《国际私法（英文版）/高等院校法学专业双语教材》覆盖的知识点更加全面，此次修订增加了若干知识点，例如，本版在第五编中增加第五章“强制性规范”，又将第二章“反致”扩写为“反致与附带问题”等。第四，为使论述更加系统与协调，本版删除了原版第八编“中国国际私法立法的新发展”，将其相关内容并入各编各章中予以阐释。此外，将2015年版的笔误和存在争议的一些表述进行修改与更正，亦为一项重要任务。
对于我而言，这个丁酉年的春天异常难熬。变故接踵而至，让我常有喘不过气的感觉。困顿之中，我本无计划在此阶段将这本英文教科书修订再版。但几经努力，我还是按出版社的要求如期交付了书稿。回顾整个过程，以下几个因素促成我决意排除困难，并给我“加持”，从而令我顺利完成修订再版的所有工作。
第一，本书2015年修订版付梓不久，《最高人民法院关于适用（中华人民共和国民事诉讼法）的解释》（以下简称《民诉法解释》）即予颁布。这部“史上最长的司法解释”对中国国际民事诉讼的诸多领域做出了新的规定，不少条款极具重要性。从这个意义上说，2015年版颇有“生不逢时”的味道，这让我从其诞生之日起就萌生从速再版的心愿。
第二，本书自2011年面世以来，它受到的欢迎程度有些超出我的预料：6年内再版两次、加印多次，且均告售罄，与有荣焉。所以，当编辑敦促我与其再次加印，不如结合近几年学理、立法与司法实践的发展将之修订再版时，我没有拒绝的理由。
第三，我首本独著的国际私法中文教科书业已杀青，不日将由中国政法大学出版社出版。①这本中文教科书是我执教十二载、笔喻两载的结晶，也见证了我从青年到中年的蜕变。不惑之际，能同时收获属于自己的中英文两本专业教科书，对于国际法学者而言，幸莫大焉。所以，这几乎成了我攻坚克难、修订本书最直接的动因。
事实上，自本书初版于2011年出版以来，一直有读者通过不同渠道询问我是否著有中文教材与之对应，以助其理解，而我则常回复之以“将尽快促成中文教材面世”云云。所以，此次中英文两本国际私法教科书于同年出版，算是了却我的一桩心愿：终于没有枉负这些读者的期待。
既然修订，自然需要对本版的主要变化做出介绍：首先，结合《民诉法解释》、《民法总则》、十八届四中以来的相关司法改革措施对本书做出更新、调整与增补是此次修订的重中之重。这项工作牵涉面甚广，尤其涉及第三编、第四编与第六编的内容。第二，鉴于欧盟国际私法的快速发展与重大影响，本版在第二编第一章专门增加了欧盟国际私法的内容。第三，为使本书覆盖的知识点更加全面，此次修订增加了若干知识点，例如，本版在第五编中增加第五章“强制性规范”，又将第二章“反致”扩写为“反致与附带问题”等。第四，为使论述更加系统与协调，本版删除了原版第八编“中国国际私法立法的最新发展”，将其相关内容并入各编各章中予以阐释。此外，将2015年版的笔误和存在争议的一些表述进行修改与更正，亦为一项重要任务。
坦率地说，这段时间，我过得颇为不易，但我骨子里是有韧劲的人：越难，征服心越决然。一个多月以来，我几乎利用了所有能利用的时间、倾注了所有能倾注的精力以完成本书的修订：在往返学校的班车与地铁上，在守护家人的病床边，在妻女熟睡后的深夜里……
今天傍晚，在键盘上敲完最后一个字以后，我如释重负地长吁一声。这个春天以来身体的劳顿与内心的挣扎，在这声叹息中似乎找到了停歇的理由。我爬到楼顶，向暮霭飘荡的远方眺望。轻吻春风，沐浴残阳，心静如水。其实，雾霾厚重，什么也看不到。生活的酸甜苦辣，人生的悲欢离合，远在远方之外，但眺望是一种青春的姿态。回顾自己逝去的青春岁月，我的心比以往任何时间都要澄净：我奋斗过，颓废过；流浪过，停泊过；信仰过，失落过；爱过，痛过；写过，译过——如此人生，在我看来，足矣。
霍政欣，现为中国政法大学教授、博士生导师、国际法学院副院长、院学术委员会副主任委员；兼任联合国教科文组织观察员、国际比较法学会联席会员、中国文物学会法律专业委员会副会长、国家领土权益与海洋权益协同创新中心研究员等职；入选教育部“新世纪优秀人才支持计划”与中国政法大学首批“优秀中青年教师培养支持计划”；系北京“五四青年奖章”与“宝钢优秀教师奖”获得者。
霍政欣教授毕业于武汉大学法学院，获国际法学博士学位；曾赴奥地利、荷兰、美国、韩国与英国等多国高校讲学与研究，担任华东政法大学、英国阿伯丁大学、韩国首尔大学等国内外多所高校兼职教授；主要研究领域为国际私法、比较法与文化财产法，现已出版中文专著四部、英文专著两部、译著三部、独著教材两部；在《美国比较法学刊》《国际法与比较法季刊》等国际主流法学刊物上发表英文论文二十余篇；在《法学研究》《法商研究》《法学评论》等国内重要法学刊物上发表中文论文、译文及评论七十余篇；曾获第五届中国高等学校科学研究优秀成果奖三等奖、北京市第十届、第十三届哲学社会科学优秀成果奖二等奖、湖北省第六届哲学社会科学优秀成果奖二等奖、中国国际私法首届优秀学术成果奖一等奖、中国政法大学优秀教师奖、中国政法大学优秀教师特别奖、中国政法大学第三届青年教师优秀科研成果奖一等奖、中国政法大学第四届青年教师教学基本功大赛一等奖等奖项。
Part One Introduction
Chapter One Description of the Subject
Chapter Two The Sources of Private International Law
Chapter Three Conflict Rules
Part Two A Brief History of Private International Law
Chapter One The European Continental History
Chapter Two The Anglo-American History
Chapter Three The Chinese History
Part Three Subjects of
Private International Law
Chapter One Natural Persons
Chapter TwoLegal Persons
Chapter Three States and International Organizations
Part Four International
Civil Jurisdiction
Chapter One Basic Theory ofjurisdiction
Chapter Two International Civil Jurisdiction in Chinese People's Courts
Part Five General Part of Conflicts Law
ChapterOne Characterization
Chapter Two Renvoi and the Incidental Question
Chapter Three Proof of Foreign Law and Evasion of Law
Chapter Four Ordre Public Reservation
Chapter Five Mandatory Rules
Part Six Selected Areas of Conflict Rules
Chapter One Capacities
Chapter Two Contracts
Chapter Three Torts
Chapter Four Property
Chapter Five Family Issues
Chapter Six Succession
Part Seven Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards
Chapter One Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Chapter Two Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
2.2.1Cook-Local Law Theory
One of the earliest and most outspoken critics of the established choice-of-law system was Professor Walter W. Cook, who is usually described as the author of the "local law" theory.8 Cook attempted to explain the seemingly paradoxical application of foreign law by the forum, and to reconcile such application with the forum's sovereignty. He argued that, in adjudicating cases with foreign elements that would otherwise be "governed" by foreign law, the forum neither applies foreign law, nor enforces a foreign vested right. Rather, it fashions a local law remedy that approximates the result provided by the pertinent foreign law.
