【作者】 王晓燕；

【导师】 刘想树；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 论文由四章构成,分别研究了自然人的住所及其在国际私法中的意义、法律冲突下自然人住所的确定、住所地法的发展、我国国际私法中自然人住所制度的完善。总体而言,比较研究、实证研究、历史研究是论文所采用的三种主要的研究方法。论文的研究目的在于揭示自然人住所制度在国际私法中的特殊价值与发展概况,并在此基础上,对我国相关制度的完善提出有针对性的建议。详言之,由古罗马法走来的自然人“住所”,如今仍然是一个频繁见诸于各国立法与司法实践的法律概念,并被普遍视作法律确认的自然人生活中心的场所。鉴于各国关于住所的成立、变更、废弃等规定的严重差异,住所的冲突广泛存在于国际民商事关系之中。因此,为确保住所之沟通自然人与该地法律体系间联系的功能的正常发挥,有必要从国际私法的视角,对与其相关的法律冲突与法律适用问题,作一相对系统化的研究。而住所作为连结点的一种常见类型,考察住所地法的适用状况,同样也是研究自然人住所对国际私法的重要价值的必需途径。由此,在比较研究的基础上,关照我国国内相关制度的完善,方为可能。换一种角度审视,上述概括也正是论文的理论与实践价值所在。创新之处在于:首先,为求勾勒住所冲突的全貌,论文突破了将住所的冲突问题局限于法律适用阶段中对住所的识别,而着眼于一个完整的国际民事诉讼过程,虑及种种可能发生的住所的法律冲突。其次,由灵活性与稳定性的不同特点入手,论文探究了住所与住所地法独特的发展轨迹,指出惯常居所地法作为住所地法的一种灵活化的形式,对住所地法发挥着重要的补充作用。最后,论文较好地实现了理论与实践的结合,相关的研究成果可为完善我国的相关制度,提供参考。第一章围绕什么是自然人的住所,其对国际私法的意义如何的问题,展开了深入的论述。首先,为了阐释自然人住所的概念,并充分展示住所界定问题所呈现出的法律冲突的概况,论文对古罗马法与现代两大法系的自然人住所制度,作了大致的梳理。在古罗马法中,住所的内涵经历了一个由身份性向契约性转变的过程。住所之祖先祭坛处的最初内涵,在奴隶制经济向封建制经济过渡的历史背景下,逐渐由业务中心或生活中心的内涵所替代。并且,具体化为原来住所、法定住所、任意住所、约定住所四种类型。两大法系的自然人住所制度,与彼时古罗马法中的自然人住所制度之间,维系着内在的渊源关联,但均有所发展。大陆法系各国对住所的一般性界定,主要表现为三种模式:纯粹依客观的居住事实决定住所、间接结合自然人主观意思决定住所、直接规定依主客观双要件决定住所。此外,多数国家的立法中还辅以未成年人、军人等特殊人群的住所的规定。普通法系各国对住所的具体定义虽并不统一,但原始住所、依附住所、选择住所这种共通的精细分类,为其相关制度的完善,创造了理想的空间。在此基础上,可进而获得对两大法系自然人住所制度的共性与个性的大致认识。概言之,二者就自然人住所的某些具体规定颇为相似,但二者的个性与分歧则更加深刻。如今,住所地法在普通法系占据的属人法地位,当是宏观层面上,普通法系拥有较大陆法系更缜密、复杂的住所制度的直接动因。而住所的内涵中,是否包含自然人的久住意图的主观要件,则构成了两大法系最显著的微观分歧。大陆法系对自然人居住意思的表达多较为隐晦,有的甚至未予提及,普通法系的住所概念中则张扬着鲜明的主观要件的色彩。不难窥见,在自然人自由选择与设定住宅的行为之下,主观要件的纳入有利于住所自身的稳定性,纯粹客观的住所概念则凸显着灵活性的特征。尽管就两者孰优孰劣的比较,不可脱离具体国情的研究背景,但鉴于住所对自然人权利义务的重大影响,住所立法对人的意愿当表现出足够的关切,故主客观要件相结合的立法方式,较纯客观主义,似乎更为合理。其次,在明晰自然人住所的含义与构成要件的基础上,便可进而探究自然人住所对国际私法的重要意义。概言之,当事人的住所位于域外是判断国际因素的一项标准;住所是国际民事诉讼管辖权得以确立的一项重要基础;住所是适用范围极为广泛的住所地法的连结点;住所有时与送达的目的地相吻合;住所有时则构成承认与执行外国判决的一种根据。第二章以如何在法律冲突的语境之下确定自然人的住所为问题意识,分别探讨了确定自然人住所的一般规则与国际民事诉讼各阶段中自然人住所的确定,两方面问题。首先,自然人住所的法律冲突一般外化为住所的积极冲突与消极冲突,以及获得住所的能力的冲突。针对积极冲突的遴选方法,与针对消极冲突的拟制方法,构成了统一住所内涵的设想尚欠成熟时,化解自然人住所冲突的主要途径。在积极冲突之下,内国住所优先于外国住所;多个外国住所间的冲突则受制于多种遴选方法,其中,以最密切联系方法的效果最为理想。在绝大多数情况下,自然人的(惯常)居所或所在地,则被拟制为消极冲突下的自然人的住所。另外,自然人住所的法律冲突中,还包含着自然人获得住所的能力的冲突问题。因为此种能力归属民事行为能力的范畴,故与之相关的法律冲突可纳入民事行为能力的法律冲突之中。对于采本国法主义的大陆法系而言,住所能力的冲突可直接套用有关行为能力的准据法。然而,采住所地法主义的普通法系却无法就此释怀。预期的住所变更发生之前的住所地法(旧住所地法)、法院地法、预期获得住所的那个地方的法律(新住所地法)、有利于当事人获得设立住所所需能力的法律,均无法摆脱各自的不足之症。但若回归至传统的追求判决一致性的法律适用的目标,则新住所地法的优势似乎更加显著。其次,以国际民事诉讼的进程为线索,可将围绕自然人住所的法律冲突,分解至管辖、法律适用、送达、承认与执行外国判决四个阶段。在管辖阶段,当事人(尤其是被告人)住所的所在地法院,乃各国公认的对案件拥有管辖权的合格法院。法官在依被告住所地管辖规则行使管辖权时,通常依据法院地法确定住所,且考察的重点即当事人是否在本地拥有住所。法律适用阶段中,住所则饰演着冲突规范连结点的角色,对其的识别依据相对丰富与多元,如法院地法、属地法、本国法、当事人选择的法律,等等。但法院地住所优先的属地法作为一种新型的识别依据,因较好地综合了法院地法与属地法的优势,已获得愈发广泛的肯定,其未来发展前景值得期待。送达阶段中,当事人的住所作为确定送达地点的重要标志,对其的判定皆依被请求国的法律作出。在承认与执行外国判决阶段,原审法院的住所地管辖依据与原案适用的住所地法,可能遭受实质审查标准之下的重新认定。鉴于实质审查标准客观上对承认与执行外国判决所设置的不当障碍,少数采此标准的国家亦逐渐转向形式审查标准。而在形式审查之下,承认与执行外国判决时,请求国法院对住所的认定结果,通常为被请求国法院所接受。第三章为回应住所地法的发展状态与趋势如何的问题,由历史的视角审视了自然人住所地法的发展历程,并展示了其遭遇的种种变迁。首先,住所地法在属人法领域中的地位,长期以来,一直处于变动之中。经历了与本国法的持久较量后,以1804年的《法国民法典》为标志,住所地法的属人法内涵,渐为欧洲国家所抛弃,仅在普通法系国家得以延续。但住所与国籍并非绝然地对立,两者亦有融通之需。此后不久,住所地法又不得不直面惯常居所地法的强势竞逐。惯常居所地法一经问世,便以两大法系属人法冲突的协调者自居,一度风光无限。不过,含义的不明、构成要件的争论,以及自身的种种弊端,导致惯常居所地法在适用时四顾彷徨。故厘清“惯常居所地法”这一概念的内涵,便成当务之急。惯常居所的生命力当蕴藏于其区别于住所这一法律概念的鲜明个性——事实概念的性质。在遵循该定性的前提之下,足可见惯常居所的纯粹客观性。由此,符合常用语义的“经常居住的地方”,当可理想地诠释“惯常居所”的涵义。与此同时,相对于较稳定的住所地法,“惯常居所地法”的灵活性特征,亦不容质疑。尽管属人法并不天然地排斥灵活性,但其对稳定性的需求,仍占据着主导地位。例言之,极具灵活性的当事人的所在地法与最密切联系的法律,虽已在属人法领域崭露头角,却仍局限于极有限的范围之内。同理,惯常居所地法的灵活性亦将阻滞其对属人法稳定性需求的迎合,故在通常情况下,应视惯常居所地法为住所地法的补充。至此,虽然住所地法与惯常居所地法的界分已然明晰,但两者间林林总总的不谋而合,仍非“仅属巧合”可解释。深究之下可知,惯常居所地法实为住所地法为适应新形势需要,应时而变的一种灵活化的形式。其次,住所地法并未满足于传统的属人法内涵,在法律适用的广阔领域中,其前行之路正不断延伸。借助最密切联系原则的指引,住所地法广泛涉足于合同关系之中。特征性履行方法则为其充任合同准据法,提供了更加明确的法律依据。