，北京：法律出版社，2008年版。
马丁沃尔夫著；李浩培、汤宗舜译：《国际私法》，北京：北京大学出版社，2009年版。
秦瑞亭：《冲突法的理论与实务》，北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2007年版。
齐湘泉：《〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉原理与精要》，北京：法律出版社，2011年版。
萨维尼著；李双元、张茂等译：《现代罗马法体系第八卷：法律冲突和法律规则的地域和时间范围》，北京：法律出版社，1999年版。
沈涓：《冲突法及其价值导向》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2002年版。
宋晓：《当代国际私法的实体取向》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2004年版。
万鄂湘：《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法条文理解与适用》，北京：中国法制出版社，2011年版。
赵相林，曹俊主编：《国际产品责任法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年版。
邹国勇译注：《外国国际私法立法精选》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2011年版。
丁利明：《完善我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法的思考与建议》，《行政与法》，2009年第5期，第57页。
段卫华、王强：《涉外产品责任的法律冲突与法律适用》，《河北法学》，2006年第24卷第9期，第86页。
杜新丽，王克玉：《论涉外侵权法律适用法的价值目标及实现路径》，《法学杂志》，2010年第2期，第12页至16页。
巩丽霞：《试论我国涉外产品责任法律制度的不足》，《经济问题》，2005年第9期，第72页。
郭宏：《国际产品责任法律适用的价值取向》，《吉林师范大学学报（人文社会科学版）》，2006年第1期，第49页
贾舜宁：《论国际私法对弱者权益的保护》，《辽宁师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，2007年第30卷第2期，第26页。
李建忠：《革新与融合：巴托鲁斯的冲突法理论述评》，《法学评论》，2011年第6期。
李丽、温悦：《侵权法律适用中侵权行为地的确定》，《法制与社会》，2006年第11期，第73页。
李清萍：《对<消费者权益保护法>中惩罚性赔偿制度的思考》，《沈阳大学学报》，2011年第23卷第2期，第30-32页。
林碧冰：《涉外离婚准据法选择方法的发展新趋势及启示》，2007年2月第1期，《湛江师范学院学报》，第96页至98页。
吕西萍：《对“三菱帕杰罗”案件的法律思考》，《外经贸实务》，2002年第11期。
马丹青：《国际私法中的弱者保护原则研究》，《法制与经济》，2009年6月，第61-62页。
屈广清：《论保护弱者的国际私法方法及其立法完善—以冲突规范的保护方法为中心》，《法商研究》，2006年第5期，第45-49页。
齐湘泉：《论〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉的立法特点》，《西北大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》，2011年3月，第41卷第2期，第141页。
沈涓：《法官裁量对结果选择的实现之认识》，赵建文主编：《国际法研究》（第四卷），北京：中国人民公安大学出版社，2011年版。
孙娟、李晓梅：《论完善我国涉外产品的法律责任制度》，《理论界》，2005年第9期，第93页。
汤诤：《涉外产品责任法律适用原则评析》，《武汉理工大学学报》，2003年第4期，第385页。
王克玉：《涉外产品责任的法律适用及我国产品责任法律制度的完善》，《法律适用月刊》，2003年12月（总第213期），第36页
魏干：《从食品安全问题看我国消费者权益保护》，《红旗文稿》，2011年第11期，第21-23页。
卫荣辉：《论国际扶养制度与我国实践》，《宁波广播电视大学学报》，2009年9月第3期，第106页至107页。
肖永平、王承志：《晚近欧洲冲突法之发展》，《中国法学》，2004年第5期，第173-174页。
肖永平：《中国国际私法立法的里程碑》，《法学论坛》，2011年第2期，第44页。
徐丽：《〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉颁布前后我国国际私法立法状况浅析》，《济宁学院学报》，2011年第4期，第81页。
夏婷婷：《中西古代遗嘱继承比较研究》，《山东理工大学学报（社会科学版）》，2011年1月第1期，第41页至42页。
谢新胜：《不当“冤大头”就要灵活运用国际私法》，《法制日报》，2009年3月19日，第3版
许庆坤：《消费者保护的冲突法之维》，《政治与法律》，2006年第6期，第77页。
许新：《保护消费者权利—论国家干预的手段》，《兰州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2010年10月第38卷，第18-20页。
徐冬根：《人文关怀与国际私法中弱者利益保护》，《当代法学》，2004年9月，第12-22页。
徐莉、高霞：《我国涉外产品责任法律适用立法之完善》，《法学杂志》，2010年第12期，第136页
杨辉：《浅议消费者权益法律保护机制建设》，《中国质量技术监督》，2011年3月，第48-50页。
尹力：《论涉外侵权行为的法律适用原则—兼评我国民法通则及国际私法示范法的有关规定》，《贵州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2000年第18卷第1期，第29-30页。
周后春：《我国〈涉外民事关系法律适用法〉关于人权保护的规定评析》，《广州大学学报（社会科学版）》，2011年第10卷第9期，第22页。
American Law Institute ed. Restatement of the Law of Conflict of Laws, St Paul: American LawInstitute Publishers,1934
The American Law Institute.ed. Restatement of the Law Second: Conflict of Laws2d., St Paul:American Law Institute Publishers,1969.
