国际私法证成法律选择方法的正当取向考量
|
摘要
法之所立，必伴其议；议之所终，止于可受。国际私法为一门独立的法律学科自不待言，然而，关于该法律科学所要达到的目标及其采用的方法，却众说纷纭，莫衷一是。究竟应以何种方法解决涉外法律问题为宜，天才的法学家们提出五彩缤纷、蔚为壮观的方法、学说和理论，但概念复杂、匮乏说服力。故此，不确定性弥漫四野，君临一切。然则，国际私法有无认识之客观性？国际私法之真理性何在？国际私法应如何证成法律选择方法？如果世人涉足国际民商事交往之际不能正确地解答国际私法领域中这些带有根本性的问题，那么国际私法学说理论深处不确定性境地的状态就不会从根本上得以改变；那么国际私法实务运作应以何种方法解决涉外法律问题为宜的困惑就不会得到圆满地解决。故而，在国际私法真理性检验的维度上，应如何证成法律选择方法以适当解决法律冲突和法律适用问题亦已构成本文思考之初衷、探索之目标和研究价值之所在。
为达至探索之目标和兑现研究之价值，因循思考之初衷，本文将分为五章对上述关键性问题加以顺次研讨：
第一章为导论，该章研究分析了全文所涉及的基本理论问题。
首先，关于国际私法中的可接受性问题，实则关乎国际私法的真理性认识。因为国际私法的正确性只能依赖于乃至决定于攸关国际民商事关系调整利益之各方的可得接受状态。因而这种性质的可接受性，实际表征着国际私法的真理性品质以及标志着国际私法所为证成任务的完成。
其次，关于可接受性所涉及的主体问题，实则明晰国际私法中可接受性源来之主体。国际民商事社会公众、国际民商事主体、立法者和司法者皆置身解决跨国法律问题之中，皆为受其中之事影响抑或为其中之事所涉及。因而国际私法的可接受性实来自置身其中之人的切身感知、适当满足、自觉承认以及躬身实践。
再次，关于国际私法中的法律选择问题，实则关系证成法律选择方法的核心内容要素。从解决法律冲突的途径而言，冲突法规范承载着单边和多边主义方法，统一实体法规范则承载着诸国缔结之国际条约。冲突法规范是一种间接调整方法，统一实体法规范是一种直接调整方法，而实体法方法则是一种中间过渡调整方法。
最后，关于基于证成的取向必备正当性问题，实则确定考量国际私法证成法律选择方法的向度。从可接受性所涉及的主体角度视之，逻辑向度、程序向度、适用向度和实效向度，实乃国际私法为完成和实现证成任务和目标而应予顺次关注的证成取向。这些立基于证成的取向分别从普遍的基础证成意义、理性的策略意义、形式正义意义和实质正义意义等四个方面为置身其中之人所接受为正当，从而担当起重要的考量向度的角色。
第二章为国际私法的逻辑向度考量，该章为置身其中之人评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了逻辑证成有效性的考量向度。
首先，无论是从已知到未知地提出解决涉外法律问题的方法，还是从两种或两种以上相互矛盾的陈述中发现最佳答案以便解决涉外法律问题,国际私法所为的证成所应做出的理性考虑必须符合逻辑思考的基本规范，必须具备有效的推理形式亦即逻辑证成的有效性。
其次，逻辑证成的有效性在国际私法所为证成中，将通过国际私法立法者的宣示、司法者的操作和国际民商事主体的实践，反馈、传导并感染国际民商事社会之公众这种普通人的意识和普通人的确信。而普通人的这种对于逻辑力量的意识和确信乃具有国际私法普遍的基础证成法律选择方法的意义。
第三章为国际私法的程序向度考量，该章为诸国立法者评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了商谈程序理性的考量向度。
首先，商谈程序机制之安排和商谈程序规范之介入为法律选择中的商谈程序注入了理性内涵，亦即前者彰显了依循商谈程序证成法律选择方法的理性策略；后者则在证成法律选择方法中保障了共同商谈的理性运作以及理性策略的实现。
其次，单边主义方法和多边主义方法，既持续强化着国际私法的学说法特质，又不断彰显着国际私法学术气息的浓厚及其实践封闭性的严密。在解决涉外法律适用问题的过程中，借由此两种法律选择方法中任意一种，只会使圈外之人难以涉足。因而，通过程序向度考量，此两种法律选择方法均已遍尝败绩，诸国立法者对于此两种方法的可接受性程度之低应足已显见，国际私法于此向度欲证成此两种方法均为殊难完成之任务。
最后，实体法方法为国际民商事社会公众和国际民商事主体参与和决定切身利益与负担之筹划安排提供了实践机会；因为实体法方法能够为置身其中之人提供了一种极具程序理性的可能达成与产生共识确认和潜在认同的程序，并且这种程序天然包含有保障置身其中之人理性参与商谈实践的程序性规范。因而实体法方法显然禁得起诸国立法者于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。
第四章为国际私法的适用向度考量，该章为诸国司法者评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了适用结果可普遍化的考量向度。
首先，适用结果的可普遍化，亦即适用结果的确定性、可预测性与一致性，是一种符合形式正义的因而也是公正合理的诉求。并且根本上系于法律选择方法的确定性。法律选择方法的统一性是实现法律选择方法确定性的前提性步骤，而法律选择方法的可行性是实现法律选择方法确定性的实质性步骤。
其次，单边主义方法和多边主义方法，无论是否将适用结果的可普遍化视为基本的追求目标，都将无法通过适用向度考量。因为此两种法律选择方法中任意一种，均无法在解决涉外法律适用问题的过程中始终保证其所承载的法律选择方法的确定性，因而均无助于实现国际私法证成法律选择方法的目标。
最后，实体法方法在价值导向方面着眼于创立一种真实而有效的新实体规范，从而真实地和有效地回应涉外民商事交往的跨国性本质需求。从因应跨国性的出发点和渐趋良善法治境地的过程而言，其方法将有助于实现法律选择方法的可行性和统一性。因而实体法方法显然禁得起诸国司法者于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。
第五章为国际私法的实效向度考量，该章为国际民商事主体评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了调整实效适当正义的考量向度。
首先，跨国民商事交往对公正而持久地权衡、调停与协调置身其中之人的利益关系的需求，以及在此综合平衡进程中对适当满足国际民商事主体的利益诉求与期望的需求，就是正视实体方面有关实质正义的务实考虑。并且这种实质正义的发掘与实现充分体现在法律选择中如何适当地调整与国际民商事主体密切相关的数对至关重要的利益关系的调整实效之中。
其次，实体法方法以创立新实体规范为其方法的核心内容，不仅真实地回应涉外民商事交往的跨国性本质需求，而且有效地置国际民商事主体的利益诉求与期望于国际民商事社会第一需要的地位。其运作过程必然将调整国际民商事主体相互之间及其与立法者和司法者之间利益关系作为其创立新实体法规范的焦点内容。因而实体法方法显然禁得起国际民商事主体于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。
最后，单边主义方法往往可归结为一种法院地法至上主义，多边主义方法则往往以冲突法正义为其首要原则，此两种方法均未将因应涉外交往跨国属性的国际民商事主体利益保障置于其方法的首要原则地位。因而于实效向度上此两种方法缺失实质正义性，难为国际民商事主体接受为正当。
Justification of law must be accompanied by discussion and the discussion will be ended by acceptability. It goes without saying that private international law is an independent legal discipline. However, there are divergent views on the goal and the method of the legal discipline. Genius jurists have proposed all kinds of spectacular methods, doctrines and theories on which method is the best way to solve foreign-related legal issues, but the concept is complex and unconvincing. Therefore, the uncertainty has diffused across and controlled the legal discipline. Now then, is there objectivity of cognition in private international law? What is the truth of private international law? How should private international law justify law-selecting approach? If people can't correctly answer these fundamental questions of private international law when they are involved in international civil and commercial exchanges, it will not be changed fundamentally that theories of private international law are in the state of uncertainty, and it will not be satisfactorily solved that how to correctly solve foreign-related legal issues in practices of private international law. Therefore, in the view of dimension of testing the truth of private international law, it is the original intention of thinking, the exploration target and the research value of the paper that how to justify law-selecting approach to solve the problems of conflict and application of law.
The paper is mainly consisted of five chapters as follows:
Chapter one:introduction. This part studies the basic theory issues of the paper.
Firstly, the problem on acceptability of private international law is indeed related to the cognition of the truth in private international law. The correctness of private international law only depends on and is determined by the state accepted by all parties whose interests are relevant to the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations. Therefore, the acceptability is characterizing the truth of private international law and marking the consummation of justification of law-selecting approach of private international law.
Secondly, the problem on the bodies involved in acceptability indeed makes it clear who is the source of acceptability of private international law. International civil and commercial public, international civil and commercial subject, legislators and judiciary, they are all involved the transnational legal issues and all effected by them or all relevant to them. Therefore, acceptability of private international law come from their immediate perception, proper satisfaction, conscious recognition and bowed practice.
Thirdly, the problem on choice-of-law of private international law is indeed related to the core content of justification of law-selecting approach. As far as the way to solving the conflict of laws, conflict rules carry unilateral method and multilateral method, while uniform substantive rules carry international treaties. Conflict rules are an indirect adjustment method and uniform substantive rules are a direct adjustment method, while substantive law approach is an intermediate adjustment method.
Finally, the problem on the justice of orientation focusing on justification indeed determines the dimensions considering law-selecting approach. In the view of the bodies involved in acceptability, logic dimension, procedure dimension, application dimension and effectiveness dimension are the justification orientation on which private international law should focus in succession for the consummation of justification of law-selecting approach. Based on universal basic justification significance, rational strategic significance, formal justice significance and material justice significance, the justification orientation above-mentioned is accepted as justice by people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations, and then plays an important role of consideration dimension.
Chapter two:consideration of private international law in logic dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of validity of logic justification for people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.
Firstly, when proposing the method to solve foreign-related legal issues by means of inferring an unknown fact from a known fact or finding the best answer to foreign-related legal issues from two or more contradictory statements, rational thinking of justification of private international law must obey logic rules and must have a valid form of reasoning, that is validity of logic justification.
Secondly, validity of logic justification will feed back to, conduct and infect the consciousness and the confident of international civil and commercial public by means of declaration of legislators, operation of judiciary and practice of international civil and commercial subject. Therefore, the consciousness and the confident coming from logic power have universal basic justification significance of private international law.
