巴克斯塔“比较损失”原则的方法论及判例法研究

A Methodology and Case Law Study of the Baxter' s Comparative Impairment Test

美国冲突法革命的众多理论已广为国内学界熟知,但对于利益法学派巨匠的巴克斯塔的"比较损失"原则鲜有研究。与同为利益法学派巨匠的克里的"政府利益分析"原则探讨某一州是否更为得利不同,巴克斯塔的方法论将准据法选定理解为分配法的形成力的所及范围的问题,主张在真正冲突事件中,法院应通过确定哪一州的法律目的在其被置于下位时将会蒙受更大损失来合理地调整相互冲突的法。虽然在美国采用该原则的仅有加州,但该原则为勒弗拉尔的"较恰当的准据法理论"的形成提供了理论支撑,并为第二次冲突法重述所接受。深入研究该理论,对我国的陆、台、港、澳两岸四地相互独立的司法系统之间的区际法律冲突问题的解决具有重大的意义。

The Baxter＇s comparative impairment test asks which state＇s policies would suffer more if their law was not applied. This is similar to interest analysis, in that the interests of the state are taken into account. However, this test does not look to see which state benefits more from the application of its laws, but rather for situations in which the other state＇s interests will actually be harmed by the application of the laws of the forum state. The study has great has great significance to the interregional conflict laws in China.