國際私法英文材料

第一章TheConflictsCase〔必讀〕Manylegaldisputesarepurelylocal.Forinstance:whetherthecontractorhasorhasnotsubstantiallyperformedwhenthelocationofaninteriorwallwasoffbysixincheswillusuallybedecidedbylocalcourtsandaccordingtolocalcontractlaw.Increasingly,however,disputeswillhavea"foreignelement."Inconflictslaw,"foreign"doesnotnecessarilymeanthesameas"foreigncountry."Instead,"foreign"iseverythingwhichisnotlocal.Thus,forinstance,"foreign"partiesarepartiesfromanotherstateoftheUnitedStatesorfromaforeigncountry.Similarly,a"foreign"transactionisonewhichtookplaceoutsidethelocalstate.Forinstance,aproductmanufacturedinanotherstateorcountrymaycauseinjurylocally:thevictimwouldliketosuetolocallyratherthanhavetotravelwherethedefendanttortfeasoris.Also,thevictimwouldlike,ifpossible,tohavethecourtapplylocallaw(forinstance,becauseitprovidesforstrictliability).Assumethatthevictimdoesrecoverinhisorherhomestatebutthattheforeign(out-of-state)defendantownsnopropertythere:thejudgmentcreditorwillthereforenowhavetoseekrecognitionandenforcementofthejudgmentinthedefendant'shomestate(orinanotherstatewherethereareassetsbelongingtothedefendant).ConflictsLawthushasanorderingfunction:Whenthecaseisconnectedwithmorethanonelegalsystem-whenitisaninterstateorinternationalcase--,conflictslawdecideswhohasthepowertodecidethecase,accordingtowhoselawthecaseshouldbedecided,andwhattheeffectiselsewhereoftheresultingjudgment.Asageneralrule,Americanconflictslawdoesnotdifferentiatebetweeninterstateandinternationalcases:thesamerulewithrespecttojurisdiction,choiceoflaw,andtherecognitionofjudgmentsapplytoboth.Exceptions:1)Injurisdiction,theinternationalnatureofacasemaymakelitigationinanAmericancourtinappropriate.2)TheFullFaithandCreditClausedoesnotapplytoforeigncountryjudgments,butmoststatesaccordthosejudgmentsthesamerecognitionastheywouldtosister-statejudgments.3)TheUnitedStateshasenteredintoanumberoftrartieswhichapplytointernationalcaseonly.Examples:InternationalSalesConvention;CivilAspectsofInternationalChildAbduction;ServiceofDocuments;TakingofEvidenceAbroad.Conceptandtypesoftheconflictrule〔必讀〕Thenormsindirectlyregulatingfactsofprivateinternationallawformaspecialgroupofstatutoryprovisionscalledconflictrules.Onabroaderplaneaconflictruleisunderstoodtomeananormregulatinganyconflictoflaw,towit,determiningwhichofseveralrelevantrulesistobeactuallyapplied.Conflictcasesmaybeinternational,whenthechoiceisbetweenthelawsofseveralsovereignStates;thenormsresolvingsuchconflictsarecalledconflictrulesoftheinternationaltype.Conflictsmayalsoarisebetweendifferinglawsofnon-sovereignpartsofasovereignState.BartolusandStatutists〔必讀〕Bartolus'smethodofresolvingconflictswasbasedonasimplisticclassificationoflocallaws(statute)intotwocategories:realorpersonal.Realstatuteswerethosethatoperatedonlywithintheterritoryoftheenactingstatebutnotbeyond.Incontrast,personalstatutesoperatedbeyondtheterritoryoftheenactingstateandboundallpersonsthatowedallegiancetoit.Bartolusthoughtthatthisclassificationcouldresolveallpotentialconflictsbecauseallstatutes,bothdomesticandforeign,belongedtoeithertheoneortheothercategory,leavingneithergapsanddoubts.IndirectandDirectRegulations〔必讀〕Legaldevelopmenthasevolvedtwomethodsofdealingwithfactsofprivateinternationallaw-indirectanddirectregulation.Bothareappliedsidebyside.Distinctionismadebetweenthemaccordingtotheadoptedapproach,thewayofregulatingfacts.Indirectregulationisspokenofwhenafactofprivateinternationallawisregulatedintwophases,withthehelpofrulesestablishedontwoplanes:(a)Therulesrelatedtotheselectionofthelegalsystemsthatmaybetakenintoconsideration,andtothechoiceoftheapplicablelaw,determiningwhichofthecompetingsystemsoflawistobelookedtoforarrivingatthedecisionofaconcretecase.Accordinglythefunctionofthefirst-planerulesistoresolvetheconflictofcompetinglegalsystems,togiveaguidetotheapplicablelaw,torefertothenormsgoverningthecase.Theremittingrulesarethereforecalledconflictrules,whichdesignatenothingbuttheapplicablesystemoflaw,neitherdeterminingthesubstanceofprivateinternationalcasesnorprovidinganyguidanceastotherightsanddutiesofthesubjectsofaparticularlegalrelationship.(b)Therulesdesignedfortheactualsolutionofagivenrelationshiparefoundinindirectregulationandarecalledpositiverulesascontrastedwithconflictrules.Theyservetodeterminetherightsandobligationsofthesubjectsofthelegalrelationshipinvolved.Theindirectregulationofprivateinternationallawfactsconsistsinselectingtheapplicablelawaccordingtotheconflictruleonthehandandinregulatingtheparticularlegalrelationaccordingtothepositiverulesoftheapplicablelaw,ontheother.Directregulationmeansthatthelegalnormsaredirectlyapplied,asinthecaseofdomesticfactswithonforeignconnectiontothesolutionofthelegalrelationshiponitsmerits,determiningtherightsandobligationsoftheparties.Thereisnointermediatephaseofregulation,norisonenecessary,andthereisnoselectionanddesignationoftheapplicablelaw.Thusthenormsofdirectregulationbearremittingcharacter,arenotconflictrules,butonesdirectlyestablishingthelegaleffectsofprivateinternationallawcases.Theinternationalcharacterofthesecases(theirlinkswithtwoormorelegalsystems)impliesthatthedirectregulationofsuchlegalrelationshipisonlypossiblethroughcommonoruniformlegislationbytheStates(twoormorestates)concerned,primarilybymeansofinternational(bilateralofmultilateral)agreements.Confrontedwithsuchcases,theStatesinvolvedtrytoaccommodatetheireconomicinterest,moralvalues,legaltraditions,etc.andtoresolve,byacommonactlegislation,theconflictbetweentheirlegalsystemisparticulararea."Substance"VS."Procedure"Iftheforumdeterminedthatreferenceshouldbemadetoaforeignlaw,thetraditionalruleprovidesthatsuchreferenceneedonlytobeto"substantive"matters.Thelawoftheforumwillgovernall"procedural"matters.Andthedeterminationofwhatis"substance"andwhatis"procedure"ismadebytheforumaccordingtoitsownstandards.Thepurposeofdistinguishingbetween"substance"and"procedure"isto"drawtheline"onwhatissuestheforumisjustifiedindecidingaccordingtolocallaw.Becauseuniformityofresultshaslongbeenthemajorgoalofchoice-of-lawmethodology,thislineshouldbedrawnsoastoencourageapplicationoftheappropriateforeignlawtothegreatestextentpossible.Thus,allissuesthatmaymateriallyaffecttheoutcomeofacasehavebeenclassifiedassubstance.Ontheotherhand,thehouserulesofthelitigation-aspectsofthecasethatwillhavelittlebearingontheoutcome-canbegovernedbyforumlaw,forreasonsofconvenienceandpracticalityandtoinsuretheproperadministrationofjustice.Routinemattersrelatingtoserviceofprocess,sufficiencyofpleadings,proceduralcapacityoftheparties,formsofactions,andthelikeobviouslycanbeclassifiedas"procedural"althoughtheforummaystillrefertoforeignlawonsuchmattersifitchooses.However,manyissues,suchasrulesofevidence,formalities-statuteoffrauds,timelimitations-statuteoflimitations,measureofdamages,anddirectactionagainstinsurer,arenotsoeasilycategorizeLegislativeJurisdictionVS.JudicialJurisdiction