Chapter three:consideration of private international law in procedure dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of procedural rationality of discussion for legislators in various countries evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.
Firstly, arrangements of procedural mechanisms of discussion and interventions of procedural norms of discussion inject rational connotation into the discussion procedure in choice of laws, that is the former highlights the rational strategy of justification of law-selecting approach following discussion procedure and the latter ensures rational operation of common discussion and realization of the rational strategy in justification of law-selecting approach.
Secondly, unilateral method and multilateral method constantly strengthen the doctrine law peculiarity of private international law and highlight denseness of academic atmosphere and tight closure of practice of private international law. Solving foreign-related legal issues by any method above-mentioned should make persons who are outside of the academia find it difficult to get involved in the problem-solving process. Therefore, the two methods above-mentioned have been all failed by consideration in procedure dimension. It is clear that the degree is low that legislators in various countries accept the two methods. So it is a difficult task that private international law purposes justifying the two methods in the dimension.
Finally, substantive law approach provides opportunities for international civil and commercial public and international civil and commercial subject to take part in and decide the planning and the arrangement for their vital interests and burdens. The approach not only can provide the rational procedure for people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations to reach and produce the consensus recognized and the potential recognition, but also the procedure naturally contains procedural norms that ensure that people above-mentioned can rationally participate in the discussion practice. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from legislators in various countries.
Chapter four:consideration of private international law in application dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of universal of applicable results for judiciary in various countries evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.
Firstly, universal of applicable results, that is certainty, predictability and consistency of applicable results, is a fair and reasonable demand that is in compliance with formal justice. What' more, it is fundamentally determined by certainty of law-selecting approach. Because the unity of law-selecting approach is a premise step of achieving its'certainty and the feasibility of law-selecting approach is a substantial step of achieving its'certainty.
Secondly, whether universal of applicable results is regarded as a basic goal or not by unilateral method or multilateral method, they all can't withstand the consideration of application dimension. Any one of the two methods can't ensure certainty of law-selecting approach carried in the process of solving foreign-related legal issues. Therefore, they all can't help to achieve the goal of justifying law-selecting approach of private international law.
Finally, substantive law approach focuses on the creation of true and effective new substantive norms in value-oriented, and then truly and effectively responds to the nature of transnational demand in international civil and commercial exchanges. As far as responding to the transnational demand as starting point and becoming to the situation of ruling of good law, the approach can help to achieve the feasibility and the unity of law-selecting approach. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from judiciary in various countries.
Chapter five:consideration of private international law in effectiveness dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of proper justice of adjustment effectiveness for international civil and commercial subject evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.
Firstly, the demands of justly and lastingly balancing, mediating and coordinating interest relationship of people involved in international civil and commercial exchanges, and the demands of properly satisfying interest demands and expectations of international civil and commercial subject in the comprehensive balancing process, are facing up to the pragmatic considerations of material justice in substantive aspects. What's more, exploring and achieving the material justice is reflected in the adjustment effectiveness that how to properly adjust several vital interest relationships related to international civil and commercial subject.
Secondly, substantive law approach takes the creation of new substantive norms as the core content of the approach. It not only responds truly to the nature of transnational demand in international civil and commercial exchanges, but also places effectively interest demands and expectations of international civil and commercial subject in the first need of international civil and commercial society. The operational process must take several vital interest relationships among international civil and commercial subject, legislators and judiciary as the focus content of the creation of new substantive norms. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from international civil and commercial subject.
Finally, unilateral method often may be summed up as lex fori supremacism and multilateral method often may take conflict justice as the overriding principle. The two methods all don't take interests of international civil and commercial subject responding to the transnational nature of international exchanges as the overriding principle of the methods. Therefore, the two methods are lack of material justice in effectiveness dimension and it is very difficult that international civil and commercial subject accepts the two methods as justice.
为达至探索之目标和兑现研究之价值，因循思考之初衷，本文将分为五章对上述关键性问题加以顺次研讨：
第一章为导论，该章研究分析了全文所涉及的基本理论问题。
首先，关于国际私法中的可接受性问题，实则关乎国际私法的真理性认识。因为国际私法的正确性只能依赖于乃至决定于攸关国际民商事关系调整利益之各方的可得接受状态。因而这种性质的可接受性，实际表征着国际私法的真理性品质以及标志着国际私法所为证成任务的完成。
其次，关于可接受性所涉及的主体问题，实则明晰国际私法中可接受性源来之主体。国际民商事社会公众、国际民商事主体、立法者和司法者皆置身解决跨国法律问题之中，皆为受其中之事影响抑或为其中之事所涉及。因而国际私法的可接受性实来自置身其中之人的切身感知、适当满足、自觉承认以及躬身实践。
再次，关于国际私法中的法律选择问题，实则关系证成法律选择方法的核心内容要素。从解决法律冲突的途径而言，冲突法规范承载着单边和多边主义方法，统一实体法规范则承载着诸国缔结之国际条约。冲突法规范是一种间接调整方法，统一实体法规范是一种直接调整方法，而实体法方法则是一种中间过渡调整方法。
最后，关于基于证成的取向必备正当性问题，实则确定考量国际私法证成法律选择方法的向度。从可接受性所涉及的主体角度视之，逻辑向度、程序向度、适用向度和实效向度，实乃国际私法为完成和实现证成任务和目标而应予顺次关注的证成取向。这些立基于证成的取向分别从普遍的基础证成意义、理性的策略意义、形式正义意义和实质正义意义等四个方面为置身其中之人所接受为正当，从而担当起重要的考量向度的角色。
第二章为国际私法的逻辑向度考量，该章为置身其中之人评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了逻辑证成有效性的考量向度。
首先，无论是从已知到未知地提出解决涉外法律问题的方法，还是从两种或两种以上相互矛盾的陈述中发现最佳答案以便解决涉外法律问题,国际私法所为的证成所应做出的理性考虑必须符合逻辑思考的基本规范，必须具备有效的推理形式亦即逻辑证成的有效性。
其次，逻辑证成的有效性在国际私法所为证成中，将通过国际私法立法者的宣示、司法者的操作和国际民商事主体的实践，反馈、传导并感染国际民商事社会之公众这种普通人的意识和普通人的确信。而普通人的这种对于逻辑力量的意识和确信乃具有国际私法普遍的基础证成法律选择方法的意义。
第三章为国际私法的程序向度考量，该章为诸国立法者评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了商谈程序理性的考量向度。
首先，商谈程序机制之安排和商谈程序规范之介入为法律选择中的商谈程序注入了理性内涵，亦即前者彰显了依循商谈程序证成法律选择方法的理性策略；后者则在证成法律选择方法中保障了共同商谈的理性运作以及理性策略的实现。
其次，单边主义方法和多边主义方法，既持续强化着国际私法的学说法特质，又不断彰显着国际私法学术气息的浓厚及其实践封闭性的严密。在解决涉外法律适用问题的过程中，借由此两种法律选择方法中任意一种，只会使圈外之人难以涉足。因而，通过程序向度考量，此两种法律选择方法均已遍尝败绩，诸国立法者对于此两种方法的可接受性程度之低应足已显见，国际私法于此向度欲证成此两种方法均为殊难完成之任务。
最后，实体法方法为国际民商事社会公众和国际民商事主体参与和决定切身利益与负担之筹划安排提供了实践机会；因为实体法方法能够为置身其中之人提供了一种极具程序理性的可能达成与产生共识确认和潜在认同的程序，并且这种程序天然包含有保障置身其中之人理性参与商谈实践的程序性规范。因而实体法方法显然禁得起诸国立法者于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。
第四章为国际私法的适用向度考量，该章为诸国司法者评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了适用结果可普遍化的考量向度。
首先，适用结果的可普遍化，亦即适用结果的确定性、可预测性与一致性，是一种符合形式正义的因而也是公正合理的诉求。并且根本上系于法律选择方法的确定性。法律选择方法的统一性是实现法律选择方法确定性的前提性步骤，而法律选择方法的可行性是实现法律选择方法确定性的实质性步骤。
其次，单边主义方法和多边主义方法，无论是否将适用结果的可普遍化视为基本的追求目标，都将无法通过适用向度考量。因为此两种法律选择方法中任意一种，均无法在解决涉外法律适用问题的过程中始终保证其所承载的法律选择方法的确定性，因而均无助于实现国际私法证成法律选择方法的目标。
最后，实体法方法在价值导向方面着眼于创立一种真实而有效的新实体规范，从而真实地和有效地回应涉外民商事交往的跨国性本质需求。从因应跨国性的出发点和渐趋良善法治境地的过程而言，其方法将有助于实现法律选择方法的可行性和统一性。因而实体法方法显然禁得起诸国司法者于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。
第五章为国际私法的实效向度考量，该章为国际民商事主体评估和检验法律选择方法的可接受性乃至正当性提供了调整实效适当正义的考量向度。
首先，跨国民商事交往对公正而持久地权衡、调停与协调置身其中之人的利益关系的需求，以及在此综合平衡进程中对适当满足国际民商事主体的利益诉求与期望的需求，就是正视实体方面有关实质正义的务实考虑。并且这种实质正义的发掘与实现充分体现在法律选择中如何适当地调整与国际民商事主体密切相关的数对至关重要的利益关系的调整实效之中。
其次，实体法方法以创立新实体规范为其方法的核心内容，不仅真实地回应涉外民商事交往的跨国性本质需求，而且有效地置国际民商事主体的利益诉求与期望于国际民商事社会第一需要的地位。其运作过程必然将调整国际民商事主体相互之间及其与立法者和司法者之间利益关系作为其创立新实体法规范的焦点内容。因而实体法方法显然禁得起国际民商事主体于此向度上对其方法的可接受性乃至正当性考量。
最后，单边主义方法往往可归结为一种法院地法至上主义，多边主义方法则往往以冲突法正义为其首要原则，此两种方法均未将因应涉外交往跨国属性的国际民商事主体利益保障置于其方法的首要原则地位。因而于实效向度上此两种方法缺失实质正义性，难为国际民商事主体接受为正当。
Justification of law must be accompanied by discussion and the discussion will be ended by acceptability. It goes without saying that private international law is an independent legal discipline. However, there are divergent views on the goal and the method of the legal discipline. Genius jurists have proposed all kinds of spectacular methods, doctrines and theories on which method is the best way to solve foreign-related legal issues, but the concept is complex and unconvincing. Therefore, the uncertainty has diffused across and controlled the legal discipline. Now then, is there objectivity of cognition in private international law? What is the truth of private international law? How should private international law justify law-selecting approach? If people can't correctly answer these fundamental questions of private international law when they are involved in international civil and commercial exchanges, it will not be changed fundamentally that theories of private international law are in the state of uncertainty, and it will not be satisfactorily solved that how to correctly solve foreign-related legal issues in practices of private international law. Therefore, in the view of dimension of testing the truth of private international law, it is the original intention of thinking, the exploration target and the research value of the paper that how to justify law-selecting approach to solve the problems of conflict and application of law.