While this theory is of dubious explanatory value, it did have the effect of placing the lex fori at the center of choice-of-law thinking. Cook's subliminal message was that the function of conflicts law is not to preserve the international order, but rather to carry out local law and policy. This was a drastic departure from the universalistic conception of private intemational law that characterized earlier generations ofAmerican scholars, including Story and Beale.
Cook's main contribution to American conflicts law lies not in enunciating a new theory, but in deconstructing the traditional theory, and thus freeing the "intellectual garden" of conflicts law of "rank weeds" so that useful vegetables could grow and flourish.
Although Cook fell short of articulating an affirmative approach of his own, his writings contained many of the seeds of modern theories. For example, on the basic question of how the forum court should select the foreign law on which to "model" its rule of decision in multistate cases, Cook simply said that "the problem involved is that of legal thinking in general," and that the forum should use "the same method actually used in deciding cases involving purely domestic torts, contracts, property, etc." This resort to the "domestic method" for handling conflicts cases anticipated Brainerd Currie's conception of the choice-of-law process as being based on the "ordinary process of construction and interpretation." Cook's reference to "socially useful" solutions to conflicts problems also anticipated the result-selectivity of many judicial decisions and academic commentators, and the notion that courts should not sacrifice materialjustice in the pursuit of "conflicts justice." Moreover, Cook's admonition that one should consider legislative purposes and policies "before a wise choice between conflicting rules can be made" reveals that, like many modern American scholars, Cook thought of the choice-of-law problem as one of choosing between competing rules, not competing legal orders or "jurisdictions" in the abstract.
2.2.2 Cavers-Principles of Preference
Professor David F. Cavers, who at the time shared many of Cook's legal realist convictions, continued the attack on the traditional system. In his famous article "A Critique of the Choice-of-Law Problem," Cavers further exposed the mechanical nature of the traditional methodology, which he compared to a slot-machine programme to select the applicable law in a "blindfold" fashion, based solely on territorial contacts and without regard to the content of the implicated laws. In his view, this exclusive reliance on territorial contacts and the insistence on using "jurisdiction-selecting" rules not only prevented a more individualized treatment of conflicts cases, but also prevented intelligent choices. After all, Cavers observed, "[T]he court is not idly choosing a law; it is deciding a controversy. How can it choose wisely without considering how that choice will affect that controversy?"
Believing that a just result was the paramount goal of choice of law decisions, David Cavers called on courts to analyze the controlling policies underlying the different competing laws and the concrete results which their application would entail in the given case. These results were then to be appraised from the standpoint of justice or broader considerations of social policy. This process, argued Cavers, would eventually result in the development of criteria for assessing the competing social values advanced by the competing rules, so that the preferable rule could be identified. These criteria came to be known as Cavers' "principles of preference."
……
精品教材 更多