Anton, A. E. Private International Law—a treatise from the standpoint of Scots Law, eninburgh:W. GREEN&SON LTD,1967.
Bartolus.“Bartolus in the Conflict of Laws”, Cambridge Harvard University Press,1914,translated by Joseph Henry Beale; J. A. Clarence Smith, Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws, TheAmerican Journal of Legal History, Vol.14, No.2,1970.
Bartolus on the Conflict of Laws, translated into English by Joseph Henry Beale, CambridgeHavard University Press, London: Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press,1914.
Baxter.“Choice of Law and the Federal System”, Stan. L. Rev. Vol.16, p.1.
Beale, Joseph Henry. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, Vol. I-Part I., Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press,1916
Beale, Joseph Henry. Jr.“Dicey’s ‘Conflict of Laws’”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.10, No.3,1896,pp.168-174.
Boele-Woelki, Katharina; Carla Joustra, and Gert Steenhoff.“Dutch Private International Law atthe End of the20th Century: Progress or Regress?”, XVth International Congress ofComparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999.
Brilamayer, Lea.“The Role of Substantive And Choice of Law Policies in the Formation AndApplication of Choice of Law Rules”, Recueil des cours, Vol.252,1995.
Brilamayer, Lea.“Interest Analysis And the Myth of Legislative Intent”, Michigan Law Review,Vol.78, No.3. p.430.
Burián, László.“Hungarian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress orRegress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer LawInternational,1999, p.264.
Cavers, David F.“A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem”, Harv. L. Rev, Vol.47.
Cavers, David F.; Elliott E. Cheatham; Brainerd Currie; Albert A. Ehrenzweig; Robert A. Leflar;Willis L. M. Reese.“Babcock v. Jackson,12N. Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963)”, Columbia Law Review, Vol.63, No.7,1963, pp.1212-1257.
Cavers, David F. Contemporary Conflicts Law in American Perspective, Rec. des Cours, Vol.131,1970.
Cavers, David F.“The Proper Law of Producer’s Liability”, The International and ComparativeLaw Quarterly, Vol.26, No.4,1977.
Cavers, David F.“The Value of Principled Preferences”, Texas Law Review, Vol.49, pp.211-223.
Cheatham, Elliott E.; Willis L. M. Reese.“Choice of the Applicable Law”, Columbia Law Review,Vol.52, No.8,1952, pp.959-982.
Cheatman, Elliott E.“American Theories of Conflict of Laws: Their Role and Utility”, Harv. L.Rev., Vol.58(1944-1945), pp.365-385.
Cook.“The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws”, Yale L. J, Vol.33.
Cox, Stanley E.“Applying the Best Law”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.9.
Currie, Brainerd. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws, Duke University Press,1963.
Currie, Brainerd.“Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws”, Duke Law Journal,Vol.1959, No.2,1959, pp.171-181.
Currie, Brainerd.“Married Women’s Contracts: A Study in Conflict-of-Laws Method”, TheUniversity of Chicago Law Review, Vol.25, No.2,1958, pp.227-268
Currie, Brainerd.“The Disinterested Third State”, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.28, No.4,1963, pp.754-794.