The paper is mainly consisted of five chapters as follows:
Chapter one:introduction. This part studies the basic theory issues of the paper.
Firstly, the problem on acceptability of private international law is indeed related to the cognition of the truth in private international law. The correctness of private international law only depends on and is determined by the state accepted by all parties whose interests are relevant to the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations. Therefore, the acceptability is characterizing the truth of private international law and marking the consummation of justification of law-selecting approach of private international law.
Secondly, the problem on the bodies involved in acceptability indeed makes it clear who is the source of acceptability of private international law. International civil and commercial public, international civil and commercial subject, legislators and judiciary, they are all involved the transnational legal issues and all effected by them or all relevant to them. Therefore, acceptability of private international law come from their immediate perception, proper satisfaction, conscious recognition and bowed practice.
Thirdly, the problem on choice-of-law of private international law is indeed related to the core content of justification of law-selecting approach. As far as the way to solving the conflict of laws, conflict rules carry unilateral method and multilateral method, while uniform substantive rules carry international treaties. Conflict rules are an indirect adjustment method and uniform substantive rules are a direct adjustment method, while substantive law approach is an intermediate adjustment method.
Finally, the problem on the justice of orientation focusing on justification indeed determines the dimensions considering law-selecting approach. In the view of the bodies involved in acceptability, logic dimension, procedure dimension, application dimension and effectiveness dimension are the justification orientation on which private international law should focus in succession for the consummation of justification of law-selecting approach. Based on universal basic justification significance, rational strategic significance, formal justice significance and material justice significance, the justification orientation above-mentioned is accepted as justice by people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations, and then plays an important role of consideration dimension.
Chapter two:consideration of private international law in logic dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of validity of logic justification for people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.
Firstly, when proposing the method to solve foreign-related legal issues by means of inferring an unknown fact from a known fact or finding the best answer to foreign-related legal issues from two or more contradictory statements, rational thinking of justification of private international law must obey logic rules and must have a valid form of reasoning, that is validity of logic justification.
Secondly, validity of logic justification will feed back to, conduct and infect the consciousness and the confident of international civil and commercial public by means of declaration of legislators, operation of judiciary and practice of international civil and commercial subject. Therefore, the consciousness and the confident coming from logic power have universal basic justification significance of private international law.
Chapter three:consideration of private international law in procedure dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of procedural rationality of discussion for legislators in various countries evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.
Firstly, arrangements of procedural mechanisms of discussion and interventions of procedural norms of discussion inject rational connotation into the discussion procedure in choice of laws, that is the former highlights the rational strategy of justification of law-selecting approach following discussion procedure and the latter ensures rational operation of common discussion and realization of the rational strategy in justification of law-selecting approach.
Secondly, unilateral method and multilateral method constantly strengthen the doctrine law peculiarity of private international law and highlight denseness of academic atmosphere and tight closure of practice of private international law. Solving foreign-related legal issues by any method above-mentioned should make persons who are outside of the academia find it difficult to get involved in the problem-solving process. Therefore, the two methods above-mentioned have been all failed by consideration in procedure dimension. It is clear that the degree is low that legislators in various countries accept the two methods. So it is a difficult task that private international law purposes justifying the two methods in the dimension.
Finally, substantive law approach provides opportunities for international civil and commercial public and international civil and commercial subject to take part in and decide the planning and the arrangement for their vital interests and burdens. The approach not only can provide the rational procedure for people involved in the adjustment of international civil and commercial relations to reach and produce the consensus recognized and the potential recognition, but also the procedure naturally contains procedural norms that ensure that people above-mentioned can rationally participate in the discussion practice. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from legislators in various countries.
Chapter four:consideration of private international law in application dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of universal of applicable results for judiciary in various countries evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.
Firstly, universal of applicable results, that is certainty, predictability and consistency of applicable results, is a fair and reasonable demand that is in compliance with formal justice. What' more, it is fundamentally determined by certainty of law-selecting approach. Because the unity of law-selecting approach is a premise step of achieving its'certainty and the feasibility of law-selecting approach is a substantial step of achieving its'certainty.
Secondly, whether universal of applicable results is regarded as a basic goal or not by unilateral method or multilateral method, they all can't withstand the consideration of application dimension. Any one of the two methods can't ensure certainty of law-selecting approach carried in the process of solving foreign-related legal issues. Therefore, they all can't help to achieve the goal of justifying law-selecting approach of private international law.
Finally, substantive law approach focuses on the creation of true and effective new substantive norms in value-oriented, and then truly and effectively responds to the nature of transnational demand in international civil and commercial exchanges. As far as responding to the transnational demand as starting point and becoming to the situation of ruling of good law, the approach can help to achieve the feasibility and the unity of law-selecting approach. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from judiciary in various countries.
Chapter five:consideration of private international law in effectiveness dimension. This part provides consideration dimension of proper justice of adjustment effectiveness for international civil and commercial subject evaluating and testing the acceptability and the justice of law-selecting approach.
Firstly, the demands of justly and lastingly balancing, mediating and coordinating interest relationship of people involved in international civil and commercial exchanges, and the demands of properly satisfying interest demands and expectations of international civil and commercial subject in the comprehensive balancing process, are facing up to the pragmatic considerations of material justice in substantive aspects. What's more, exploring and achieving the material justice is reflected in the adjustment effectiveness that how to properly adjust several vital interest relationships related to international civil and commercial subject.
Secondly, substantive law approach takes the creation of new substantive norms as the core content of the approach. It not only responds truly to the nature of transnational demand in international civil and commercial exchanges, but also places effectively interest demands and expectations of international civil and commercial subject in the first need of international civil and commercial society. The operational process must take several vital interest relationships among international civil and commercial subject, legislators and judiciary as the focus content of the creation of new substantive norms. Therefore, substantive law approach can obviously withstand the consideration of acceptability and justice of the dimension from international civil and commercial subject.
Finally, unilateral method often may be summed up as lex fori supremacism and multilateral method often may take conflict justice as the overriding principle. The two methods all don't take interests of international civil and commercial subject responding to the transnational nature of international exchanges as the overriding principle of the methods. Therefore, the two methods are lack of material justice in effectiveness dimension and it is very difficult that international civil and commercial subject accepts the two methods as justice.
引文
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:1.
③杨仁寿.法学方法论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:33,40.
①吕岩峰.私法自治与国际私法:兼论国际私法的性质和范围[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:323.
②[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:3,7.
③郑成良.现代法理学[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1999:129.
①郑玉波.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:62-63.
①张文显.法理学[M].2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2003:110.
①Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy [M], trans.by William Rehg, Cambridge:Polity Press,1996:226.
①柯泽东.国际私法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:10.
②[英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一,译.北京:商务印书馆,1959:28.
①郑玉波.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:14.
①卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:5,17.
①[美]赞恩.法律的故事[M].刘昕等,译.南京:江苏人民出版社,1998:110.
①[日]北胁敏一.国际私法:国际关系法Ⅱ[M].姚梅镇,译.北京:法律出版社,1989:13.
②卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:32.另见[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:13.
③蒲坚.中国古代法制丛钞(第2卷)[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2001:193.
④长孙无忌.唐律疏议[M].刘俊文,点校.北京:中华书局,1983:133.
①卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:34.
②[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:68.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:53-54.
①孟子[M].方勇,译注.北京:中华书局,2010:128.
②[英]培根.论司法[M].水天同,译//培根.培根论说文集.2版.北京:商务印书馆,1983:193-194.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:10.
②[英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一,译.北京:商务印书馆,1959:29.另见[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法(特别版)[M].霍政欣等,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:11,13.
③[日]山田三良.国际私法[M].李倬,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:22.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:23.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:14.
③梅仲协.国际私法新论[M].3版.台北:台北三民书局,1980:28.
④[法]巴蒂福尔,拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司1989:311.
⑤何勤华.西方法学史[M].2版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996:277.
⑥[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:32.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:33-34.另见[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:32,34.
②邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006:14.另见[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:37.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:297.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:6-7.
②吕岩峰.私法自治与国际私法:兼论国际私法的性质和范围[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:323.
③韩德培.国际私法新论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2003:97.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:6-7.
②朱莉.管辖权、法律选择方法与规则的经济学分析[M].北京:法律出版社,2008:109.
③蒋新苗.国际私法本体论[M].北京:法律出版社,2005:436.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:59.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:246.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:205.
①[美]刘易斯.言论的边界:美国宪法第一修正案简史[M].徐爽,译.北京:法律出版社,2010:173.
①郑玉波.法谚:(二)[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:1.
①Holms. The Common Law[M]. Harvard:Harvard University Press,1963:5.
②[美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：496,512,注释41.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社2007：2.
④[美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：497.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:497.
①李浩培.19世纪的国际私法学[M]//李浩培.李浩培文选.北京:法律出版社,2000:54.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:55.
②[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:64.
①[德]考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004:96-97.
②[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:66,87-90,173,179.
①Brennan. A Handbook of Logic [M]. New York:Harper,1957:1.
②李浩培.19世纪的国际私法学[M]//李浩培.李浩培文选.北京：法律出版社,2000：54.
③[英]沃克.牛津法律大辞典[G].李双元等,译.北京：法律出版社,2003：1.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京：商务印书馆,1998：10.
②[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京：法律出版社,2007：9.
③Pound. Survey of Conference Problems[J].The University of Cincinnati Law Review,1940,14:324.
④[美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：493.
①[英]沃克.牛津法律大辞典[G].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,2003:942.
①[美]艾森伯格.普通法的本质[M].张曙光等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004:112.
②[德]波塞尔.科学:什么是科学[M].李文潮,译.上海:上海三联书店,2002:180.
③[德]黑格尔.小逻辑[M].贺麟,译.北京:商务印书馆,1980:127.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:497.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:498,501.
①葛洪义.法律方法讲义[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009:173.
②[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:500.
③[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:16-18.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:58-59.
②[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:29.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:46.
②[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:前言1.
③[荷]菲特丽丝.法律论证原理[M].张其山等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005:24,注释2.
