外国法的查明比较研究

【作者】 刘来平；

【导师】 曹建明；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 国际法， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 外国法的查明是国际私法上的一个极为重要的问题。外国法的查明是正确适用外国法的前提与基础。正确有效地查明外国法的内容，进而适用外国法裁判案件，是体现一国法院维护程序公正、不狭隘维护本国利益的关键，是确保国际民商事交往正常秩序的重要法律条件，对于营造良好透明的法制环境，保障公平、公正、及时地解决涉外纠纷，保障国内外当事人的合法权益，维系世界各国对中国司法体系的信心，均具有重要意义。因此，我们应当加强对外国法查明的研究，着力完善外国法查明的立法与司法。全文除“引言”与“附论：港、澳、台地区法律的查明”外，共分为八章，约15万字。第一章为“外国法的查明概说”。外国法的查明，是指在涉外民事案件审理过程中，根据冲突规范的指引应适用某一外国法时，为确定该外国法的存在和具体内容而进行的各项活动。外国法查明的有关问题主要牵涉到国际私法和民事诉讼法两个学科，本文认为外国法的查明主要是国际私法领域的一个问题，但在探讨过程中可以借鉴若干民事诉讼法学的研究成果。对于外国法查明的制度的地位可从两个方面加以阐析：其一，外国法的查明是适用外国法处理涉外案件的必经阶段，是最终确定准据法的基本要求；其二，外国法的查明也是限制外国法的适用的一项制度。多数国家(地区)以成文法的形式规定外国法的查明，从立法体例来看，主要有三种模式：一是在民法典中规定外国法的查明，如俄罗斯；二是将外国法的查明规定于国际私法典中，如瑞士；三是将外国法的查明规定于民事诉讼法中，如德国。此外，也有少数国家并无关于外国法查明的制定法，有关外国法查明的各种问题交诸于司法实践予以解决。第二章为“外国法的性质”。事实问题与法律问题的划分在民事诉讼中具有重要意义，关于外国法的性质长期存在“事实说”与“法律说”两种观点。二者争论不休，且演化为几种不同的表现形式：有的认为外国法是一种单纯的事实，有的认为外国法是一种具有附属性的事实，有的认为外国法是与内国法律规范具有同等效力的法律，有的认为外国法是一种性质不同于内国法性质的法律，还有的认为外国法是一种非与诉讼程序相关的其它事实性质相同的一种事实。外国法的性质极端特殊又十分复杂，不能简单地说外国法就是“事实”或者就是“法律”。从辨证的眼光来看，笔者认为外国法既有属于事实的一面，也有属于法律的一面，是一种特殊的事实或者说是一种奇怪的法律。外国法的定性是外国法查明制度中的较为重要的研究课题，但过于看重其意义，认为完成对外国法的定性后就可以一蹴而就、顺理成章地解决所有问题就是不现实的。究竟应采纳何种外国法的查明制度，尚须依据国际私法的基本原理，考量涉外民事诉讼的自身规律和内在要求，作出妥当的选择。第三章为“外国法查明责任的分配”。关于外国法查明的责任分配，理论界主要有“当事人负担说”、“法官负担说”与“折中说”三种观点。大陆法系国家多认为应由法官承担外国法的查明责任，德国、荷兰、比利时均采纳这种观点。与其他大陆法系国家明显不同，法国认为法官只有在特定类型的案件中才会承担查明外国法的责任，在其他情形中，依然应当由当事人自行查明外国法。英国固守外国法是事实的传统，要求当事人根据证据规则证明外国法的内容，而法官保持中立和消极，既无权利也无义务证明外国法的内容。在美国，依据《联邦民事诉讼规则》第44．1条，外国法已不再是事实问题，而是一个法律问题，法官可以参考各种资料依职权查明外国法的内容。总体上说，这个问题基本上依赖于法院在司法实践中解决。第四章为“外国法查明的方法”。从比较法的角度来看，有关外国法查明的方法，存在“限定主义”与“非限定主义”两种作法。英国采纳“限定主义”，外国法在英国被视为事实，由当事人通过专家证人的方法予以证明。英国法认为这是民事诉讼对抗主义模式的生动体现，也是查明外国法的最好的方法。其他国家大都采取“非限定主义”，查明外国法的方法基本不受限制，专家证人并非是最好的方法，其他任何方法皆可用来查明外国法。之所以出现这种区别，主要是由于英国在外国法的性质上严格坚持“事实说”，证明外国法的方法与证明其他事实的方法没有本质区别，都受到严格的证据规则的约束，由此导致在英国其证明外国法的方法十分有限，且主要是专家证人。而其他国家多采纳“法律说”或者比较折中的态度，对外国法的查明与对其他事实的查明并不相同，很少受到证据规则的约束，因此这些国家的外国法的查明方法体现出相当的灵活性。从实践的角度来看，每一种方法均有其特点和价值，没有一种方法具有绝对的优越性，但采用综合的方法更为科学和可行。第五章为“外国法查明资料的采信与外国法的解释”。当法院通过各种方法获取了大量的有关外国法的资料后，法官对这些资料的处理在各国的做法基本相同。其主要的规则有以下几个方面：其一，无论是否有陪审团的参与，外国法的内容一律由法院加以认定，陪审团对于外国法的有关问题不享有裁判权；其二，除了英国以外，其他国家的法官认定外国法的内容并不以所获取的证据材料为限，而是可以根据自己的知识、经验等建立其对外国法的认识；其三，法官对外国法应按照该外国法所属的法律体系及其解释规则进行解释，而不能仅仅考虑法律规定的字面含义。事实上实践中远非如此简单。受本国法律文化的影响，法官对外国法的解释多少会有一定的误差，进而影响判决的公正性。第六章为“外国法查明失败的处理”。对于外国法查明失败的处理存在“类推适用内国法”、“替代适用内国法”、“驳回当事人的诉讼请求或抗辩”、“适用本应适用的外国法相近似或类似的法律”、“适用一般法理”、“适用就同一问题所能提供的其他连接因素而确定的法律”等多种作法，但是绝大多数国家在立法和实务上均是通过适用内国法以应对外国法查明的失败。无论是英美法系国家采取的“类推适用内国法”，还是大陆法系国家采取的“替代适用内国法”，其结果最终都是适用内国法裁判案件，只不过理论依据有所不同。尽管其他处理方法也有其合理性，甚至比“适用内国法”更为接近国际私法制度的本质，但都不如“适用内国法”来得简洁明快，也合乎效率和经济原则。第七章为“我国外国法查明的司法实践”。随着我国对外交往的逐渐增加，涉外案件日益增多，依据冲突规范的指引需要查明外国法的情形也越来越多。可以说，外国法的查明在我国的审判实务中并不少见。但遗憾的是，我国法院在查明外国法的过程中还存在比较严重的问题：一是对于外国法的查明不够重视，仍然习惯于以中华人民共和国法律裁判案件，许多本应适用外国法、需要查明外国法的案件最终却是适用了中华人民共和国法律；二是由于立法不完备，各地法院在处理具体案件中作法不一，对外国法查明责任、外国法查明方法的处理还比较不规范，影响到司法的统一和权威性，也对我国的对外交往产生了一些不应有的负面影响。面对这一状况，除了尽快完善外国法查明的立法外，我们认为还应在审判实务中积极予以应对：首先，各地、各级法院应提高对查明外国法重要性的认识，切实严格依照法律的规定正确查明外国法、适用外国法，克服“归乡情结”；其次，最高人民法院应通过司法解释、案例、指示、批复等形式指导各级法院在查明外国法过程中进行规范的运作，发挥监督和指导作用，努力克服司法实践中的不规范的局面。第八章为“我国外国法查明制度的立法现状及其完善”。随着我国社会经济生活的发展，对外交往日益频繁，查明外国法的内容、适用外国法裁判案件的情形也越来越多，这就要求法律对此问题作出规定，构建较为完善的外国法查明制度，以保障外国法的正确适用，维护国内当事人以及国外当事人的合法权益，促进国际交往的正常进行。我国目前有关外国法查明的规范还比较简陋，许多规定也不甚合理，运行状况也不够理想，迫切需要参酌各国立法和实践经验、考虑我国的实际状况，完善我国外国法查明制度的立法。笔者对中国未来建立外国法查明制度提出自己的一点见解。更多还原