Dicey, Albert V. A Digest of the Laws of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws(SecondEdition), London: Stevens and Sons, Ltd., Sweet and Maxwell, Ltd.,1908
Dicey, Albert V. The late A. V. A Digest of the Law of England: With Reference to the Conflict ofLaws, London: Stevens&Sons, Lted.,1927.
Dickens, Charles. A tale of two cities, Delh: Global Media,2007.
Dickinson, Andrew. The Rome II Regulation: The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations,New York: Oxford Uninversity Press,2008.
Ehrenzweig, Albert A.“Products Liability in the Conflict of Laws—Toward a Theory ofEnterprise Liability under ‘Foreseeable and Insurable Laws’: II”, Yale L. J., Vol.69, p.794-803.
Ena, Michael.“Choice of Law and Predictability of Decisions in Products Liability Cases”,Fordham Urb. L. J., Vol.34, pp.1417-1425.
Fallon, Marc, Johan Meeusen.“Belgian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century:Progress or Regress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston:Kluwer Law International,1999, pp.109-110.
Fawcett, J. J.“Products Liability in Private International Law: A European Perspective”, Recueildes Cours, Vol.238, pp.57-246.
Felix, Robert L.“Leflar in the Courts: Judicial Adoptions of Choice-Influencing Considerations”,Ark. L. Rev, Vol.52, p.35.
Feldman, Stephen M. American Legal Thought From Premodernism to Postmodernism: AnIntellectual Voyage, Oxford University Press, Inc.,2000.
Freund, Kahn.“General Problems of Private International Law”, Recueil des Cours, Vol.143,1974.p.466.
Gottesman, Michael H.“Draining the Dismal Swamp: The Case for Federal Choice of LawStatutes”, GEo. L.J., Vol.80, pp.1-10.
Graziano, Thomas Kadner.“The Law Applicable to Product Liability: The Present State of theLaw in Europe and Current Proposals for Reform”, The International and Comparative LawQuarterly, Vol.54, No.2, p.480.
Hay, Peter; Patrick J. Borchers; Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws (fifth edition), U.S.:WEST.
Hay, Peter.“Flexibility Versus Predictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law: Reflections onCurrent European and United States Conflicts Law”, Recueil des cours, Vol.215, pp.218-371.
Holmes. The Common Law, Boston: Little, Brown And Company,1923.
Juenger, Friedrich K. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice (Special Edition), N.Y.: TransnationalPublishers,2005.
Juenger.“Governmental Interests—Real and Spurious—in Multistate Disputes”, U. C. Davis L.Rev. Vol.21(1987-1988), p.515.
Juenger.“Choice-of-Law in Interstate Torts”, U. Pa. L. Rev. Vol.118, No.2(1969), p.202.
Juenger, Friedrich K.“A Third Conflicts Restatement?”, Ind. L. J., Vol.75, pp.403-407.
Juenger, Friedrich K.“Choice of Law: How It Ought to be: Responses to Transcript: Choice ofLaw: How it Ought Not To Be”, Mercer L. Rev., Vol.48,1997, p.757-762.
Kay, Herma Hill.“A Defense of Currie’s Governmental Interest Analysis”, Recueil des cours,Vol.215. No.9,1989.
Kay, Herma Hill.“Currie’s Interest Analysis in the21stCentury: Losing the Battle, But Winningthe War”, Willamette L. Rev. Vol.37,2001, p.123.
Kegel, Gerhard.“Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and theAmerican Reformers”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.27, No.4,1979, pp.615-633.
Kozyris, Phaedon John.“Conflicts Theory for Dummies: Apres le Deluge, Where Are We OnProducers Liability?”, La. L. Rev., Vol.60, p.1161.
Kozyris, Phaedon John.“Interest Analysis Facing Its Critics--And, Incidentally, What Should BeDone About Choice of Law for Products Liability?”, Ohio St. L.J., Vol.46, p.569.
