冲突法英文课件_免费的英文课件
冲突法英文课件由刀豆文库小编整理，希望给你工作、学习、生活带来方便，猜你可能喜欢“免费的英文课件”。
第五章 法律冲突
Relationship between U.S.state and federal law
The relationship between state and federal law in federal courts gives rise to complex
iues in both domestic and international cases.These iues are subject to the so-called
Until the 1930s, the federal courts had followed the rule of Swiff v.Tyson and applied a
general federal common law in diversity cases.Under Swiff v.Tyson, federal courts were generally free to apply state general federal common law, while state courts were at liberty to apply state common law.In Erie Railroad Co.v.Tompkins, however, the Supreme Court narrowly limited the federal court’s authority to fashion general common law rules.Declaring that “there is no federal general common law,” the Court held that, in the absence of valid federal legislation, federal courts must ordinarily apply state substantive law, including state common law rules fashioned by state courts.The Court based its decision in large part on the perceived “mischievous results” that flowed from permitting federal courts to apply federal law, and state courts to apply state law. To redre these perceived defects, Erie established fundamentally new principles governing
the relationship between state and federal law that a valid federal statute, treaty, or regulation preempts inconsistent state law, and must be applied by both state courts and federal diversity and alienage courts.If no valid federal substantive law applies, however, the Erie doctrine provides generally that “procedural” iues in federal diversity actions are governed by federal procedural law, while “substantive” iues are governed by state substantive law.Federal procedural law applies only in federal courts, not in state courts.Relationship between international agreements and U.S.law
The U.S.Constitution permits entry by the United States into “treaties”.In determining the
legal effects of a treaty under U.S.law, U.S.courts distinguish sharply betweenand “have immediate legal effects within the contracting states, without the need for implementing legislation or regulations;a non-executing treaty is not intended to have direct legal effect, but instead contemplates domestic implementing legislation.Whether a treaty is self-executing or non-executing under U.S.law depends on the intentions of the United States in ratifying the treaty. The U.S.Constitution declares that self-executing treaties are the ”Supreme Law of the
Land“.Even without implementing legislation, self-executing treaties are federal law that enjoy eentially the same status in U.S.courts as federal statutes.Self-executing treaties create enforceable rights in U.S.courts and preempt inconsistent state law.In the case of conflict between treaties and federal statutes, a ”last-in-time“ rule applies: a federal statute supersedes prior inconsistent treaties, and conversely, a treaty supersedes prior inconsistent federal statutes.In contrast, non-self-executing treaties lack binding force in U.S.courts until implemented
by congreional statute.As a result, federal law ordinarily prevails over inconsistent non-self-executing treaties.The same result apparently also applies with respect to state statutes and state common law.Relationship between customary international law and U.S law
The status of customary international law in U.S.courts is le clear than that of treaties
and other international agreements.In practice, the direct application of customary international law occurs in relatively few cases, owing principally to the comprehensive
character of U.S.law and the fragmentary coverage of international law.In the absence of any federal law on an iue, U.S.courts will generally give effect to
customary international law.If a subsequent federal statute requires a result contrary to preexisting principles of customary international law, then U.S.courts must give Congre's legislation priority.They must do so even though this will place the United States in violation of international law.Moreover, even when a preexisting federal statute is said to be inconsistent with subsequent international practice, the prior statute will probably prevail.The same result should apply in conflicts between customary international law and rules of federal common law.The effect of a conflict between customary international law and state law is le clear.Because customary international law is federal law, it should in principle preempt both prior and subsequent state law.思考判断
法律冲突只会在国际私法领域发生。
发生法律冲突的最根本原因是立法权的分立。
现代国际私法认为，公法领域不会发生法律冲突。
国际法律冲突与区际法律冲突都是空间上的法律冲突。
对于人际法律冲突的解决，目前尚没有统一的规则。但它与解决空间上的法律冲突的规则相似，以规定婚姻、家庭及其他有关人的身份、能力方面的问题居多。
国际私法上所讲的法律冲突，主要是指法律适用上的冲突
解决国际民事法律冲突的方法主要有冲突法方法和实体法方法两种。
对一个具体的国际私法案件，可以同时用实体法方法和冲突法方法解决之。
第六章 冲突规范
确定连接点通常考虑的因素
冲突规范的“范围”所要解决的法律问题的性质与分类；
冲突规范所选择的连接点必须是“范围”中法律关系的构成要素之一；
区分不同连接点的含义和作用，并要看有关连接点是否与特定的法律关系具有较本质的联系，对特定的问题具有相对重要性；
有关的连接点必须是各国立法机关经常作为自己刑事立法管辖权的根据；