④[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:497.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:497,注释43.
②郑成良.现代法理学[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1999:359.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:204-219.
②[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社2009:36-37.
③邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006:31.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:2.
①杜涛.德国国际私法:理论、方法和立法的变迁[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:348-349.
②[日]谷口平安.程序公正[G]//宋冰.程序、正义与现代化:外国法学家在华演讲录.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:374.
①Alexy. Theory of Legal Argumentation:The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification[M], trans. by Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989:193.
②[德]阿列克西.法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论[M].舒国滢,译.北京：中国法制出版社,2002：234.
①Aarnio. The Rational as Reasonable:A Treatise on Legal Justification[M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1987:196-197.
Peczenik. On Law and Reason[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1989:191.
①[荷]菲特丽丝.法律论证原理：司法裁决之证立理论概览[M].张其山等,译.北京：商务印书馆,2005：132.
②[德]阿列克西.法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论[M].舒国滢,译.北京：中国法制出版社,2002：252253.
③Aarnio. The Rational as Reasonable:A Treatise on Legal Justification[M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1987:198.
①[瑞典]佩岑尼克.法律科学：作为法律知识和法律渊源的法律学说[M].桂晓伟,译.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2009：208.
②Aarnio. The Rational as Reasonable:A Treatise on Legal Justification[M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1987:200.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:193.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:19,59.
①卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:34.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:14-15.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社.2007:17.
①[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:68.
②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[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:202-203.
①梅仲协.国际私法新论[M].3版.台北：台北三民书局,1980：28.
②Lando. The Conflict of Laws of Contracts:general principles [J]. Recueil des Cours1984,189:242.
③吕岩峰.论当事人意思自治原则之扩张：三论当事人意思自治原则[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春：吉林人民出版社,2005：172.
①[法]巴蒂福尔、拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989:310.
②[法]巴蒂福尔、拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989:311.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:26.
②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[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:257-259.
①Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:183.
①Currie, Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:613-614.
②邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京：法律出版社,2006：9597.
①Kay. A Defense of Currie's Governmental Interest Analysis[J]. Recueil des Cours,1989,215:76-77.
②邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京：法律出版社,2006：127133.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007：17,59.
①[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:67.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:50.
①吕岩峰.英国“适当法理论”之研究[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:98-99.
①吕岩峰.英国“适当法理论”之研究[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:102.
①[美]弗兰克.初审法院:美国司法中的神话与现实[M].赵承寿,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2007:201.
①[比]卡内冈.法官、立法者与法学教授:欧洲法律史篇[M].薛张敏敏,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:154.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:221.
①[美]考默萨.法律的限度:法治、权利的供给与需求[M].申卫星等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2007:36.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:19.
②[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:6.
③[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:39.
④[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:40.
①[德]魏德士.法理学[M].丁晓春等,译.北京:法律出版社,2005:287.
②[德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2003:9.
①[罗马]查斯丁尼.法学总论[M].张企泰,译.北京:商务印书馆,1989:5.
②[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:264.
③[瑞典]佩岑尼克.法律科学：作为法律知识和法律渊源的法律学说[M].桂晓伟,译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2009:223-224.
①郑玉波.法谚：(二)[M].北京：法律出版社,2007：1.
②Perelman. The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument[M].London:Routledge and Keagan Paul,1963:6-7
③[英]罗伊德.法律的理念[M].张茂柏,译.北京：新星出版社,2005：94.
④[美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：234235.
⑤[法]卢梭.社会契约论[M].何兆武,译.2版.北京：商务印书馆,1980：50.
①[英]奥斯丁.法理学的范围[M].刘星,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002:30.
②[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:13.
③[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:13.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:1.
①Collier. Conflict of Law[M].3rd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001:9-10.
②李双元.中国国际私法通论[M].3版.北京：法律出版社,2007：79-80.
①陈志武.财富是怎样产生的[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:3-5.
②卢峻.国际私法公约集[G].上海:上海社会科学院出版社,1986,序.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京：北京大学出版社,2009:13-14.
①中国大百科全书法学[G].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1984:18.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:18.
②[瑞典]佩岑尼克.法律科学:作为法律知识和法律渊源的法律学说[M].桂晓伟,译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2009:226.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:237.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:19.
②[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等译,北京:法律出版社,1999:68.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:19.
①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[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:211,213.
①梅仲协.国际私法新论[M].3版.台北:台北三民书局,1980:28.
①Lando. The Conflict of Laws of Contracts:general principles [J]. Recueil des Cours,1984,189:242.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007：22,23.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007：73.
①[法]巴蒂福尔,拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989:311.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:30.
①[法]巴蒂福尔,拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989:318.
①Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws[M].Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:189,383.
②Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws[M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:621.
③宋晓.当代国际私法的实体取向[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2004：103.
④邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006：96.
⑤Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws[M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:613-614.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:170.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:169-170.
①宋晓.当代国际私法的实体取向[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2004:115.
②宋晓.当代国际私法的实体取向[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2004:113.
①Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:183-187.
①邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京；中国政法大学出版社,2006：121-122.
②Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:155-156.
①Kay. A Defense of Currie's Governmental Interest Analysis[J]. Recueil des Cours,1989,215:76-77.
②Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:120.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007：131-132.
①[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:14-15,63-64.
①李金泽.最密切联系原则:冲突法在现代国际社会中的自我超越[J].甘肃社会科学,1998(1):22.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:1.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:205.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:69.
②[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:69-70.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:258.
①Jones. An Invitation to Jurisprudence [J]. Columbia Law Review.1974,74:1023-1025.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:39.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:270.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:89.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:270.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:260.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:39.
①[英]培根.论司法[M].水天同,译//培根.培根论说文集.2版.北京:商务印书馆1983:193.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:260.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:270.
①[美]奥尔特.正当法律程序简史[M].杨明成等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2006:10.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:17-18.
[1][英]奥斯丁.法理学的范围[M].刘星,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[2][美]奥尔特.正当法律程序简史[M].杨明成等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[3][美]艾森伯格.普通法的本质[M].张曙光等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[4][德]阿列克西.法律论证理论:作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论[M].舒国滢,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[5][日]北胁敏一.国际私法:国际关系法Ⅱ[M].姚梅镇,译.北京:法律出版社,1989.
[6][法]巴蒂福尔,拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司1989.
[7][美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[8][德]波塞尔.科学:什么是科学[M].李文潮,译.上海:上海三联书店,2002.
[9][美]比克斯.牛津法律理论词典[G].邱昭继等,译.北京:法律出版社,2007.
[10][罗马]查斯丁尼.法学总论[M].张企泰,译.北京:商务印书馆,1989.
[11]陈志武.财富是怎样产生的[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[12]陈卫佐.比较国际私法[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2008.
[13]陈瑞华.程序正义理论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2010.
[14]邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[15]杜涛.德国国际私法:理论、方法和立法的变迁[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[16][荷]菲特丽丝.法律论证原理[M].张其山等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005:24.
[17][美]弗兰克.初审法院:美国司法中的神话与现实[M].赵承寿,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2007.
[18][美]费曼.牛津法律术语小辞典[G].高如华等,注.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[19]葛洪义.法律方法讲义[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.
[20]国家法官学院,德国国际合作机构.法律适用方法:合同法案例分析[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2012.
[21]耿勇.国家主权与国际私法后现代转型[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[22]黄进.国际私法:案例与资料[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[23]何勤华.西方法学史[M].2版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996.
[24]韩德培.国际私法新论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2003.
[25][德]黑格尔.小逻辑[M].贺麟,译.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[26]蒋新苗.国际私法本体论[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[27]柯泽东.国际私法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[28][美]考默萨.法律的限度:法治、权利的供给与需求[M].申卫星等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2007.
[29][德]考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[30][德]考夫曼.当代法哲学和法律理论导论[M].郑永流,译.北京:法律出版社,2002.
[31][美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998.
[32][美]卡多佐.法律的成长[M].董炯等,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[33][比]卡内冈.法官、立法者与法学教授:欧洲法律史篇[M].薛张敏敏,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[34][德]克格尔.冲突法的危机[M].萧凯等,译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2008.
[35]吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
[36]吕岩峰.国际私法学教程[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2007.
[37]卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[38]卢峻.国际私法公约集[G].上海:上海社会科学院出版社,1986.
[39][法]卢梭.社会契约论[M].何兆武,译.2版.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[40]李浩培.李浩培文选[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[41]李浩培.条约法概论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[42]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[M].北京:法律出版社,2011.[43]李双元.中国国际私法通论[M].3版.北京:法律出版社,2007.
[44]李双元.国际私法（冲突法篇）[M].修订版.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2001.
[45]李双元.法律趋同化问题的哲学考察及其他[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2006.
[46][美]刘易斯.言论的边界:美国宪法第一修正案简史[M].徐爽,译.北京:法律出版社,2010.
[47]刘想树.国际私法基本问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[48]刘铁铮.国际私法论丛[M].台北:台北三民书局,1994.
[49]刘甲一.国际私法[M].台北:台北三民书局,1986.
[50][德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[51][英]罗伊德.法律的理念[M].张茂柏,译.北京:新星出版社,2005.
[52][美]罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.
[53][苏]隆茨.国际私法[M].吴云琪,译.北京:法律出版社,1986.
[54][英]莫里斯.戴西和莫里斯论冲突法[M].李双元等,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1998.
[55]孟子[M].方勇,译注.北京:中华书局,2010.
[56]梅仲协.国际私法新论[M].3版.台北:台北三民书局,1980.
[57][英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一,译.北京:商务印书馆,1959.
[58]马志强.国际私法中的最密切联系原则研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2010.
[59]蒲坚.中国古代法制丛钞(第2卷)[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2001.
[60]培根.培根论说文集[M].2版.北京:商务印书馆,1983.
[61][瑞典]佩岑尼克.法律科学:作为法律知识和法律渊源的法律学说[M].桂晓伟,译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2009.
[62][美]庞德.通过法律的社会控制[M].沈宗灵,译.北京:商务印书馆,2008.
[63]屈广清.国际私法发展史[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2005.
[64][美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[65][德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999.
[66][日]山田三良.国际私法[M].李倬,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[67]宋冰.程序、正义与现代化:外国法学家在华演讲录[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[68]宋晓.当代国际私法的实体取向[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2004.
[69][英]施米托夫.国际贸易法文选[M].赵秀文,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993.
