本文選題：外國法 + 無法查明　； 參考：《大連海事大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：中國法院近年來審理的涉外民商事案件逐年增多,而依靠沖突法規(guī)則適用外國法的概率卻逐年降低。其中最主要的原因是法官以“外國法無法查明”為由而適用了內(nèi)國法即中國法。從我國有關(guān)立法來看,2010年頒布的《中華人民共和國涉外民事關(guān)系法律適用法》(下文簡稱：《適用法》)規(guī)定了人民法院、仲裁機構(gòu)、行政機關(guān)和當事人的查明義務,明確了“法國法無法查明”時一律適用中國法。《適用法》的出臺是我國法律史上的一次大事件,它是我國幾代國際私法立法者與學者經(jīng)過不懈努力,制定出的第一部國際私法,具有十分重要的意義。 但由于《適用法》對于人民法院等查明主體如何進行外國法查明、如何作出“外國法查明”認定、如何確認當事人查明的外國法沒有作出細致規(guī)定,所以導致目前我國法官自由裁量權(quán)過大和中國法濫用的現(xiàn)象還依然存在。一套限制法院自由裁量權(quán)的“外國法無法查明”準則是十分重要的。而外國法的性質(zhì)、外國法查明方法、外國法無法查明認定和外國法無法查明認定后的法律后果是“外國法無法查明”準則里最為重要的理論,下文將從這幾方面的法律問題入手對我國的“外國法無法查明”相關(guān)理論進行研究。 無論何種形式的“外國法無法查明”準則均是取決于該國對于外國法性質(zhì)的認定。對外國法性質(zhì)到底是“事實”還是“法律”的不同認定不僅會導致舉證責任分配和查明方法的不同,還會直接影響到外國法不能查明時的法律后果。當今世界上對外國法的性質(zhì)的認定主要有“事實說”、“法律說”、“折中說”(包括“特殊的事實說”和“特殊的法律說”)幾種主流體系。堅持不同學說的國家會采用不同的外國法認定規(guī)則,認定“外國法無法查明”后也會適用不同的法律后果。 在對待外國法性質(zhì)的問題上,在《適用法》出臺前我國把外國法視為“事實”,在《適用法》出臺后,我國則把外國法視為“特殊的法律”。筆者認為我國目前把外國法視為“特殊的法律”是符合我國實際的。但筆者認為目前《適用法》仍存在很多不足之處,筆者通過對外國法的性質(zhì)、外國法查明方法、“外國法無法查明”的認定標準及認定后的法律后果等相關(guān)理論、立法和實踐的研究和分析,提出了完善我國相關(guān)立法的建議,相信在眾多學者的共同努力下中國終究會找到適合中國國情的一套“外國法無法查明”準則。
[Abstract]:In recent years, the number of foreign civil and commercial cases tried by Chinese courts has increased year by year, while the probability of applying foreign law by relying on the rules of conflict of laws has decreased year by year. The main reason is that the judge applies the domestic law, that is, the Chinese law, on the grounds that foreign law cannot be ascertained. Judging from the relevant legislation of our country, the Law of the people's Republic of China on the Application of the Law on Foreign Civil Relations (hereinafter referred to as the "applicable Law") promulgated in 2010 stipulates the obligation of the people's court, the arbitration institution, the administrative organ and the parties to ascertain, It is clear that "French law cannot be ascertained" is all applicable to Chinese law. The introduction of "applicable Law" is a major event in the history of Chinese law. It is the first private international law formulated by several generations of private international law legislators and scholars through unremitting efforts. It is of great significance. However, since the applicable Law has no detailed provisions on how the people's court and other ascertainment subjects carry out the foreign law ascertainment, how to make the "foreign law identification" determination, and how to confirm the foreign law identified by the parties, Therefore, the phenomenon of excessive discretion of judges and abuse of Chinese law still exists. It is important that a set of "foreign laws cannot be ascertained" norms that limit the discretion of the court. However, the nature of foreign law, the method of identification of foreign law, the inability of foreign law to ascertain the determination and the legal consequences of the determination are the most important theories in the criterion "foreign law cannot be ascertained", In the following part, we will study the related theories of "the foreign law can not be ascertained" from these aspects of the legal problems. Whatever form of "foreign law cannot be ascertained" criterion is dependent on the determination by the State of the nature of foreign law. Whether the nature of foreign law is "fact" or "law" will not only lead to different distribution of burden of proof and method of identification, but also directly affect the legal consequences when foreign law cannot be ascertained. There are several mainstream systems in the world, such as "fact theory", "law theory", "compromise theory" (including "special fact theory" and "special law theory"). Countries that insist on different doctrines will adopt different rules of recognition of foreign law, and will apply different legal consequences when they decide that "foreign law cannot be ascertained." In dealing with the nature of foreign law, China regards foreign law as "fact" before the promulgation of "applicable Law", and after "applicable Law" is issued, China regards foreign law as "special law". The author thinks that the foreign law is regarded as "special law" in our country at present. However, the author thinks that there are still many deficiencies in the applicable Law at present. Through the theories of the nature of the foreign law, the method of finding out the foreign law, the criterion of "foreign law cannot be ascertained" and the legal consequences after the confirmation, etc. Through the research and analysis of legislation and practice, the author puts forward some suggestions to perfect the relevant legislation in China. It is believed that under the joint efforts of many scholars, China will eventually find a set of "foreign law can't be ascertained" criterion suitable for China's national conditions.
【學位授予單位】：大連海事大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D997;D923

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐鵬;;外國法查明:規(guī)則借鑒中的思考——以德國外國法查明制度為參照[J];比較法研究;2007年02期

2 張磊;外國法的查明之立法及司法問題探析[J];法律適用;2003年Z1期

3 張明杰;外國法查明之評介[J];法學評論;1986年04期

4 徐錦堂;;論域外法查明的“意志責任說”——從我國涉外民商事審判實踐出發(fā)[J];法學評論;2010年01期

5 肖芳;;我國法院對“外國法無法查明”的濫用及其控制[J];法學;2012年02期

6 金波;朱慧君;;試論外國法證明的模式[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬刊);2008年09期

7 李逸男;;外國法查明義務之承擔[J];法制與社會;2008年14期

8 王克玉;;“外國法查明”中的定性與定量分析[J];廣西政法管理干部學院學報;2006年05期

9 黃進;論國際私法中外國法的查明——兼論中國的實踐[J];河北法學;1990年06期

10 馬擎宇;;從司法審判實踐角度完善我國的外國法查明制度[J];南陽師范學院學報;2011年07期

，

本文編號：1814432