有关的连接点必须便于认定，便于使用，并与特定的地域相联系；
有关连接点的选择必须符合内国处理涉外民事法律关系的政策。
Concept and types of the conflict rule
The norms indirectly regulating facts of private international law form a special group of statutory provisions called conflict rules.On a broader plane a conflict rule is understood to mean a norm regulating any conflict of law, to wit, determining which of several relevant rules is to be actually applied.Conflict cases may be international, when the choice is between the laws of several sovereign States;the norms resolving such conflicts are called conflict rules of the international type.Conflicts may also arise between differing laws of non-sovereign parts of a sovereign State.These are cases of interregional conflicts which are governed by interregional conflict rules.The structure of the choice-of-law rule
The theory of legislation distinguishes between three structural elements of a legal norm: fact, provision and sanction.The choice-of-law rule(conflict rule)is a legal norm of special structure exhibiting some peculiarity in each of these elements.Its most striking feature consists in never containing sanctions.The consequences of infringement are determined not by the conflict rule itself but by the positive rules of the legal system invoked by it.In this sense every conflict rule is a dependent norm.Some connecting factors at times fail to provide guidance for the judge in the discovery of the applicable law.Nationality, for instance, is a connecting factor which is inapplicable to statele persons(have no nationality).Some connecting factors(nationality, domicile, residence, seat, location, etc.)are subject to change over time.It is neceary that the point of time relevant to the choice of law should always be defined in the conflict rules.The Need for “connecting factor”
In every legal system there is the need for some kind of link between the forum state and a person in order to determine when that state may exercise its sovereign powers with respect to that person.The particular link needed will often depend on the purpose for which a state wishes to exercise its power over a person.A little link may be needed in order for a state to exercise the power to tax;the fact that revenue was derived from an in-state transaction may be enough.A different, more substantial link to the forum state may be needed when the state seeks to require a person to defend himself in its courts or when the state seeks to impose substantive liability upon a person under the laws of the forum state.For these and many other purposes, legal systems establish “connecting factors.” The United States Supreme speaks, in various contexts, of “minimum contacts,” “significant contacts,” “affiliating circumstances,” and the like.From among the many connecting factors which may be used to establish the neceary link between a person and the forum state, all legal systems will identify one as the most important.It will serve as the connecting factor in virtually all circumstances and for all purposes.Other connecting factors will play a more subsidiary role, being usually restricted to specific situation.The structure, operation, and escape mechanisms of the traditional approach
The traditional approach was based on pre-conceived choice-of-law rules formulated around broad categories barrowed from domestic law, such as torts, contracts, conveyances, succeions, status, etc.The proce of employing these rules was divided into three distinct mental steps.The first step was to determine which rule was applicable to the problem by fitting that problem into legal category of tort, contract, and so forth.This step is known as characterization, claification, or qualification.The second step was to “localize” the connecting factor, to place it on the map, by determine where the tort or the contract occurred.The third step was to ascertain the content of the law of the state in which the connecting factor was located, to determine “how much” of that law was applicable to the case.Each of these three steps offered different opportunities for “escape” or manipulations.Judges who were diatisfied with the results produced by an orthodox application of the traditional theory frequently have resorted to these escape.This casuistic and thus unpredictable practice inflicted a serious blow to the traditional theory’s claim of certainty and predictability.思考判断
由于冲突规范缺乏可预见性和明确性，它不是法律规范。
冲突规范是既不同于实体法规范，又不同于程序法规范的第三种法律规范。
与一般的法律规范的逻辑结构不同，冲突规范的结构包括”范围“和”系属“两部分。 一般说来，双边冲突规范可以分解成两个对立的单边冲突规范。
选择适用的冲突规范和重叠适用的冲突规范都必须有两个或两个以上的连结点。 连结点是冲突规范中将“范围”和“准据法”联系起来的客观的不变的事实根据。 系属公式都是从双边冲突规范的系属发展起来，并抽象化而形成的。
系属公式与冲突规范的涵义是一致的。
行为地法包括合同缔结地法、合同履行地法、婚姻举行地法和侵权行为地法以及法院地法。
最密切联系地法既是一项法律选择的指导原则，又是一个系属公式，可适用于许多不同性质的涉外民事法律关系。
选择判断
《民法通则》第146条：侵权行为的损害赔偿适用侵权行为地法律。当事人双方国籍
相同或者在同一国家有住所的，也可以适用当事人本国法律或者住所地法律。属于那种冲突规范？
A 重叠性冲突规范B 有条件的选择性冲突规范C双边冲突规范D无条件的选择性冲突规范
我国《海商法》第270条规定:“船舶所有权的取得、转让和消灭，适用船旗国法律”。
属于哪种冲突规范?