侵权领域中,切合最密切联系原则的共同住所地法,获得了普遍的青睐。而住所地法对国际航空运输中承运人责任限额统一化的突破,亦昭示着其于航空侵权问题而言的价值,正日益增强。此外,鉴于意思自治原则对弱势方当事人保护的不力,为避免适用意思自治的法律,对双方当事人实力过分悬殊的合同(如消费合同与雇佣合同)中的弱势方,可能造成的不利,以客观标志为连结点的冲突规范,限制当事人所选择的法律,便成为国际私法捍卫此类合同的实质平等,彰显人文关怀和实质正义取向的一种手段。而实践中,住所地法已成为对意思自治原则一种常见的有效限制。可见,住所地法作为一种重要的系属类型,不仅在属人法范畴内,借助具有灵活性的惯常居所地法的变形,由与本国法的长期对峙中逐步脱颖而出,在合同、侵权等其他法律适用的领域中,住所地法亦有不俗表现。因此,对住所地法的潜在能量,绝不可小觑。第四章在前三章所作研究的基础上,对我国国际私法中的自然人住所制度进行了必要的解读,并由此提出了相应的完善建议。在我国,“住所”一词虽非舶来品,却长期停留于指代“居住之地”的表象层面,其联系自然人与某地法律体系的内在功能,直到近代方逐渐为国人所认知。究其原因,在传统的同居共财、叶落归根的居住观念之下,以父系为主体的一家人,祖祖辈辈乃至生生死死,皆生活在一起,成为社会的常态。客观上造成了人们的居住状态较为简单,不需要引入复杂的住所制度,以为法律适用的辅助。而如今,在我国四法域内的管辖、法律适用的立法与司法实践中,“住所”与“住所地法”的身影屡屡可见。而在深入评析各法域自然人住所制度的同时,住所内涵与构成要件之别亦历历可辨。大陆地区目前视住所为户籍所在地与连续居住一年以上的经常居住地的结合;香港以“身处某国家或地区并且意图无限期地以该国家或地区为家”为确立住所的依据;澳门以“个人实际且固定之生活中心之所在地”为住所;台湾则以久住之意思而居住的地方为住所。在“住所”自身的区际法律冲突之下,区际属人法问题更加扑朔迷离。毕竟在国籍、户籍与住所(惯常居所)之间,住所更适宜充任我国国内区际属人法的连结点。因统一四法域的“住所”内涵,并非朝夕之功,对其识别依据的研究便凸显重要。鉴于四法域间相互查明对方法律制度的便利,可径直采用属地法识别区际的住所,即确定当事人拥有位于大陆地区,亦或港、澳、台地区的住所时,适用该法域的法律。此外,可仿效《布鲁塞尔公约》的规定,进一步引入法院地住所优先的规则。如对于大陆地区的法官而言,首先依本法域的法律,即《民法通则》与最高人民法院《关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉若干问题的意见》,判断当事人的住所是否位于大陆地区;若其在内地无住所,则决定其住所位于港、澳、台地区的哪个法域时,应以该法域的法律为识别的依据。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper is made up by four chapters,which discuss natural person’ domicile and it’s significance to International Private Law,the ascertainment of natural person’ domicile under the conflict of laws,the development of lex domicilii,the improvement of our system.In general,comparative study,empirical study and historical study are the main research methods of this paper.The object of the research is to reveal the special value and development of the system of natural person’domicile in International Private Law,and offer some suggestions to our country.The system of natural person’s domicile,coming from the remote ancient Rome Law, still remains a legal concept frequently found in legislation and judicial practice of various countries,and is universally regarded as the center place where natural persons live in while recognized by law.In the light of the serious differences of the provisions on the establishment,alteration,and desertion of domicile around the world,the conflict of domicile is ubiquitous.Therefore,in order to ensure the function of domicile of connecting natural persons and the legal systems where they live in,to keep normal,it is necessary to research systematically on the related legal conflicts and applications in the view of the International Private Law.As an important type of applicable law,lex domicilii also deserve some further research.Based on the above analysis,the improvement of our system,could be possible.All the above may also be regarded as the academic and practical value of this paper.The innovations are as follows.Firstly,to explore the conflict of domicile,the paper bases upon the whole international civil proceeding instead of the mere stage of application of law.Secondly,based upon the flexibility and stability,the paper reveals the special development of domicile and lex domicilii.Thirdly,the paper realizes the combinition of theory and practice,the relative research could benefits the improvement of our system.To solve the problems of what is natural persons’ domicile,and what is it’s value to International Private Law,the first chapter makes some deep discussion.Firstly,for the sake of showing the general situation of the legal conflicts presented in the definition of domicile,the systems of natural person’s domicile in the ancient Rome Law and modern foreign legislation