Kozyris, Phaedon John, Juenger, Lea Brilmaye, Robert A. Sedler, Russell Weintraub.“Symposiumon Interest Analysis in Conflict of Laws: an Inquiry into Fundamentals with a side Glance atProducts Liability”, Ohio St. L.J., Vol.46,1985, p.569.
Krauss, Michael I.“Product Liability and Game Theory: One More Trip to the Choice-of-LawWell”, BYU L. Rev.,2002, p.759.
Kuhne, Gunther.“Choice of Law in Products Liability”, California Law Review, Vol.60, No.1,1972.
Latey, William.“Some International Aspects of Divorce and Nullity”, Transactions of the GrotiusSociety, Vol.17,1931, pp.113-138.
Leflar, Robert A., L. McDougal III&R. Felix, American Conflicts Law (4thed.), Lexis LawPublisher,1986, p.269
Leflar, Robert A.“Choice-Influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law”, N. Y. U. L. Rev, Vol.41,pp.267-282.
Leflar, Robert A.“Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing considerations”, Califorina LawReview, Vol.54, No.4, pp.1584-1598.
Lorenze.“Territoriality, Public Policy and the Conflict of Laws”, Yale L. J., Vol.33, p.736.
Maier.“Coordination of Laws in a National Federal System: An Analysis of the Writings of ElliotEvans Cheatham”, Vand. L. Rev., Vol.26, pp.209-256.
McClean, David; J. H. C. Morris. the Conflict of Laws, fourth edition, London Sweet&MaxwellLtd.,1993.
McDougal, Luther L. III; Robert L. Felix; Ralph U. Whitten. American Conflicts Law (5thedition),Transnational Publishers, Inc.
McDougal, Luther L. III.“Leflar's Choice-Influencing Considerations: Revisited, Refined andReaffirmed”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.105.
Mehren, Arthur T. von.“Some Reflections on Codification and Case Law in the Twenty-FirstCentury”, U.C. Davis L. Rev., Vol.31,1998, p.659.
Mehren, Arthur T. von.“Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role andSiginficance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, Harv. L. Rev., Vol.88, p.347.
Meschewski, James A.“Choice of Law in Alaska: A Survival Guide for Using the SecondRestatement”, Alaska L. Rev, Vol.16,1999, p.1.
Morse, Joseph.“Characterization: Shadow or Substance”, Columbia Law Review, Vol.49, No.8(Dec.,1949), p.1029.
Okuda, Anderson,“Translation of Japan's Private International Law: Act on the General Rules ofApplication of Laws, Law No.10of1898(as newly titled and amended21June2006),”Asian-Pacific Law&Policy Journal139.
Palmer, Edith.“The Austrian Codification of Conflicts Law”, The American Journal ofComparative Law, Vol.28, No.2,1980, pp.204-205.
Peterson, Courtland H.“Article: Section II: Private International Law at the End of the TwentiethCentury: Progress or Regress?”, Am. J. Comp. L. Vol.46, p.197.
Pocar, Fausto; Costanza Honorati,“Italian Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress or Regress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London,Boston: Kluwer Law International,1999, p284.
Prujiner, Alain.“Canadian Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress orRegress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer LawInternational,1999, p.140.
Reese, Willis L. M.“Conflict of Laws and the Restatement Second”, Law and ContemporaryProblems, Vol.28, No.4, p.681.
Reese, Willis L. M.“Draft Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability”, TheAmerican Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.21, No.1,1973.
Reese, Willis L. M.“American Choice of Law”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol.30, No.1,1982, pp.135-146.
Reynolds, William L.“Legal Process And Choice of Law”, Md. L. Rev, Vol.56, p.1371.
Rheinstein, Max.“Law Trends in Marriage and Divorce Law of Western Countries”, Law andContemporary Problems, Vol.18, No.1. pp.3-19.
Rosenfeld, Shimon A.“Note: Conflicts of Law in Product Liability Suits: Joint Maximization ofState’s Interests”, Hofstra L. Rev., Vol.15, p.139.
Rosenberg.“Two Views on Kell v. Henderson, An Opinion for the New York Court of Appeals”,Colum. L. Rev. Vol.67, p.459.