【Abstract】 Proof of foreign law is the subject that sits at the core of international conflict oflaws, or, as known in the civil law system, private international law. Proof of foreignlaw is the prerequisite and foundation of correct application. Finding out the contentof the foreign law correctly and applying those to the judgment are the key factorswhich reflect that one country maintains procedure to be just and narrowly protectsinterests not only for the natives. Also, it is the important condition of theinternational civil and commercial business order. Proof of foreign law ensuressolving the dispute concerning foreign affairs fairly, justly and in time, building agood and transparent legal system environment, protecting the domestic andinternational party’s legitimate rights and interests and maintaining the confidence inChina’s judicial system of countries all over the world. So, we should strengthen theresearch of proof of foreign law, advance theoretical research and judicial institutionalimprovement actively.In addition to the "Introduction" and "appendix", the full text of dissertation isdivided into eight chapters, about 150,000 words.Chapter one addresses the outline of proof of foreign law. Identifying foreign lawrefers to a series of specific activities of determining the existence and content offoreign law during the foreign-related civil proceedings according to the rules ofconflict guidelines. The main issues involve two disciplines: Private InternationalLaw and the civil law. The author considers that proof of foreign law belongs toprivate international law, but in the course of the study it can draw in a number ofCivil Procedure Law research results. We can discuss the systematic status of proof offoreign law from two aspects: Firstly, proof of foreign law is the only way of dealingwith foreign-related cases and the foundation stone of the applicable law. Secondly,proof of foreign law is a legal system which limits the application of a foreign law.Most countries (regions) prescribe proof of foreign law in the form of statute law. Inview of the legislation, there are three main models: one is to write proof of foreignlaw in the Civil Code, such as Russia; the second is to prescribe proof of foreign lawin international private law code, such as Switzerland; the third one is to stipulateproof of foreign law in civil procedural law, such as Germany. In addition, a smallnumber of countries have not available ways to identify the foreign law, and finding out foreign law is the question of judicial practice to be addressed.Chapter two explores the character of the foreign law. The fundamental questionto answer is whether foreign law is considered as law, or whether the law of anotherjurisdiction is merely a matter of fact, to be applied only if and when parties to thecase plead its application and prove its content and effectiveness. The matter of law orfact—the basic division of civil procedural law—arguments, and evolves into severaldifferent forms: Some believe that the foreign law is a simple fact, and other considersthat foreign law is a subsidiary fact. Some think that foreign law is the legalregulations which have the same effect of the native law, and others believe thatforeign law is the law which has different nature from that of native law. Some eventhink that foreign law is the fact relative to Non-litigation procedure and has the samenature to other facts. The character of foreign law is of extreme complexity, and cannot simply say that the foreign law is the matter of fact or law. From the materialismperspective, foreign law has both sides, one side is the matter of fact, and the otherside is the matter of law. In a word, it is a special fact or a strange law.Characterization of foreign law is of great importance,, but it can not solve all theproblems in proving foreign law. What kind of system of proving foreign law shouldbe adopted? We need consult the basic principles of private international law, the ownrule and the inherent requirements of foreign-related civil procedure. And then can wemake a proper decision at last.Chapter three analyzes responsibility assignment of proving foreign law. As faras the responsibility assignment of proving foreign law is concerned, there are threetheories in the abstract, namely "the theory on burden of litigant", "the theory onburden of judge" and "the theory of compromise". Lots of legislations in continentlaw family consider that the responsibility of proving