are combed out first.In the ancient Rome Law,the nature of domicile changed from of identity to contract.The original concept of domicile is where ancestral altar locates.And in the historic background that economy of slave-owning system transited to feudal economy,the original concept was gradually substituted by the connotation of business center or living center,and took shape of the four kinds of original domicile, statutory domicile,voluntary domicile and appointed domicile.The modern system of natural person’s domicile is intrinsically connected with the system of the ancient Rome Law.Under the premise of general definition of domicile,civil law countries tend to provide the domicile of minors,militaries and other special crowds.Although common law countries make different definitions of domicile,the common fine classification of domicile of origin, domicile of dependency and domicile of choice,creates an ideal room for the system of natural person’s domicile.In general,the two are quite similar to certain provisions on natural person’s domicile,but they have more profound individualities and differences.At present, lex domicilii serves as lex personalis in the Common Law System,which may directly lead to the more elaborate and complicated domicile system than that of the Civil Law System macroscopically.While,in the connotation of domicile,whether concludes the subjective element of natural person’s living purpose is the most remarkable microcosmic difference in the two legal systems.The Civil Law System expresses the living purpose more obscure, some even never mentioned.Nevertheless,in the Common Law System,it is more obviously. Easy to detect,when natural person freely choose and set domicile,subjective element benefits the stability of domicile itself,while purely objective element raises the characteristic of flexibility.Despite the comparative merits of the two elements are related to the specific actual condition of a certain country,in view of the significant impact of domicile to the rights and obligations of natural persons,domicile legislation shall show enough concern on person’s will.So the combination of the subjective with objective elements is more reasonable than the purely objective one.Secondly,this chapter explores the value of natural persons’ domicile to International Private Law.That is,the standard of international factor,the foundation of jurisdiction,the connecting point of lex domicilii,the address of service,the basis of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements.The second chapter discusses respectively the two problems that decide natural person’s domicile under the conflict of laws,and in each stage of international civil procedure.Firstly,the conflict of natural persons’ domicile could mainly manifest as the positive and negative conflict of domicile,and the conflict of the capacity to acquire a domicile. Choosing one and creating one domicile could solve the positive and negative conflicts.In the positive conflict,domestic domicile takes precedence of foreign domicile and the most significant related domicile may be the most favorable one.Usually,the(habitual)residence or the locus is used to solve the negative conflict.Besides,the conflict of the capacity to acquire a domicile is involved,which could be subjected to the applicable law of the capacity. However,this method is improper to Common Law System.The law of place of the old or new domicile,lex fori,the most favorable law to acquire the capacity,are not perfect.While back to the aim of the