Sedler, Robert A.“Interest Analysis as the Preferred Approach to Choice of Law: A Response toProfessor Brilmayer's ‘Foundational Attack’”, Ohio St. L.J, Vol.46(1985), pp.483-491.
Sedler, Robert A.“Choice of Law: How it Ought to Be: Responses to Transcript: A Real WorldPerspective on Choice of Law”, Mercer L. Rev. Vol.48, p.781.
Sedler, Robert A.“Professor Juenger’s Challenge to the Interest Analysis Approach toChoice-of-Law: An Appreciation and a Response”, U. C. Davis L. Rev., Vol.23,1989-1990,p.865
Sedler, Robert A.,“Symposium: Interest Analysis, Party Expectations and Judicial Method inConflicts Torts Cases: Reflections On Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.fn.”, Brooklyn LawReview, Brooklyn L. Rev., Vol.59, p.1323.
Silberman.“Can the State of Minnesota Bind the Nation? Federal Choice-of-Law ConstranitsAfter Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hague”, HOFSTRAL L. Rev., Vol.10, pp.103-110.
Siehr, Kurt.“Swiss Private International Law at the End of the20thCentury: Progress orRegress?”, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, the Hague-London-Boston:Kluwer Law International,1999, p.386-399.
Simson, Gary J.“Resisting the Allure of Better Rule of Law”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52, p.141.
Smith, J. A. Clarence.“Bartolo on the Conflict of Laws”, The American Journal of Legal History,Vol.14, No.2,1970, pp.158-159.
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (Six Edition), Boston: Little, Brown, AndCompany,1865.
Symeonides, Symeon C ed. Private International Law at the End of the20th Century: Progress orRegress?, XVth International Congress of Comparative Law, London, Boston: Kluwer LawInternational,1999.
Symeonides, Symeon C. The American Choice-of-Law Revolution: Past, Present and Future, TheNeverlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006.
Symeonides, Symeon C. American Private International Law, The Netherlands: Kluwer LawInternational,2008.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“The Judicial Acceptance of the Second Conflicts Restatement: A MixedBlessing”, Md. L. Rev, Vol.56,1997, p.1248.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“The Need for a Third Conflicts Restatement”, Ind. L.J., Vol.75,2000, p.437.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Party Choice of Law In Product-Liability Conflicts”, willamette J. Int’lL.&Dis. Res. Vol.12,2004, p.263.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Rome II and Tort Conflicts: A Missed Opportunity”, Am. J. Comp. L.,Vol.56,2008, p.173.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Result-Selectivism in Conflicts Law”, Willamette L. Rev., Vol.46,1,2009-2010.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“The First Conflicts Restatement Through the Eyes of Old: As Bad As ItsReputation?”, Southern Illinois University Law Journal, Vol.32.(2007), p.39.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Choice of Law in Cross-Border Torts: Why Plaintiffs Win and Should”,Hastings L.J. Vol.61(2009), pp.337-342.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Symposium: The Silver Anniversary of the Second ConflictsRestate-ment”, Md. L. Rev., Vol.56, pp.1248-1273.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“American Choice of Law at the Dawn of the21stCentury”, Willamette L.Rev., Vol.37No.12001.
Symeonides, Symeon C.“Choice of Law in the American Courts in2009: Twenty-Third AnnualSurvey”, Am. J. Comp. L., Vol.58,2010, p.227-231.
Traynor, Roger.“Law and Social Change in a Democratic Society”, U. ILL. L. F.,1956, p.230.
Traynor, Roger.“War and Peace in the Conflict of Laws”, The International and ComparativeLaw Quarterly, Vol.25, No.1,1976, pp.121-155.
Vischer, Frank.“General course on private international law”, Recueil des Cours, Vol.232, No.1,1992.
Vitta, Edoardo.“The Impact in Europe of the American ‘Conflicts Revolution’”, The AmericanJournal of Comparative Law, Vol.30, No.1,1982.
von Mehren, Arthur Taylor.“Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems: Their Role andSignificance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology”, Harvard Law Review, Vol.88, No.2,1974.