foreign law should beundertaken by judges, and Germany, Holland, Belgium accept this viewpoint.Obviously different from other continent law family countries, France believes thatjudges only undertake the task of proving the foreign law in specific type cases. Inother situations, the litigant must find out the foreign law voluntarily. England defendsstubbornly the tradition that foreign law is the fact, and requests the litigant to providethe court with the content of foreign law according to the evidence rule. The judgesmaintain neutrality and negative. They do not have the right and duty to find out thecontent of foreign law. The situation in the United Sates is on the contrary. Their judges can refer to all kinds of material to proving the content of foreign lawaccording to the authority because the foreign law is treated not as the matter of factbut as law in term of article 44.1 of "Federation Civil action Rule". Generallyspeaking,this problem mostly rests on the pratice of courts.Chapter four discusses the method of proving foreign law. From the view ofcomparative law, there are two methods of proving foreign law, namely "definitionprinciple" and "non-definition principle". England accepts "the definition principle",and in England foreign law is regarded as the matter of fact which is proved by thelitigant through the expert witness. England believes that it vividly manifests themodel of adversary civil action, and it is also the best way of proving foreign law.Most of other countries adopt "the non-definition principle", and do not limit themethod of proving foreign law. According to this principle, expert witness is not thebest way, all methods may be used for proving foreign law. The reason why this kindof difference appears mainly is that England strictly defines the foreign law to be thematter of fact, and so there is no difference between the way of proving foreign lawand the way of proving other facts, both of which must be regulated by the strictEvidence Rule. For this reason, the England just has limited methods to prove foreignlaw, the main one of which is expert witness. In contrast with the England law, othercountries treat the foreign law as matter of law or as combination of fact and law, andspontaneously do not regard the way of proving foreign law as the same with the wayof proving other facts. The former is not limited by the Evidence Rule. Thereforethose countries’ methods of proving foreign law manifest much flexibility. Althoughevery method has its own characteristics and values,none of them has absolutesuperiorities.From the pratical point of view, we can see that adoption ofcomprehensive methods is more scientific.Chapter five probes the affirmation of foreign law materials and interpretation offoreign law. After the court has obtained a large number Of materials about foreignlaw through various ways, judges use almost the same way in most of countries todeal with these materials which include the following several respects: Firstly, thecontent of foreign law is asserted by the court without the jury’s judgment, no matterthe latter is participated in the litigation. The jury does not enjoy the speech right tothe question of foreign law. Secondly, besides Britain, the judges of other countries donot ascertain the content of the foreign law within the scope of evidence materialsobtained. They can follow one’s own knowledge, experiences, etc., and thereat set up their understanding of foreign law. Thirdly, the judge should interpret the foreign lawaccording to the law family and its interpretative rules, and can’t just reckon the literalmeaning of the legal provisions. In fact, it is far from simple. Due to the influence byhis own country’s legal culture, a judge can’t interpret foreign law very accuratelywhich will lead to justice problems about judgement.Chapter six investigates how to deal with the failure of proving foreign