经典案例评析
(Commentary on Classic Cases)
Schwebel v. Ungar (1963) 42 DLR (2d) 622
A Jewish husband and wife, domiciled in Hungary, decided to settle in Israel. When they were in Italy, en route to Israel, the husband divorced his wife by “gett”. Under Hungarian law, the law of their domicile, and under Italian law this divorce was invalid, but it was effective according to Israeli law. They then acquired an Israeli domicile and while so domiciled the wife later visited Ontario and married a second husband who ultimately petitioned the Ontario court for a decree of nullity on the ground of his wife’s bigamy.
第三节 反致（Renvoi） 一、概念（Definition） “反致”是指某涉外法律关系依法院地的冲
突规范应适用某外国法，而根据该外国的冲 突法，应适用法院地法或其他第三国法律。
Renvoi :The problem arising when one state’s conflicts rule of refers a case to the law of another state, and that second state’s conflicts rule refers either back to the law of the first state or to a third state.
(1)The main issue should, under the domestic conflicts rules, be governed by a foreign law;
(2)There should be a subsidiary question involving a foreign element which could have arisen separately and which has its own independent conflicts rule;
案例释义
“爱维亚幸运号”是一艘悬挂英国国旗的 远洋货轮。在执行一次航运任务中，该船中途临 时停靠法国马赛港。国际货运工人联合会 （ITWF）闻讯后，立即派员与船主谈判，要求 后者与其签订合同，给船上员工加薪。该要求被 船主拒绝，ITWF遂派人强行登船，以不让“爱 维亚幸运号”离港为要挟，迫使船主就范。完成 航运任务后，船主在法国向法院提起诉讼，以胁 迫为由主张与ITWF签订的合同无效，并要求 ITWF返还其按合同多支付给船员的薪水。需要 强调的是，在本案中，原、被告签订的合同上载 明适用瑞典法，而根据瑞典法律，ITWF的行为 是合法的。
第一节 识别 (Characterization)
一、概念（Definition）
Characterization: in a conflict of laws situation, a court must determine at the outset whether the problem presented to it for solution relates to torts, contracts, property, or some other field, in order to refer to the appropriate conflicts rule. In other words, the court must initially, whether consciously or not, go through the process of determining the nature of the problem; otherwise, the court will not know which conflicts rule to apply to the case. This process is generally called “characterization”, and sometimes “classification”, “qualification” or “interpretation”.
• Under the Ontario conflicts rules, Israeli law is the applicable law for the main question. Then what is the law applicable for the incidental question? Some judges thought that Ontario conflicts rules should be resorted to, while others favored Israeli conflicts rules
(3)This conflicts rule leads to a conclusion different from that which would have been reached had the law governing the main question been applied.
三、先决问题的法律适用 Application of Law for Incidental Question
二、识别冲突的产生原因
(Reasons for the Conflict of Characterizations)
• 第一，不同国家对同一事实赋予不同的法律 性质，因而可能援引不同的冲突规范；
• 第二，不同国家对同一冲突规范赋予不同的 含义；
• 第三，不同国家往往把具有相同内容的法律 问题分配到不同的法律部门中去；
• 加拿大的法院不仅要考虑妻子的再婚能力问题， 而且需要考虑她依据犹太教方式离婚的效力问题。 在这里，再婚能力是主要问题，而离婚效力是先 决问题。
• 依据安大略省的冲突规范，以色列法是支配主要 问题的准据法。那么，支配先决问题的准据法是 哪一国法律呢？一部分法官认为，应援用安大略 省的冲突规则来确定这个问题，而另一部分法官 则认为应当援用以色列的冲突规则来判定之。
2.准据法说(Applicable Law Doctrine)
3.分析法学与比较法说(Theory of Analytical Jurisprudence and Comparative Law)
4.个案识别说(Qualification Case by Case)
5.二级识别说(Secondary Qualification)
1. 识别(characterization) 2. 先决问题(Preliminary Question)
之前
3. 反致(Renvoi) 4. 法律规避(Evasion of Law)
之中
5. 外国法的查明(Proof of Foreign Law)
6. 公共秩序保留(Public Order)
之后
Compulsory Course for L.L.B.
Private International Law
Professor of Law Faculty of International Law China University of Political Science and Law
第五章 适用冲突规范中的几种制度 （General Problems in Applying Conflicts Rules）
观点一： 先决问题的准据法应该依主要问题所属国的冲 突规则来确定（多为普通法国家）。
观点二： 主张先决问题应依法院地国的冲突规则来解决 （多为大陆法国家）。
观点三： 根据案件具体情况而定。
中国法的相关规定
最高法院关于适用《涉外民事关系法律适用法》 若干问题的司法解释（一）
第十二条 涉外民事争议的解决须以另一涉外民事关 系的确认为前提时，人民法院应当根据该 先决问题自身的性质确定其应当适用的法 律。
• It should be noted that Ontario conflicts rule referred to the Hungarian law under which the divorce would not be recognized, whereas it would if the Israeli conflicts rule prevailed.
• 第四，不同国家有时有不同的法律概念或独 特的法律概念。
三、识别的依据 (Rules for Characterization)
1.法院地法说(Lex fori Doctrine)
“自由法院地法（liberal lex fori）”或“开明法院地 法（enlightened lex fori）”
• The Canadian court had not only to consider the question of the wife’s capacity to marry, but also the question of the validity of the wife’s divorce by “gett”. Here, the capacity was regarded as the main question, to which divorce recognition was incidental.