美国冲突法革命的革命性理解——别于萨维尼,还是依然萨维尼

Revolutionary Understanding on the American Conflict-of-Laws Revolution:Deviating from or following with Savigny’s Theory

Babcock v.Jackson案(下称巴案)是美国冲突法革命的标志,各冲突法革命学说透过巴案确证到的是自我的进步和萨维尼的失败。巴案的革命意义在于,它为各革命学说提供了别于萨维尼的最佳证据,但其革命意义需要得到革命性的理解。巴案证伪的只是萨维尼体系的应用条件、运用方式、理解向度和技术构造等具体的时代表达,但它并没有证伪作为范式的萨维尼体系本身。美国冲突法革命的成功立足于以非典型的巴案作为典型。这就意味着,这是一个依然萨维尼而不是别于萨维尼的时代。巴案也辩证地宣明了美国冲突法革命只不过是少年的美国冲突法学说在成长过程中的烦恼。

The Babcock v.Jackson is the symbol of American Conflict-of-Laws revolution,and different theory schools demonstrate themselves’ success and the failure of Savigny’s theory.The positive effect that the said case had produced provides the best evidence to discard Savigny’s theory,while the revolutionary aspect should be understood revolutionarily.The said case doesn’t overthrow Savigny’s theory as a paradigm,but poses challenges on its operating conditions,applying ways,understanding dimension and technical construction which reflect specific historical situation.That means Savigny’s theory should be followed.The said case declare dialectically that the American Revolution just only the problems during the theories-developing process.