law. Asfar as failing to prove foreign law is concerned, there are many backup methodsleading the judge to verdict, such as "analogizing and applying native law","substituted foreign law by native law", "reject the party’s claims or counterplea","applying the law that approximates or is similar to foreign law which are should beapplied", "covered by general principle of law", "applying the law which ascertain byother factors of the same problems, and so on. However, most of all countries applythe native law when they fail to prove foreign law on legislation and practice.No matter the way of "analogizing and applying native law" in Anglo-Americanlaw family or the way of "substituted foreign law by native, law" in continent lawfamily, there is no difference in result: both of them finally apply the native law. Thedifference is their theoretical foundations. Though other methods have their rationalityand are even closer to the essence of international private law than "applying nativelaw", those are not as succinct, lucid and lively as the latter, so it is difficult to gainthe favor of the judges and litigants.Chapter seven deliberates the judicial practice of proving foreign law in ourcountry. With the gradual increase of the foreign contacts, the number of foreignlitigation is even-increasing. We can say that proving foreign law in the trial practiceof our country is not rare. But it’s a pity that there are some serious problems in thecourt of our country during the process of finding out foreign law. On the one hand,we pay little attention to proving foreign law, and still get used to applying the law ofPeople’s Republic of China. Lots of cases which require proof and application offoreign law finally apply the law of the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand,the results of treatment differ in dealing with the concrete case in regional court.Responsibility and method of proving foreign law confused the litigants. The aboveconditions influence the unity and authoritativeness of the justice, which has producedsome unnecessary negative effects on international communications. To solve theabove problems, besides improving the legislation, we should also positively reply inthe practice of trial: Firstly, courts at all levels and all countries should improve understanding of the importance of proving and applying foreign law, strictly proveand apply foreign law correctly in accordance with legal stipulation, and overcome"the complex of turning to countryside; Secondly, the Supreme Court of People’sRepublic of China should instruct all levels court to normalize the operation in thecourse of finding out the foreign law through judicial interpretations, cases,instructions, and answers to subordinate court, and so on. The Supreme Court shouldsupervise and guide the running of proving foreign law, and make great efforts toovercome the confused situation in the judicial practice.Chapter eight argues about our country’s legislation and its improvement ofproving foreign law. With the development of the society and economics, more andmore cases demand proving and applying the foreign law. As a result, we need rulesof law to regulate the problems and construct comparatively complete legal systemsof proving foreign law to ensure correct application of foreign law, to vindicatelegitimate rights and interests both of domestic party and foreign party, and topromote the international exchanges. Unfortunately, the relevant rules of provingforeign laws are still relatively simple and crude at present in our country. A lot ofregulations are not very rational either, and the operation conditions are not idealenough. Thus the situation cries for improvement of our country’s legislation of proofof law in light of actual conditions and practical experiences of other countries. Theauthor proposes future establishment of framework on ascertainment of foreign law.更多还原