国际私法法律选择的法理学思考——以"贝考克诉杰克逊案"为例

本文以美国纽约州上诉法院"贝考克诉杰克逊案"为例,就有关侵权损害法律选择进行讨论,对最密切联系原则替代侵权行为地法这一过程背后的基本原因和这一过程中法律精神与法律形式、法律的确定性与准确性、建构理性主义与进化理性主义之间的关系等问题进行探讨,以此说明在立法中绝对的确定性和一致性并不一定是理性在法律建构中的必然和最佳的选择,相反,在许多规范中保持一定的弹性才是一种更好的选择.

The Jurisprudence Reflection on the Choice-of-Law in the Private International Law

Taking the case of "Babcock v.Jackson" as an example,the article discusses the principles of choice-of-law in the tort,the reason of the change from the principle of lex loci delicti to the principle of the closest connection,and,behind this change,the relations between the spirit and the form,the certainty and the accuracy of law,the constructive rationalism and evolutional rationalism.The conclusion is that the absolute certainty and unification of law is not the only and not always the best choice in accordance with rationalism.On the contrary,under certain circumstance and in a certain degree,flexibility of rules is a better choice.