傳統涉外侵權行為準據法之選法，係依侵權行為地、法庭地、侵權行為地及法庭地併用來決定。以侵權行為地來選法，係指以行為事實發生地法來決定該侵權行為之成立及效力。適用行為地法的優點，是其結果對於判決結果可預測其可能性，避免法庭的選擇及法律的適用有一致性；缺點是侵權行為地常與當事人無實質上牽連關係，做為裁判當事人權利義務之準據法，不足以保護當事人權利。把所有侵權行為類型，一律以事實發生地法為準據法恐有不妥。例如製造者責任、名譽或信用的侵害、不正競爭等等侵權類型，應選擇與該類型侵權行為特徵相應的法律為準據法較為妥適。
美國於1960年代以後多已不再採行為地法，取而代之的是最重要牽連關係理論。法院選擇某一法律關係的準據法時，要綜合分析與該法律關係有關的各種因素，從質與量的角度將主客觀連結因素進行權衡，尋找或確定那一國家或法域與案件之事實和當事人有最重要牽連關係。最重要牽連關係理論優點在於選法規則具彈性、法制正規化；而缺點在於最重要關係標準過於抽象，法官在審理案件時，選擇法律若無一定的判斷標準，易流於形式及恣意。
我國涉外民事法律適用法現行條文第九條就因侵權行為而生之債，原則上採侵權行為地法。有關涉外侵權行為之損害賠償，我國法律及侵權行為地法均認為構成侵權行為者，不論行為地或結果發生地其一發生在我國，始得適用我國法律為請求損害賠償。惟採侵權行為地法，有時會發生不合理之結果。因此，涉外民事法律適用法修正草案爰參考奧地利國際私法第四十八條第一項、德國民法施行法第四十一條等立法例之精神，酌採最重要牽連關係理論，於但書規定另有關係最切之法律者，依該法律，以濟其窮。
我國的學者將分別適用法律(dépeçage)譯成「法律適用之分割方法」，美國學者認為就各個議題分別探討的選法分析方式對於解決現代的複雜法律訴訟具有重要性。分別適用法律制度的目的在於法律產生真衝突的情況下，分析出各個不同的特定議題，並適用有真正利益的法域法律。美國聯邦法院未曾使用過分別適用法律，各州的上訴法院及最高法院對於分別適用法律亦僅止於解釋何謂分別適用法律而已。分別適用法律恐會導致不符法律目的，然部分學者仍認為考量相關州的政策、保護正當的期待利益、特定法律領域的基本政策、結果的確定性、可預測性及統一性及適用法律便宜性等，似可採分別適用法律來解決法律之適用。我國最高法院97年度台上字第1838號及96年度台上字第1804號判決，擬嘗試跳脫我國涉外民事法律適用法，參考外國分別適用法律的（dépeçage）的法律制度，以突破傳統的準據法選法理論。
我國的涉外民事法律適用法的修正討論中，並沒有提到分別適用法律的問題。修正草案在有關消滅時效部分的議題，將分別適用法律特別提出討論，嘗試著要獨立規定準據法選擇的方式。涉外民事法律適用法修正條文草案第35條規定，請求權之消滅時效，依該請求權所由發生之法律關係所應適用之法律。其理由在於請求權之消滅時效，因各國關於其法律效果之規定不同，國際私法上有認定其為實體問題者，亦有以之為程序問題者。消滅時效規定於我國實體法，因此認定其為實體問題。由於消滅時效係針對特定之請求權而發生，而請求權又為法律關係效力之一部分，故應依其請求權所由發生之法律關係定其準據法。
立法者若認為消滅時效的問題有獨立認定準據法的必要性，應採用分別適用法律的方法，在各種法律關係中抽離出來，獨立認定其應適用的準據法為宜。在廣泛承認分別適用法律制度之前，我國或許可以考慮對於涉外侵權行為分為責任的成立及損害賠償的部分，分別規定應適用的準據法；前者依照我國原本的準據法選擇方式，後者之損害賠償認定的方式，則依照受害人常居所地或是本國法為標準。 / The law of selecting of the traditional tort applicable law concerning foreign affairs, and use the decision in accordance with spot of tort, spot of court, spot of tort and court. Selected the law by the tort, it is to determine establishment and effect of this tort by behavioral spot law of fact. Person who covered by behavior advantage of law, it is result that can predict possibility of the judgment, avoid the suitable to apply having consistency of choice and law of the court. The shortcoming is that the tort has not often involved the relation with the party in fact, as the applicable laws of party's rights and obligations of the judgment, it is non- enough to protect party's right. All tort types, it is probably improper to regard spot law of the fact as the applicable law without exception. Manufacturer responsibility, reputation or infringement, person who compete for type of infringing of credit, it is comparatively proper for applicable law to choose the law of the tort with corresponding characteristic with this type.