[70]沈涓.冲突法及其价值导向[M].修订本.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[71][英]沃克.牛津法律大辞典[G].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[72][德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[73][德]魏德士.法理学[M].丁晓春等,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[74]王承志.美国冲突法重述之晚近发展[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[75]徐冬根.国际私法趋势论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[76]徐冬根.国际私法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[77]肖永平.法理学视野下的冲突法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2008.
[78]许庆坤.美国冲突法理论嬗变的法理:从法律形式主义到法律现实主义[M].北京:商务印书馆,2009.
[79][美]亚伯拉罕.司法的过程[M].泮伟江等,译.7版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[80][美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007.
[81]杨仁寿.法学方法论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[82]杨利雅.冲突法中的单边主义研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2010.
[83]郑成良.现代法理学[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1999.
[84]郑玉波.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[85]郑玉波.法谚:(二)[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[86]张文显.法理学[M].2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[87]张文显.法哲学范畴研究[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[88]张春良.冲突法的历史逻辑[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
[89][美]赞恩.法律的故事[M].刘昕等,译.南京:江苏人民出版社,1998.
[90]长孙无忌.唐律疏议[M].刘俊文,点校.北京:中华书局,1983.
[91]朱莉.管辖权、法律选择方法与规则的经济学分析[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[92]中国大百科全书法学[G].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1984.
[93]邹国勇.外国国际私法立法精选[G].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2011.
[1]程卫东.历史视野中的国际私法趋同化[J].南京社会科学,1997(3).
[2]蔡定剑.法律冲突及其解决的途径[J].中国法学,1999(3).
[3]杜涛.后现代主义与国际私法研究的新视角[J].国际私法研究方法论,2003(3).
[4]杜新丽.国际私法中法律选择方法的价值探究[J].政法论坛,2005(6).
[5]董作春.最密切联系原则本质初探[J].学术论坛,2001(2).
[6]董作春.论国际私法和谐诉求之源起[J].求索,2012(2).
[7]吕岩峰，董作春.行政审判中的“政府利益”分析:国际私法中“政府利益分析说”之借鉴[J].求索,2012(9).
[8]丁胜全.国际私法的方法与性质图标分析[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2003(3).[9]冯汉桥.论国际法的效力:从古罗马万民法谈起[J].求索,2004(1).
[10]郭树理.功能主义国际私法与概念主义国际私法之互动[J].月旦民商法,2003(2).[11]郭玉军.经济全球化与法律协调化、统一化[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2001(2).
[12]高兰英,蒋琼.浅议近现代国际私法对“法律关系本座说”的扬弃[J].广西政法管理干部学院学报,2002(6).
[13]韩德培.国际私法的晚近发展趋势[J].中国国际法年刊,1988.
[14]黄进.论当代法律的若干发展趋势[J].法学评论,1997(4).
[15]黄进.论国际统一实体私法[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,1998(1).
[16]黄进.法律的统一化和民族性并行不悖[J].政治与法律,1995(4).
[17]黄黎玲.“最密切联系”在冲突法中的法律地位[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版),2005(3).
[18]姜茹娇,王娇莺.论国际私法中法律选择方法的价值追求:兼论最密切联系原则的勃兴与修正[J].比较法研究,2002(3).
[19][美]卡弗斯.法律选择问题批判[J].宋晓,译.民商法论丛,2003(27).
[20]李金泽.最密切联系原则:冲突法在现代国际社会中的自我超越[J].甘肃社会科学,1998(1).
[21]李金泽.关于美国现代国际私法中法律选择方法的法哲学思考[J].江苏社会科学,1996(3).
[22]李双元.论国际私法关系中解决法律选择的方法问题[J].中国法学,1984(3).
[23]李双元,欧福永.国际私法研究方法之我见[J].法学论坛,2003(3).
[24]李双元,郑远民等.关于建立国际民商新秩序的法律思考:国际私法基本功能的深层考察[J].法学研究,1997(2).
[25]刘水林.法学方法论研究[J].法学研究,2001(3).
[26]刘丹妮.美国的冲突法革命:公平性与安全性的对抗与平衡[J].理论月刊,2001(7).[27]刘想树.国际私法的融通性与民族性论纲[J].云南法学,2000(1).
[28]林恩玮.国际私法选法理论之比较[J].东海大学法学研究,2002(17).
[29]宁建文.论国际私法的价值取向选择[J].广西社会科学,2001(5).
[30]浦伟良.试论国际统一私法的统一化方法[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2000(3).[31]宋晓.20世纪国际私法的“危机”与“革命”[J].武大国际法评论,2004(2).
[32]宋晓.国际私法中的比较法方法[J].法学论坛,2003(3).
[33]宋连斌.国际私法的实践困境及其出路[J].中国国际私法与比较法年 刊,2002(5).
[34]宋连斌.再论国际私法的实践困境及其出路[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2003(6).
[35]谭岳奇.从形式正义到实质正义：现代国际私法的价值转换和发展取向思考[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,1999(2).
[36]汪金兰.统一国际私法发展评析[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2001(4).
[37]万毅.程序法与实体法关系考辩：兼论程序优先理论[J].政法论坛,2003(6).
[38]徐崇利.冲突规则的回归：美国现代冲突法理论与实践的一大发展趋向[J].法学评论,2000(5).
[39]徐崇利.冲突法之悖论：价值取向与技术系统的张力[J].政法论坛,2006(2).
[40]徐冬根.论国际私法规范的柔性化与刚性化[J].法制与社会发展,2003(3).
[41]徐国栋.法律的诸价值及其冲突[J].法律科学,1992(1).
[42]许军珂.国际私法功能的演变[J].外交学院学报,2003(3).
[43]徐伟功,蔡鑫.美国冲突法中的分割方法评析[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(3).
[44]肖永平,胡永庆.论直接适用的法[J].法制与社会发展,1997(5).
[45]余先予.论冲突法的新发展[J].法学研究,1990(4).
[46]尹力.国际私法功能演进之研究[J].现代法学,2000(3).
[47]张骐.法学方法论及其在法治研究中的应用[J].中国人民大学学报,2003(3).
[48]祝婧超.论萨维尼对国际私法的影响[J].法制与社会,2007(5).
[49]邹国勇.国际私法的价值取向：利益协调[J].南京社会科学,2004(5).
[1]Alexy. Theory of Legal Argumentation:The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification[M]. trans. by Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989.
[2]Aarnio. The Rational as Reasonable:A Treatise on Legal Justification[M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1987.
[3]Brennan. A Handbook of Logic[M]. New York:Harper,1957.
[4]Beale. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws[M].5th ed. London:Butterworths,1984.
[5]Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws[M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963.
[6]Collier. Conflict of Law[M].3rd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001.
[7]Collins, Lawrence. Dicey, Morris and Collins on Conflict of Laws[M].14th ed. London:Stevens&Sons Limited,2006.
[8]Clarkson, Hill. The Conflict of Laws[M].3rd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006.
[9]Castel. Introduction to Conflict of Laws[M].3rd ed. London:Butterworths,1998.
[10]Fentiman. Conflict of Laws[M]. New York:New York University Press,1996.
[11]Graveson. The Conflict of Laws[M].7th ed. London:Butterworths,1974.
[12]Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy[M], trans. by William Rehg, Cambridge:Polity Press,1996.
[13]Holms. The Common Law[M]. Harvard:Harvard University Press,1963.
[14]Hayward. Conflict of Laws[M].4th ed. London:Cavendish Publishing Limited,2006.
[15]Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice[M]. The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijthoff Publishers,1993.
[16]Jackson. The "Conflict" Process:Jurisdiction and Choice in Private International Law[M]. New York:Oceana Publications,1975.
[17]Kalnsky. Trends of Private International Law[M]. The Hague:Martinus Nijthoff Pulishers,1971.
[18]Kuhn. Comparative Commentaries on Private International Law or Conflict of Laws[M]. littleton:Fred B.Rothman,1981.
[19]Lipstein. Principles of the Conflict of Law, National and International[M]. The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijthoff Publishers,1981.
[20]LEFLAR. American Conflicts Law[M]. Indianapolis:The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Lnc.,1968.
[21]Lowenfeld. International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1996.
[22]Lowenfeld. Conflict of Laws:Federal, State and International Perspective [M].2nd ed. Matthew Bender&Company,2002.
[23]Mcclean, Beevers. Morris:The Conflict of Laws[M].6th ed. London:Sweet&Maxwell,2005.
[24]Martin. Perspective on Conflict of Laws:Choice of Law[M]. Boston:Little, Brown and Companies,1980.
[25]North, Fawcett. Cheshire and North's Private International Law[M].13th ed. London:Butterworths,1999.
[26]North. Essays in Private International Law[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1993.
[27]Nadelmann. Conflict of Laws:International and Inter state[M]. The Hague: Martinus Nijthoff,1972.
[28]Peczenik. On Law and Reason[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1989.
[29]Perelman. The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument[M]. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul,1963.
[30]Richman, Reynolds. Understanding Conflict of Laws[M].3rd ed. Matthew Bender&Company,2002.
[31]Scoles, Hay. Conflict of Laws[M].2nd ed. West Group,1992.
[32]Wolff. Private International Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1950.
[33]Whincop, Keyes. Policy and Pragmatism in the Conflict of Laws[M]. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company,2001.
[34]Weintraub. Commentary on the Conflict of Laws[M].4th ed. New York:New York Foundation Press,2001.
[I]Brilmayer. Right, Fairness and Choice of Law[J]. Yale Law Journal,1989,98.
[2]Cheatham, Reese. Choice of Applicable Law[J]. Columbia Law Review,1952,52.
[3]Cheatham. American Theories of Conflict of Laws:Their Role and Utility[J]. Harvard Law Review,1945,58.
[4]Currie. Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws[J]. Duke Law Journal,1959.
[5]Cavers. A Crique of the Choice of Law Problem[J]. Harvard Law Review,1933,47.
[6]Guzman. Choice of Law:New Foundations[J]. U.C. Berkeley Public Law and Legal Theory,2000,28.
[7]Gaillard. Transnational Law:a Legal System or a Method of Decision-making[J]. Arbitration International,2001,17.
[8]Hay. Flexibility Versus Predictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law[J]. Recueil des Cours,1991,226..
[9]Jones. An Invitation to Jurisprudence [J]. Columbia Law Review.1974,74.
[10]Jaffey. The Foundation of Rules for the Choice of Law[J]. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.1982,2.
[11]Juenger. Conflict of Laws:A Critique of Interest Analysis[J]. American Journal of Comparative Law,1984,32.
[12]Kay. A Defense of Currie's Governmental Interest Analysis[J]. Recueil des Cours,1989,215.