unanicousness,the law of place where new domicile locates is superior.Secondly,in the stage of jurisdiction,the court where parties’ domiciles locate is the suitable court.Judges usually apply lex fori to decide whether the party has a native domicile. In the stage of application of law,the basis of characterization is multiple,for example,lex fori,lex situs,lex personalis and voluntary law.Lex situs with the native domicile has priority is advanced and widely popular.In the stage of service,the law of the requested country is applied.In the stage of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements,the judgements of domicile are accepted by the requesting countries under formal examination.The third chapter reviews the development of lex domicilii and makes answers to the relative questions. Firstly,in the field of lex personalis,lex domicilii has been in change for a long time. Gong through lasting contesting with domestic law,and marked by the Civil Law of France of 1804,the lex domicilii’s concept of lex personalis is abandoned gradually by Europe,only continuing in the countries of common law.Soon,lex domicilii has to face up again the mighty competition with the law of the place of habitual residence which is regarded as the coordinator of the conflicts of lex personalis.While,because of the confused meaning and constitutes,and all sorts of self defects,the law of the place of habitual residence is uncertain in application.It is the time to make clear the conception of“the law of the place of habitual residence”.The vitality is its distinct particularity from the legal concept of domicile,which is the particularity of factual concept.Under the premise that follows this character,it is evident that the habitual residence is purely objective.Thereby,the“regular place of residence”which conforms to natural meaning,shall be interpreted ideally as“habitual residence”.Nevertheless, it is no doubt that“the law of habitual residence”has flexible character.Although lex personalis do not naturally exclude flexibility,its demand for stability still occupies a leading position.For example,although the flexible law of the parties’ domicile and the closest law have been known in the field of les personalis,they still limit to a very confined scope. Similarly,the flexibility of the law of the place of habitual residence will block the need of stability of lex personalis,so in most cases,it shall be considered as the supplement to lex domicilii.Despite the boundary of the two laws has been clear,they happen to coincide with each other,which is not yet explained by“merely a coincidence”.Virtually,we can see that the latter is in fact the need of the former to adapt to the new situation and a flexible form changing from time to time.Secondly,lex domicilii which is not satisfied by the intension of traditional lex personalis,keeps moving on.Lex domicilii draws support from the principle of the closest connection to set foot in the contractual relationship.Characteristic performance method is served as the applicable law of contracts and provides more specific legal basis.The common lex domicilii that fit in with the principle of closest connection is popular in the field of tort. In addition,with reference to aerial torts,lex domicilii is more and more valuable.Seeing that the autonomy principle neglect the weak,in order to avoid the defects of the autonomy law when there is a wide gap between parties’ strength(such as contract of consumption and contract of employment),the conflict rules that serves objective symbol