Watson, Alan. Joseph Story and the Comity of Errors: A Case Study in Conflict of Laws, Athensand London: The University of Gergia Press,1992.
Weinberg, Louise.“A Structural Revision of the Conflicts Restatement”, Ind. L.J., Vol.75, pp.475-480.
Weintraub, Russell J.“‘At least, To Do No Harm’: Does the Second Restatement of ConflictsMeet the Hippocratic Standard?”, Md. L. Rev, Vol.56, p.1284.
Weintraub, Russell J.“Symposium: Choice of Law for Products Liability: Demagnetizing theUnited States Forum”, Ark. L. Rev., Vol.52, p.157.
Weintraub, Russell J.“A Defense of Interest Analysis in the Conflict of Laws and the Use of thatAnalysis in Products Liability Cases”, Ohio St. L.J., Vo.46, pp.493-509.
Weintraub, Russell J.“‘At least, To Do No Harm’: Does the Second Restatement of ConflictsMeet the Hippocratic Standard?”, Md. L. Rev., Vol.56, p.1284.
Whitten, Ralph U.“Improving the ‘Better Law’ System: Some Impudent Suggestions forReordering and Reformulating Leflar's Choice-Influencing Considerations”, Ark. L. Rev. Vol.52,p.177.
Wolff, Martin. Private international Law (second edition), Oxford at the Clarendon Press,1950.
Yntema.“The Objectives of Private International Law”, Can. B. Rev., Vol.35.
Alaska Packers Association v. Industrial Accident Commission,294U. S.532(1935)
Pacific Emplyers Insurance Co. Industrial Accident Commission,306U. S.493(1939).
Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper,286U. S.145(1932)
Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, Inc.,9N.Y.2d34,172N.E.2d526,211N.Y.S.2d133(1961)
Hall v. General Motors Corp.,582NW2d866,Mich. App.(1998).
Custom Products, Inc. v. Fluor Daniel Canada, Inc.(262F. supp.2d767).
Kelly v. Ford Motor Co.(933F. Supp.465).
Neumeier v. Kuehner,32N.Y.2d121,286N. E.2d454,335N. Y. S.2d64(1972)
Babcock v. Jackson,12N.Y.2d473,191N. E.2d279,240N. Y. S.2d743(1963).
La Plante v. American Honda Motor Co,27F.3d731(1994)
Custom Products, Inc. v. Fluor Daniel Canada, Inc,262F. supp.2d767.
Kelly v. Ford Motor Co.,933F. Supp.465.
2004WL1398024(DNJ2004)
Hipolito Ramos Sanchez&Alma Laura Galvan de Ramos v. Brownsville Sports Center, Inc.,
Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.56(Gifts).
Reform of the Italian System of Private International Law (Law No.218of31May1995), Art.48.
Switzerland’s Federal Code on Private International Law of December18,1987as amended untilJanuary1,2007, Art.124(1),(2).
Convention on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions(Concluded5October1961), Art.1.
Uniform Probate Code (Last Amended or Revised in2006)
Quebec Civil Code Art.3109(3).
Louisiana Acts1991, No.923, Art.3529.
Austrian Federal Statute of15June1978on Private International Law, Art.30(1).
Swiss PIL Art.94.
Quebec Civil Code, Art.3091.
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Oblications opened for signature in Rome on19June1980(80/934/EEC), Art.5(2).
Quebec Civil Code Art.3117,[1991, c.64, a.3117].
Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (Concluded2October1973), Art.4,5&6.
Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (Concluded23November2007), Art.3&4.
Quebec Civil Code, Art.3094.
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations(80/934/EEC).
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (ConcludedDecember22,1986)
Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007onthe Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), Rectial14.
Art.4, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
Art.5, Regulation (EC) No864/2007of the European Parliament and of the Council of11July2007on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II).
The Civil Code of the Russian Federation (with the Additions and Amendments of February20,August12,1996, October24,1997, July8, December17,1999, April16, May15, November26,2001, March21, November14,26,2002, January10, March26, November11, December23,2003), Art.1221.
Turkish Code on Private International Law and International Civil Procedure, Art.36.Art.1, United Nations Consumer Protection (A/RES/39/248,16April1985)