[13]Kegel. Paternal Home and Dream Home:Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers[J]. American Journal of Comparative Law,1979,27.
[14]Kramer. Rethinking Choice of Law[J]. Columbia Law Review.1990,90.
[15]Korn. The Choice of Law Revolution:A Crique[J]. Columbia Law Review.1983,83.
[16]Lando. The Conflict of Laws of Contracts:general principles[J]. Recueil des Cours,1984,189.
[17]Lando. The Substantive Rules in the Conflict of Laws:Comparative Comments from the Law of Contracts[J]. Texas International Law Journal,1976.
[18]Leflar. Choice-influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law[J]. New York University Law Review,1966,41.
[19]Leflar. Conflicts Law:More on Choice-influencing Considerations[J]. California Law Review,1966,54.
[20]Mehren. Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems:Their Role and Significance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology[J]. Harvard Law Review,1974,88.
[21]Mance. The Future of Private International Law[J]. Journal of Private International Law,2005,1.
[22]Neuhaus. Legal Certainty versus Equity in the Conflict of Laws[J]. Law and Contemporary Problems,1963,28.
[23]North. Choice in the Choice of Law[J]. King's College Law Journal,1992,3.
[24]North. Private International Law:Change or Decay?[J]. International&Comparative Law Quarterly,2001,50.
[25]Pound. Survey of Conference Problems[J].The University of Cincinnati Law Review,1940,14.
[26]Panagopoulos. Substance and Procedure in Private International Law[J].Journal of Private International Law,2005,1.
[27]Reese. Choice of Law:Rules or Approach[J]. Cornell Law Review,1972,57.
[28]Redler. Reflections on Conflict of Laws Methodology[J]. Hasting Law Journal, 1981,32.
[29]Rosenberg. The Comeback of Choice of Law Rules[J]. Columbia Law Review,1981,81.
[30]Singer. A Pragmatic Guide to Conflicts[J]. Boston University Law Review,1990,70.
[31]Yntema. The Historical Bases of Private International Law[J]. American Journal of Comparative Law,1953,1.
[32]Yntema. The Hornbook Method and the Conflict of Laws[J]. Yale Law Journal,1928,37.
③杨仁寿.法学方法论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:33,40.
①吕岩峰.私法自治与国际私法:兼论国际私法的性质和范围[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:323.
②[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:3,7.
③郑成良.现代法理学[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1999:129.
①郑玉波.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:62-63.
①张文显.法理学[M].2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2003:110.
①Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy [M], trans.by William Rehg, Cambridge:Polity Press,1996:226.
①柯泽东.国际私法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:10.
②[英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一,译.北京:商务印书馆,1959:28.
①郑玉波.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:14.
①卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:5,17.
①[美]赞恩.法律的故事[M].刘昕等,译.南京:江苏人民出版社,1998:110.
①[日]北胁敏一.国际私法:国际关系法Ⅱ[M].姚梅镇,译.北京:法律出版社,1989:13.
②卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:32.另见[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:13.
③蒲坚.中国古代法制丛钞(第2卷)[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2001:193.
④长孙无忌.唐律疏议[M].刘俊文,点校.北京:中华书局,1983:133.
①卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:34.
②[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:68.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:53-54.
①孟子[M].方勇,译注.北京:中华书局,2010:128.
②[英]培根.论司法[M].水天同,译//培根.培根论说文集.2版.北京:商务印书馆,1983:193-194.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:10.
②[英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一,译.北京:商务印书馆,1959:29.另见[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法(特别版)[M].霍政欣等,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:11,13.
③[日]山田三良.国际私法[M].李倬,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:22.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:23.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:14.
③梅仲协.国际私法新论[M].3版.台北:台北三民书局,1980:28.
④[法]巴蒂福尔,拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司1989:311.
⑤何勤华.西方法学史[M].2版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996:277.
⑥[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:32.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:33-34.另见[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:32,34.
②邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006:14.另见[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:37.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:297.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:6-7.
②吕岩峰.私法自治与国际私法:兼论国际私法的性质和范围[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:323.
③韩德培.国际私法新论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2003:97.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:6-7.
②朱莉.管辖权、法律选择方法与规则的经济学分析[M].北京:法律出版社,2008:109.
③蒋新苗.国际私法本体论[M].北京:法律出版社,2005:436.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:59.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:246.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:205.
①[美]刘易斯.言论的边界:美国宪法第一修正案简史[M].徐爽,译.北京:法律出版社,2010:173.
①郑玉波.法谚:(二)[M].北京:法律出版社,2007:1.
①Holms. The Common Law[M]. Harvard:Harvard University Press,1963:5.
②[美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：496,512,注释41.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社2007：2.
④[美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：497.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:497.
①李浩培.19世纪的国际私法学[M]//李浩培.李浩培文选.北京:法律出版社,2000:54.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:55.
②[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:64.
①[德]考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004:96-97.
②[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:66,87-90,173,179.
①Brennan. A Handbook of Logic [M]. New York:Harper,1957:1.
②李浩培.19世纪的国际私法学[M]//李浩培.李浩培文选.北京：法律出版社,2000：54.
③[英]沃克.牛津法律大辞典[G].李双元等,译.北京：法律出版社,2003：1.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京：商务印书馆,1998：10.
②[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京：法律出版社,2007：9.
③Pound. Survey of Conference Problems[J].The University of Cincinnati Law Review,1940,14:324.
④[美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：493.
①[英]沃克.牛津法律大辞典[G].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,2003:942.
①[美]艾森伯格.普通法的本质[M].张曙光等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004:112.
②[德]波塞尔.科学:什么是科学[M].李文潮,译.上海:上海三联书店,2002:180.
③[德]黑格尔.小逻辑[M].贺麟,译.北京:商务印书馆,1980:127.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:497.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:498,501.
①葛洪义.法律方法讲义[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009:173.
②[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:500.
③[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:16-18.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:58-59.
②[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:29.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:46.
②[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:前言1.
③[荷]菲特丽丝.法律论证原理[M].张其山等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005:24,注释2.
④[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:497.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:497,注释43.
②郑成良.现代法理学[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1999:359.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:204-219.
②[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社2009:36-37.
③邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006:31.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:2.
①杜涛.德国国际私法:理论、方法和立法的变迁[M].北京:法律出版社,2006:348-349.
②[日]谷口平安.程序公正[G]//宋冰.程序、正义与现代化:外国法学家在华演讲录.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998:374.
①Alexy. Theory of Legal Argumentation:The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification[M], trans. by Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989:193.
②[德]阿列克西.法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论[M].舒国滢,译.北京：中国法制出版社,2002：234.
①Aarnio. The Rational as Reasonable:A Treatise on Legal Justification[M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1987:196-197.
Peczenik. On Law and Reason[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1989:191.
①[荷]菲特丽丝.法律论证原理：司法裁决之证立理论概览[M].张其山等,译.北京：商务印书馆,2005：132.
②[德]阿列克西.法律论证理论：作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论[M].舒国滢,译.北京：中国法制出版社,2002：252253.
③Aarnio. The Rational as Reasonable:A Treatise on Legal Justification[M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1987:198.
①[瑞典]佩岑尼克.法律科学：作为法律知识和法律渊源的法律学说[M].桂晓伟,译.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2009：208.
②Aarnio. The Rational as Reasonable:A Treatise on Legal Justification[M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1987:200.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:193.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:19,59.
①卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:34.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:14-15.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社.2007:17.
①[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:68.
②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[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:202-203.
①梅仲协.国际私法新论[M].3版.台北：台北三民书局,1980：28.
②Lando. The Conflict of Laws of Contracts:general principles [J]. Recueil des Cours1984,189:242.
③吕岩峰.论当事人意思自治原则之扩张：三论当事人意思自治原则[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春：吉林人民出版社,2005：172.
①[法]巴蒂福尔、拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989:310.
②[法]巴蒂福尔、拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989:311.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:26.
②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[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:257-259.
①Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:183.
①Currie, Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:613-614.
②邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京：法律出版社,2006：9597.
①Kay. A Defense of Currie's Governmental Interest Analysis[J]. Recueil des Cours,1989,215:76-77.
②邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京：法律出版社,2006：127133.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007：17,59.
①[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:67.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:50.
①吕岩峰.英国“适当法理论”之研究[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:98-99.
①吕岩峰.英国“适当法理论”之研究[M]//吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法.长春:吉林人民出版社,2005:102.
①[美]弗兰克.初审法院:美国司法中的神话与现实[M].赵承寿,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2007:201.
①[比]卡内冈.法官、立法者与法学教授:欧洲法律史篇[M].薛张敏敏,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006:154.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:221.
①[美]考默萨.法律的限度:法治、权利的供给与需求[M].申卫星等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2007:36.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:19.
②[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:6.
③[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:39.
④[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:40.
①[德]魏德士.法理学[M].丁晓春等,译.北京:法律出版社,2005:287.
②[德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2003:9.
①[罗马]查斯丁尼.法学总论[M].张企泰,译.北京:商务印书馆,1989:5.
②[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:264.
③[瑞典]佩岑尼克.法律科学：作为法律知识和法律渊源的法律学说[M].桂晓伟,译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2009:223-224.
①郑玉波.法谚：(二)[M].北京：法律出版社,2007：1.
②Perelman. The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument[M].London:Routledge and Keagan Paul,1963:6-7
③[英]罗伊德.法律的理念[M].张茂柏,译.北京：新星出版社,2005：94.
④[美]博登海默.法理学：法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999：234235.
⑤[法]卢梭.社会契约论[M].何兆武,译.2版.北京：商务印书馆,1980：50.
①[英]奥斯丁.法理学的范围[M].刘星,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002:30.
②[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:13.
③[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:13.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:1.
①Collier. Conflict of Law[M].3rd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001:9-10.
②李双元.中国国际私法通论[M].3版.北京：法律出版社,2007：79-80.
①陈志武.财富是怎样产生的[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005:3-5.
②卢峻.国际私法公约集[G].上海:上海社会科学院出版社,1986,序.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京：北京大学出版社,2009:13-14.
①中国大百科全书法学[G].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1984:18.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:18.
②[瑞典]佩岑尼克.法律科学:作为法律知识和法律渊源的法律学说[M].桂晓伟,译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2009:226.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:237.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:19.
②[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等译,北京:法律出版社,1999:68.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:19.
①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[M].北京:法律出版社,2011:211,213.
①梅仲协.国际私法新论[M].3版.台北:台北三民书局,1980:28.