It no longer adopted behavior law already after 1960 in U.S, the substitute is most important to involve relation theory. When the court chooses the applicable law of a certain legal relation, various factors of wanting comprehensive analysis to be related to this legal relation, will link the factor to weigh subjectively and objectively in terms of quality and quantity, will look for or confirm there is the most important relation of involving in the facts and parties of that land of country or legal field and case. Involve and concern theory advantage lying in selecting the regulation to be elastic, legal system regularization the most importantly. And the shortcoming lies in the most important relation standard is too abstract, the judge, while hearing a case, if do not have certain judging standard to choose law, it is apt to become a mere formality and wilfulness.
The civil law concerning foreign affairs in our country is covered by article 9 of current clause and its debt cause of tort, adopt the law of tort spot in principle. About the compensation for damage of tort concerning foreign affairs, the person who forms tort for our country's law and tort, whether no matter the behavior or consequence one in the spot happens in our country, can begin to be applicable to the law of our country in order to ask for compensation for damage. Only person who adopt the law of tort, the unreasonable result takes place sometimes. So, concerning foreign affairs civil law suitable to apply law revision draft consult private international law of Austrian, 48th item 1, Germany civil law, article 41 legislative spirit of example, and adopt the relation theory, the persons who stipulate the law cut in the proviso most that there are relations besides the most importantly, depend on this law, in order to solve the conflict.
Will the scholar of our country the applicable law of the difference (dépeçage) translate into ' the method of cutting apart that the law is applicable to ', what the American scholar is thought each topic to probe into separately selects law to analyze the way has importance in solving the modern complicated lawsuit. Differentiate applicable law of system produce situation that analyze each different particular conflict topics, is applicable to the law with real interests. American federal court has not used the differentiate the applicable law, the appellate court of every state and the Supreme Court also only explaining what it is mean. Differentiating the applicable law will probably result in not according with the legal purpose, but some scholars think that consider the policies of the relevant states, it suit to protect the proper expectation interests, basic policy, determinacy of the result, predictability, unity and applicable law in the particular legal field, can adopt, differentiate applicable law solve to suitable to apply law. The judgment of No. 1804 and No. 1838 of the Supreme Judicial Court of our country, is adjudicated on the platform try to take off our country concerning foreign affairs civil law suitable to apply law, consult foreign country differentiate the applicable law (dépeçage), for being which break through traditional select law theory.
The amendments of Law Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements of our country has not referred to the question of the applicable law of the difference. The draft is in the topic about the fulfillment of prescription, will differentiate the applicable law and especially propose discussing, the attempt should stipulate the way in which the applicable law choose independently. Concerning the 35th regulation of clause draft of law's revision, ask for the fulfillment of prescription of right, in accordance with asking for the law that right should be applicable to by the legal relation happening. Its reason lies in asking for the fulfillment of prescription of right, because various countries are about stipulating the difference of their legal results, assert it is entity's question. There are persons who regards it as procedure question on the private international law. The fulfillment of prescription and stipulate in the substantive law of our country, so assert it is entity's question. The fulfillment of prescription takes place to particular request, and a part of legal relation, so should be made its applicable law by the legal relation of request.
If legislators think the question of eliminating prescription asserts the necessity of the applicable law independently, should adopt the way of differentiating the applicable law, release in various legal relations before coming out, assert the applicable law that it should be applicable independently. Before acknowledging differentiating the system of applicable law extensively, perhaps our country can consider that is divided into the establishment of responsibility and part of compensation for damage the tort concerning foreign affairs, should part regulation applicable law, the former choose the way according to our country's original applicable law, the way asserted in compensation for damage of the latter, often the spot of dwelling or this national law is a standard according to the victim.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/G0926510071 |
| Creators | 陳詩詩 |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 中文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.003 seconds