A.单边冲突规范B.双边冲突规范 C.选择适用的冲突规范D.重叠适用的冲突规范 “亲子间的法律关系，依父之本国法；如无父时，依母之本国法”。属于哪种冲突规范?Ａ单边冲突规范 Ｂ双边冲突规范 C 重叠型冲突规范 D 选择性冲突规范
“在中华人民共和国境内履行的中外合资经营企业合同、中外合作经营企业合同、中外
合作勘探开发自然资源合同，适用中华人民共和国法律。”该条款属于下列选项中哪一类型的冲突规范？
A单边冲突规范 B双边冲突规范 C重叠适用的冲突规范 D选择适用的冲突规范
第七章准据法的一般问题
Approaches to choice-of-law problem
When you see a choice-of-law question on your conflict exam, you should write your
answer in terms of the choice-of-law approach the forum court follows.But what approach is that?
(1)If your question tells you which approach is to be used, for example, ”aume that the
forum follows the approach to choice of law suggested by the Restatement(Second)of Conflict,“ then obviously you should answer the question in terms of that(Second Restatement's ”most significant relationship“)approach.(2)But if no approach is specified in the question, you should analyze the question in terms
of several different approaches.The following four approaches, or a combination of them, are used by most American courts today:(a)Traditional, vested rights approach of the First Restatement--the law of the state in which the parties' rights ”vested“ applied;(b)Most significant relationship approach of the Second Restatementthe court considers the underlying policies of the laws of the state involved and the interest of the states in furthering those policies to decide which law should be applied to the particular iue;and(d)Leflar's ”better law“ approach-this approach rejects ”rules“ and ”formulas“ and based on particular consideration, selects the better law.Substance or Procedure
A subset of the characterization problem involves the choice between substance and
procedure.Under the traditional approach, procedural problems(those dealing with the proce of litigation)were controlled by forum law;substantive iues(those involving claims of right)were determined by the law of another jurisdiction. The substance/procedure dichotomy arises because the forum has strong reasons for seeing
its law applied to iues concerning pleading, motion practice, the presentation of evidence, and so forth.Forum interest and convenience, therefore, should dictate the claification of an iue as ”procedure.“ Expreed differently, if neither the forum's interest nor judicial convenience is involved, no reason exists to treat the problem as ”procedure." The focus should be on whether the reasons which gave rise to the substance/procedure distinction are involved in the problem, not on the judge's vague intuition or on a precedent which addreed the iue in a different setting and is, therefore of questionable application.思考判断
所有用来解决涉外民商事纠纷的法律规则都是准据法。
在审理涉外民商事案件时，根据中国的冲突规范应适用某外国法时，应适用该外国的实体法和程序法。
冲突规范的目的就是找到合适的准据法。
根据法律的不同性质决定不同的法律选择方法自国际私法产生以来一直有较大的影
响。
政府利益分析方法是建立在抛弃传统冲突规则的基础之上的。
比较损害方法实质上是政府利益分析说的一种。