①Lando. The Conflict of Laws of Contracts:general principles [J]. Recueil des Cours,1984,189:242.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007：22,23.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007：73.
①[法]巴蒂福尔,拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989:311.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:30.
①[法]巴蒂福尔,拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1989:318.
①Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws[M].Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:189,383.
②Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws[M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:621.
③宋晓.当代国际私法的实体取向[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社,2004：103.
④邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京：中国政法大学出版社,2006：96.
⑤Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws[M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:613-614.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:170.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:169-170.
①宋晓.当代国际私法的实体取向[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2004:115.
②宋晓.当代国际私法的实体取向[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2004:113.
①Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:183-187.
①邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京；中国政法大学出版社,2006：121-122.
②Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:155-156.
①Kay. A Defense of Currie's Governmental Interest Analysis[J]. Recueil des Cours,1989,215:76-77.
②Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws [M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963:120.
③[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京：北京大学出版社,2007：131-132.
①[德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999:14-15,63-64.
①李金泽.最密切联系原则:冲突法在现代国际社会中的自我超越[J].甘肃社会科学,1998(1):22.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:1.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:205.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:69.
②[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:69-70.
①[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:258.
①Jones. An Invitation to Jurisprudence [J]. Columbia Law Review.1974,74:1023-1025.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:39.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:270.
②[美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007:89.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:270.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:260.
①[美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:39.
①[英]培根.论司法[M].水天同,译//培根.培根论说文集.2版.北京:商务印书馆1983:193.
①[美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:260.
①[美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:270.
①[美]奥尔特.正当法律程序简史[M].杨明成等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2006:10.
①[德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009:17-18.
[1][英]奥斯丁.法理学的范围[M].刘星,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[2][美]奥尔特.正当法律程序简史[M].杨明成等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2006.
[3][美]艾森伯格.普通法的本质[M].张曙光等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[4][德]阿列克西.法律论证理论:作为法律证立理论的理性论辩理论[M].舒国滢,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[5][日]北胁敏一.国际私法:国际关系法Ⅱ[M].姚梅镇,译.北京:法律出版社,1989.
[6][法]巴蒂福尔,拉加德.国际私法总论[M].陈洪武等,译.北京:中国对外翻译出版公司1989.
[7][美]博登海默.法理学:法律哲学与法律方法[M].邓正来,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[8][德]波塞尔.科学:什么是科学[M].李文潮,译.上海:上海三联书店,2002.
[9][美]比克斯.牛津法律理论词典[G].邱昭继等,译.北京:法律出版社,2007.
[10][罗马]查斯丁尼.法学总论[M].张企泰,译.北京:商务印书馆,1989.
[11]陈志武.财富是怎样产生的[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2005.
[12]陈卫佐.比较国际私法[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2008.
[13]陈瑞华.程序正义理论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2010.
[14]邓正来.美国现代国际私法流派[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2006.
[15]杜涛.德国国际私法:理论、方法和立法的变迁[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[16][荷]菲特丽丝.法律论证原理[M].张其山等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005:24.
[17][美]弗兰克.初审法院:美国司法中的神话与现实[M].赵承寿,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2007.
[18][美]费曼.牛津法律术语小辞典[G].高如华等,注.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[19]葛洪义.法律方法讲义[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2009.
[20]国家法官学院,德国国际合作机构.法律适用方法:合同法案例分析[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2012.
[21]耿勇.国家主权与国际私法后现代转型[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[22]黄进.国际私法:案例与资料[M].北京:法律出版社,2004.
[23]何勤华.西方法学史[M].2版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1996.
[24]韩德培.国际私法新论[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2003.
[25][德]黑格尔.小逻辑[M].贺麟,译.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[26]蒋新苗.国际私法本体论[M].北京:法律出版社,2005.
[27]柯泽东.国际私法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[28][美]考默萨.法律的限度:法治、权利的供给与需求[M].申卫星等,译.北京:商务印书馆,2007.
[29][德]考夫曼.法律哲学[M].刘幸义等,译.北京:法律出版社,2004.
[30][德]考夫曼.当代法哲学和法律理论导论[M].郑永流,译.北京:法律出版社,2002.
[31][美]卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998.
[32][美]卡多佐.法律的成长[M].董炯等,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2002.
[33][比]卡内冈.法官、立法者与法学教授:欧洲法律史篇[M].薛张敏敏,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[34][德]克格尔.冲突法的危机[M].萧凯等,译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2008.
[35]吕岩峰.吕岩峰论国际法[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2005.
[36]吕岩峰.国际私法学教程[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2007.
[37]卢峻.国际私法之理论与实际[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[38]卢峻.国际私法公约集[G].上海:上海社会科学院出版社,1986.
[39][法]卢梭.社会契约论[M].何兆武,译.2版.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[40]李浩培.李浩培文选[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[41]李浩培.条约法概论[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[42]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[M].北京:法律出版社,2011.[43]李双元.中国国际私法通论[M].3版.北京:法律出版社,2007.
[44]李双元.国际私法（冲突法篇）[M].修订版.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2001.
[45]李双元.法律趋同化问题的哲学考察及其他[M].长沙:湖南人民出版社,2006.
[46][美]刘易斯.言论的边界:美国宪法第一修正案简史[M].徐爽,译.北京:法律出版社,2010.
[47]刘想树.国际私法基本问题研究[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
[48]刘铁铮.国际私法论丛[M].台北:台北三民书局,1994.
[49]刘甲一.国际私法[M].台北:台北三民书局,1986.
[50][德]拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱娥,译.北京:商务印书馆,2003.
[51][英]罗伊德.法律的理念[M].张茂柏,译.北京:新星出版社,2005.
[52][美]罗尔斯.正义论[M].何怀宏等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988.
[53][苏]隆茨.国际私法[M].吴云琪,译.北京:法律出版社,1986.
[54][英]莫里斯.戴西和莫里斯论冲突法[M].李双元等,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1998.
[55]孟子[M].方勇,译注.北京:中华书局,2010.
[56]梅仲协.国际私法新论[M].3版.台北:台北三民书局,1980.
[57][英]梅因.古代法[M].沈景一,译.北京:商务印书馆,1959.
[58]马志强.国际私法中的最密切联系原则研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2010.
[59]蒲坚.中国古代法制丛钞(第2卷)[M].北京:光明日报出版社,2001.
[60]培根.培根论说文集[M].2版.北京:商务印书馆,1983.
[61][瑞典]佩岑尼克.法律科学:作为法律知识和法律渊源的法律学说[M].桂晓伟,译.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2009.
[62][美]庞德.通过法律的社会控制[M].沈宗灵,译.北京:商务印书馆,2008.
[63]屈广清.国际私法发展史[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2005.
[64][美]荣格.法律选择与涉外司法[M].霍政欣等,译.特别版.北京:北京大学出版社,2007.
[65][德]萨维尼.法律冲突与法律规则的地域和时间范围[M].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,1999.
[66][日]山田三良.国际私法[M].李倬,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[67]宋冰.程序、正义与现代化:外国法学家在华演讲录[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998.
[68]宋晓.当代国际私法的实体取向[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2004.
[69][英]施米托夫.国际贸易法文选[M].赵秀文,译.北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1993.
[70]沈涓.冲突法及其价值导向[M].修订本.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
[71][英]沃克.牛津法律大辞典[G].李双元等,译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[72][德]沃尔夫.国际私法[M].李浩培等,译.2版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[73][德]魏德士.法理学[M].丁晓春等,译.北京:法律出版社,2005.
[74]王承志.美国冲突法重述之晚近发展[M].北京:法律出版社,2006.
[75]徐冬根.国际私法趋势论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[76]徐冬根.国际私法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[77]肖永平.法理学视野下的冲突法[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2008.
[78]许庆坤.美国冲突法理论嬗变的法理:从法律形式主义到法律现实主义[M].北京:商务印书馆,2009.
[79][美]亚伯拉罕.司法的过程[M].泮伟江等,译.7版.北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[80][美]亚狄瑟.法律的逻辑[M].唐欣伟,译.北京:法律出版社,2007.
[81]杨仁寿.法学方法论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[82]杨利雅.冲突法中的单边主义研究[M].北京:人民出版社,2010.
[83]郑成良.现代法理学[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1999.
[84]郑玉波.民法总则[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[85]郑玉波.法谚:(二)[M].北京:法律出版社,2007.
[86]张文显.法理学[M].2版.北京:高等教育出版社,2003.
[87]张文显.法哲学范畴研究[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[88]张春良.冲突法的历史逻辑[M].北京:法律出版社,2010.
[89][美]赞恩.法律的故事[M].刘昕等,译.南京:江苏人民出版社,1998.
[90]长孙无忌.唐律疏议[M].刘俊文,点校.北京:中华书局,1983.
[91]朱莉.管辖权、法律选择方法与规则的经济学分析[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[92]中国大百科全书法学[G].北京:中国大百科全书出版社,1984.
[93]邹国勇.外国国际私法立法精选[G].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2011.
[1]程卫东.历史视野中的国际私法趋同化[J].南京社会科学,1997(3).
[2]蔡定剑.法律冲突及其解决的途径[J].中国法学,1999(3).
[3]杜涛.后现代主义与国际私法研究的新视角[J].国际私法研究方法论,2003(3).
[4]杜新丽.国际私法中法律选择方法的价值探究[J].政法论坛,2005(6).
[5]董作春.最密切联系原则本质初探[J].学术论坛,2001(2).
[6]董作春.论国际私法和谐诉求之源起[J].求索,2012(2).
[7]吕岩峰，董作春.行政审判中的“政府利益”分析:国际私法中“政府利益分析说”之借鉴[J].求索,2012(9).
[8]丁胜全.国际私法的方法与性质图标分析[J].河南省政法管理干部学院学报,2003(3).[9]冯汉桥.论国际法的效力:从古罗马万民法谈起[J].求索,2004(1).
[10]郭树理.功能主义国际私法与概念主义国际私法之互动[J].月旦民商法,2003(2).[11]郭玉军.经济全球化与法律协调化、统一化[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2001(2).
[12]高兰英,蒋琼.浅议近现代国际私法对“法律关系本座说”的扬弃[J].广西政法管理干部学院学报,2002(6).
[13]韩德培.国际私法的晚近发展趋势[J].中国国际法年刊,1988.
[14]黄进.论当代法律的若干发展趋势[J].法学评论,1997(4).
[15]黄进.论国际统一实体私法[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,1998(1).