as connecting point and limits what laws parties choose become a method to defend the substantial equality of such contracts and to demonstrate humanistic care and substantial justice.In practice,lex domicilii has been a usual effective limitation to the autonomy principle.It is thus clear that as an important dependency type,lex domicilii has stood out gradually in the long-term confrontation with domestic laws depending on the changed shape of the flexible law of habitual residence not only in the scope of lex personalis,but also in other fields of legal application.Therefore,we shall attach importance to the potential capacity of lex domicilii.On the basis of the above chapters,the Chapter 4 analyzes the system of natural persons’ domicile in the International Private Law of China.In China,the word of“domicile”is a domestic word,but it stay over a long period of time on the surface that“the place of residence”.Its internal function that connects natural persons with the legal system of certain place is not known by Chinese until the modern time. The reason is that influenced by the traditional idea of living together,sharing wealth and returning to the roots,the people’s living status is simple,and the complex domicile system need not to be introduced objectively to support the application of law.Nowadays,in the legislative and judicial practice of the jurisdiction and application of law in the four scopes of law in China,it can frequently see both words of“domicile”and“lex domicilii”.At the same time of reviewing the system of natural persons’ domicile in various scopes of law,it is easy to differentiate the concept of domicile and the important conditions.In the Mainland,at present,domicile is considered as the combination of the place of registered permanent residence and the habitual residence continuously living over one year.In Hongkong,it is established by“living in certain country or area and being willing to live in this country or area in indefinite duration.”In Macau,it is“personal actual and stable living center.”And in Taiwan,it is the place of living and of the will of long-term residence.In the interregional legal conflict of“domicile”,it seems that the problem of interregional lex personalis is much more puzzling.Among nationality,household register and domicile(habitual residence),it is obvious that it is better that domicile serves as the connecting point of domestic interregional lex personalis in China.Because it is not easy to achieve the unified concept of“domicile”of the four scopes of law,it is important to research on the basis of discrimination.In consideration of the convenience that ascertain each other the legal systems in the four scopes of law,lex situs can be applied directly to discriminate interregional domicile,which means ascertain whether parties have domicile in the Mainland,Hongkong,Macau and Taiwan area, and then apply the law of this scope of law.In addition,the provisions of Brussels Convention can be imitated to further to introduce the rule that the domicile where the court is has priority. For example,the judges of the Mainland apply the law of Mainland at first that is the General Rule of the Civil Law and the Opinion of the Supreme People’s Court on application of the Civil Procedure Law of People’s Republic of China,and determine whether the party have domicile in the Mainland.If he or she has no domicile in the Mainland,when judges determine where his/her domicile locates,Hongkong,Macau,or Taiwan,the law of the certain legal region should be applied.更多还原