程序问题适用法院地法是现代各国国际私法的普遍作法。
英国和美国原来把时效问题作为程序法问题，现在在很多情况下识别为实体法问题，对其适用案件的准据法。
有关证据的问题都是程序法问题，应适用法院地法。
当冲突规范指定适用多法域国家的法律时，有的国家直接适用冲突规范中连结点指引的法律，有的国家依被指定为准据法国家的“区际私法”解决。我国法院在实践中综合适用上述两种方法。
第八章 冲突法的一般问题
1898年9月，一住所在英国的英国女子黛安娜与一住所在法国的法国男子
菲利普在英国按英国方式结婚。时年男方19岁，该婚姻没有经过男方或女方
父母的同意。婚后不久，男方父亲知晓，即令其子返法。而后，男方在法国
法院提起诉讼，要求宣告该婚姻无效。
1901年11月，法国法院认为，“经父母同意而缔结婚姻”是属于婚姻能力问 题，依属人法，判决这个婚姻由于未按法国法的要求取得父母的同意而无
效。在这个判决生效以后，菲利浦在法国再次结婚。
1904年，黛安娜在英国与威廉·奥格登在英国举行婚姻仪式。1906年7月，威廉·奥格登到英国法院提起诉讼，要求法院宣布他与黛安娜的婚姻无效，理
由是当他们结婚时，黛安娜的前夫菲利浦仍然活着，且黛安娜与菲利浦的婚
姻关系并没有根据英国法有效解除或宣告无效。黛安娜辩称她与菲利浦之间的婚姻并非合法婚姻，且这一婚姻已为法国法院宣告无效。
上诉法院将结婚是否需父母之同意视作婚姻的方式问题适用缔结地英国 法，而英国法无此限制。因此判决戴安娜前婚有效，支持了原告。1908年7
月，黛安娜到英国高等法院提起诉讼，要求解除她与菲利浦的婚姻关系，理
由是菲利浦有遗弃和通奸行为。但英国法院驳回她的诉讼请求，理由是菲利
浦的住所在法国，英国法院对此没有管辖权。
Characterization
The “characterization of the cause of action” means the allocation of the question raised by
the factual situation before the court to its correct legal category.Its object is relevant to rule for the choice of law.The rule of any given system of law are arranged under different categories, some being concerned with status, others with succeion, procedure, contract,tort and so on.The jurisdiction-selecting rules of the First Restatement required that each case be labeled
in order to determine which choice of law rule applied.If the case were labeled a “contract” problem, then the law of the place of making or performance would be applied;if the case sounded in “tort”, then the system specified application of the law of the place of jury.Obviously, the result could turn on which label the court chose for problem.Although characterization is probably an inescapable part of thinking conceptually about
any problem, its use entails a substantial risk.Such “decision-making by pigeon-hole” avoid the reasoning neceary to explain why a particular pigeon-hole should be chosen.Characterization encourages mechanical choice rather than reflective inquiry into the reasons why a particular result is proper.Characterization plays a le prominent role in modern theories, which have tried to focus
on the policies that legal rules are designed to serve.Interest analyst, such as Currie, have very little regard for this device.Because the Second Restatement employs a number of jurisdiction-selecting presumptions, characterization cannot be avoided when using that system.
材料力学英文课件材料力学的研究对象主要是棒状材料，如杆、梁、轴等。对于桁架结构的问题在结构力学中讨论，板壳结构的问题在弹性力学中讨论。以下是小编为您整理的材料力学英......
幼儿园英文课件引导语：幼儿园英文课件如何设计？下面由小编告诉你们吧，欢迎阅读！幼儿园英文课件一【设计意图】活动设计采取小组合作的学习方式，使幼儿在相互合作共同学习。巧妙地......
刀豆文库小编为你整合推荐7篇幼儿园英文课件，也许这些就是您需要的文章，但愿刀豆文库能带给您一些学习、工作上的帮助。......
小学英文课件现代英语所使用的拼写字母，也是完全借用了26个字母。下面是小编为大家提供的关于小学英文的课件，内容如下：【课题】Recycle Two【教学重点】听懂、会说Let’s act......
材料力学的研究对象主要是棒状材料，如杆、梁、轴等。对于桁架结构的问题在结构力学中讨论，板壳结构的问题在弹性力学中讨论。以下是小编为您整理的材料力学英文课件相关资料，欢......