[16]黄进.法律的统一化和民族性并行不悖[J].政治与法律,1995(4).
[17]黄黎玲.“最密切联系”在冲突法中的法律地位[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版),2005(3).
[18]姜茹娇,王娇莺.论国际私法中法律选择方法的价值追求:兼论最密切联系原则的勃兴与修正[J].比较法研究,2002(3).
[19][美]卡弗斯.法律选择问题批判[J].宋晓,译.民商法论丛,2003(27).
[20]李金泽.最密切联系原则:冲突法在现代国际社会中的自我超越[J].甘肃社会科学,1998(1).
[21]李金泽.关于美国现代国际私法中法律选择方法的法哲学思考[J].江苏社会科学,1996(3).
[22]李双元.论国际私法关系中解决法律选择的方法问题[J].中国法学,1984(3).
[23]李双元,欧福永.国际私法研究方法之我见[J].法学论坛,2003(3).
[24]李双元,郑远民等.关于建立国际民商新秩序的法律思考:国际私法基本功能的深层考察[J].法学研究,1997(2).
[25]刘水林.法学方法论研究[J].法学研究,2001(3).
[26]刘丹妮.美国的冲突法革命:公平性与安全性的对抗与平衡[J].理论月刊,2001(7).[27]刘想树.国际私法的融通性与民族性论纲[J].云南法学,2000(1).
[28]林恩玮.国际私法选法理论之比较[J].东海大学法学研究,2002(17).
[29]宁建文.论国际私法的价值取向选择[J].广西社会科学,2001(5).
[30]浦伟良.试论国际统一私法的统一化方法[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2000(3).[31]宋晓.20世纪国际私法的“危机”与“革命”[J].武大国际法评论,2004(2).
[32]宋晓.国际私法中的比较法方法[J].法学论坛,2003(3).
[33]宋连斌.国际私法的实践困境及其出路[J].中国国际私法与比较法年 刊,2002(5).
[34]宋连斌.再论国际私法的实践困境及其出路[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2003(6).
[35]谭岳奇.从形式正义到实质正义：现代国际私法的价值转换和发展取向思考[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,1999(2).
[36]汪金兰.统一国际私法发展评析[J].中国国际私法与比较法年刊,2001(4).
[37]万毅.程序法与实体法关系考辩：兼论程序优先理论[J].政法论坛,2003(6).
[38]徐崇利.冲突规则的回归：美国现代冲突法理论与实践的一大发展趋向[J].法学评论,2000(5).
[39]徐崇利.冲突法之悖论：价值取向与技术系统的张力[J].政法论坛,2006(2).
[40]徐冬根.论国际私法规范的柔性化与刚性化[J].法制与社会发展,2003(3).
[41]徐国栋.法律的诸价值及其冲突[J].法律科学,1992(1).
[42]许军珂.国际私法功能的演变[J].外交学院学报,2003(3).
[43]徐伟功,蔡鑫.美国冲突法中的分割方法评析[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008(3).
[44]肖永平,胡永庆.论直接适用的法[J].法制与社会发展,1997(5).
[45]余先予.论冲突法的新发展[J].法学研究,1990(4).
[46]尹力.国际私法功能演进之研究[J].现代法学,2000(3).
[47]张骐.法学方法论及其在法治研究中的应用[J].中国人民大学学报,2003(3).
[48]祝婧超.论萨维尼对国际私法的影响[J].法制与社会,2007(5).
[49]邹国勇.国际私法的价值取向：利益协调[J].南京社会科学,2004(5).
[1]Alexy. Theory of Legal Argumentation:The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification[M]. trans. by Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick, Oxford:Clarendon Press,1989.
[2]Aarnio. The Rational as Reasonable:A Treatise on Legal Justification[M]. Dordrecht:D. Reidel Publishing Co.,1987.
[3]Brennan. A Handbook of Logic[M]. New York:Harper,1957.
[4]Beale. A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws[M].5th ed. London:Butterworths,1984.
[5]Currie. Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws[M]. Durham, N.C.:Duke University Press,1963.
[6]Collier. Conflict of Law[M].3rd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001.
[7]Collins, Lawrence. Dicey, Morris and Collins on Conflict of Laws[M].14th ed. London:Stevens&Sons Limited,2006.
[8]Clarkson, Hill. The Conflict of Laws[M].3rd ed. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2006.
[9]Castel. Introduction to Conflict of Laws[M].3rd ed. London:Butterworths,1998.
[10]Fentiman. Conflict of Laws[M]. New York:New York University Press,1996.
[11]Graveson. The Conflict of Laws[M].7th ed. London:Butterworths,1974.
[12]Habermas, Between Facts and Norms:Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy[M], trans. by William Rehg, Cambridge:Polity Press,1996.
[13]Holms. The Common Law[M]. Harvard:Harvard University Press,1963.
[14]Hayward. Conflict of Laws[M].4th ed. London:Cavendish Publishing Limited,2006.
[15]Juenger. Choice of Law and Multistate Justice[M]. The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijthoff Publishers,1993.
[16]Jackson. The "Conflict" Process:Jurisdiction and Choice in Private International Law[M]. New York:Oceana Publications,1975.
[17]Kalnsky. Trends of Private International Law[M]. The Hague:Martinus Nijthoff Pulishers,1971.
[18]Kuhn. Comparative Commentaries on Private International Law or Conflict of Laws[M]. littleton:Fred B.Rothman,1981.
[19]Lipstein. Principles of the Conflict of Law, National and International[M]. The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijthoff Publishers,1981.
[20]LEFLAR. American Conflicts Law[M]. Indianapolis:The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Lnc.,1968.
[21]Lowenfeld. International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1996.
[22]Lowenfeld. Conflict of Laws:Federal, State and International Perspective [M].2nd ed. Matthew Bender&Company,2002.
[23]Mcclean, Beevers. Morris:The Conflict of Laws[M].6th ed. London:Sweet&Maxwell,2005.
[24]Martin. Perspective on Conflict of Laws:Choice of Law[M]. Boston:Little, Brown and Companies,1980.
[25]North, Fawcett. Cheshire and North's Private International Law[M].13th ed. London:Butterworths,1999.
[26]North. Essays in Private International Law[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1993.
[27]Nadelmann. Conflict of Laws:International and Inter state[M]. The Hague: Martinus Nijthoff,1972.
[28]Peczenik. On Law and Reason[M]. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1989.
[29]Perelman. The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument[M]. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul,1963.
[30]Richman, Reynolds. Understanding Conflict of Laws[M].3rd ed. Matthew Bender&Company,2002.
[31]Scoles, Hay. Conflict of Laws[M].2nd ed. West Group,1992.
[32]Wolff. Private International Law[M].2nd ed. Oxford:Clarendon Press,1950.
[33]Whincop, Keyes. Policy and Pragmatism in the Conflict of Laws[M]. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company,2001.
[34]Weintraub. Commentary on the Conflict of Laws[M].4th ed. New York:New York Foundation Press,2001.
[I]Brilmayer. Right, Fairness and Choice of Law[J]. Yale Law Journal,1989,98.
[2]Cheatham, Reese. Choice of Applicable Law[J]. Columbia Law Review,1952,52.
[3]Cheatham. American Theories of Conflict of Laws:Their Role and Utility[J]. Harvard Law Review,1945,58.
[4]Currie. Notes on Methods and Objectives in the Conflict of Laws[J]. Duke Law Journal,1959.
[5]Cavers. A Crique of the Choice of Law Problem[J]. Harvard Law Review,1933,47.
[6]Guzman. Choice of Law:New Foundations[J]. U.C. Berkeley Public Law and Legal Theory,2000,28.
[7]Gaillard. Transnational Law:a Legal System or a Method of Decision-making[J]. Arbitration International,2001,17.
[8]Hay. Flexibility Versus Predictability and Uniformity in Choice of Law[J]. Recueil des Cours,1991,226..
[9]Jones. An Invitation to Jurisprudence [J]. Columbia Law Review.1974,74.
[10]Jaffey. The Foundation of Rules for the Choice of Law[J]. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.1982,2.
[11]Juenger. Conflict of Laws:A Critique of Interest Analysis[J]. American Journal of Comparative Law,1984,32.
[12]Kay. A Defense of Currie's Governmental Interest Analysis[J]. Recueil des Cours,1989,215.
[13]Kegel. Paternal Home and Dream Home:Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers[J]. American Journal of Comparative Law,1979,27.
[14]Kramer. Rethinking Choice of Law[J]. Columbia Law Review.1990,90.
[15]Korn. The Choice of Law Revolution:A Crique[J]. Columbia Law Review.1983,83.
[16]Lando. The Conflict of Laws of Contracts:general principles[J]. Recueil des Cours,1984,189.
[17]Lando. The Substantive Rules in the Conflict of Laws:Comparative Comments from the Law of Contracts[J]. Texas International Law Journal,1976.
[18]Leflar. Choice-influencing Considerations in Conflicts Law[J]. New York University Law Review,1966,41.
[19]Leflar. Conflicts Law:More on Choice-influencing Considerations[J]. California Law Review,1966,54.
[20]Mehren. Special Substantive Rules for Multistate Problems:Their Role and Significance in Contemporary Choice of Law Methodology[J]. Harvard Law Review,1974,88.
[21]Mance. The Future of Private International Law[J]. Journal of Private International Law,2005,1.
[22]Neuhaus. Legal Certainty versus Equity in the Conflict of Laws[J]. Law and Contemporary Problems,1963,28.
[23]North. Choice in the Choice of Law[J]. King's College Law Journal,1992,3.
[24]North. Private International Law:Change or Decay?[J]. International&Comparative Law Quarterly,2001,50.
[25]Pound. Survey of Conference Problems[J].The University of Cincinnati Law Review,1940,14.
[26]Panagopoulos. Substance and Procedure in Private International Law[J].Journal of Private International Law,2005,1.
[27]Reese. Choice of Law:Rules or Approach[J]. Cornell Law Review,1972,57.
[28]Redler. Reflections on Conflict of Laws Methodology[J]. Hasting Law Journal, 1981,32.
[29]Rosenberg. The Comeback of Choice of Law Rules[J]. Columbia Law Review,1981,81.
[30]Singer. A Pragmatic Guide to Conflicts[J]. Boston University Law Review,1990,70.
[31]Yntema. The Historical Bases of Private International Law[J]. American Journal of Comparative Law,1953,1.
[32]Yntema. The Hornbook Method and the Conflict of Laws[J]. Yale Law Journal,1928,37.