Thecourtsofmanynationswillnotadjudicatecivildisputesunlesstheparties(ortheirproperty)andtheirclaimsaresubjecttotheforum's"judicialjurisdiction"or"jurisdictiontoadjudicate."Asdiscussedbelow,judicialjurisdictionincludesboth(a)thepowerofacourttorenderajudgmentagainstparticularpersonsorthings,and(b)thepowercompetenceofacourttoadjudicateparticularcategoriesofclaims.

Judicialjurisdictionisdistinguishedfrom"legislative"or"prescriptive"jurisdiction,whichreferstotheauthorityofastatetomakeitslawsgenerallyapplicabletopersonsoractivities.Judicialjurisdictionisalsodistinguishedfrom"enforcementjurisdiction"-theauthorityofastatetoinduceorcompelcompliance,orpunishnoncompliance,withitslaws.

IntheUnitedStates,acourtcannothearadisputeunlessitpossessesboth"personal"jurisdictionoverthepartiesand"subjectmatter"jurisdictionovertheirclaims.Subjectmatterjurisdictionisthepowertoofacourttoentertainspecifiedclassesofcases,suchasanyactionbetweenpartiesofdifferingcitizenships.

Althoughsubjectmatterandlegislativejurisdictionaresometimesconfused,thereisafundamentaldistinctionunderU.S.lawbetweenthetwocategories.Subjectmatterjurisdictionisacourt'spowertohearacategoryofdisputeswithoutnecessaryregardtothesubstantiverulesthatareapplied.Incontrast,legislativejurisdictiondealswiththepowerofastatetoprescribesubstantivelaw,withoutnecessaryregardtotheforuminwhichthatlawisapplied.

ThereisalsoafundamentaldistinctionunderU.S.lawbetweensubjectmatterjurisdictionandpersonaljurisdiction.Personaljurisdictioninvolvesthepowerofacourttoadjudicateaclaimagainstthedefendant'spersonandtorenderajudgmentenforceableagainstthedefendantandanyofitsassets.Incontrast,subjectmatterjurisdictionreferstoacourt'spowertohearcategoriesofclaims,withoutnecessarilyconsideringtherelationshipofthepartiestoparticularcasestotheforum.第二章ContractualCapacity〔必讀〕Generally,thelawpresumesthatthepartiestoacontracthavetherequisitecontractualcapacitytoenterintothecontract.However,certainpeopledonothavethiscapacity.Theyincludeminors,insanepersons,andintoxicatedpersons.(1)toprotectaminor,apersonwhohasnotreachedtheageofmajority,thelawrecognizestheinfancydoctrine,whichallowsminorstodisaffirm(orcancel)mostcontractstheyhaveenteredintowithadults.Butifaminordoesnotdisaffirmacontracteitherduringtheperiodofminorityorwithinareasonabletimeafterreachingtheageofmajority,thecontractisconsideredratified(accepted).(2)toberelievedofamentalincapacity’sdutiesunderacontract,thelawrequiresapersontohavebeenlegallyinsaneatthetimeofenteringintothecontract.ThisiscalledLegalinsanity.Moststatesusetheobjectivecognitive“understanding〞testtodeterminelegalinsanity.Underthistest,theperson’smentalincapacitymustrenderthatpersonincapableofunderstandingorcomprehendingthenatureofthetransaction.Mereweaknessofintellect,slightpsychologicaloremotionalproblemsdonotconstitutelegalinsanity.Thelawhasdevelopedthefollowingtwostandardsconcerningcontractsofmentallyincompetentpersons:adjudgedinsaneandinsane,butnotadjudgedinsane.(3)contractsenteredintobyintoxicatedpersonsarevoidablebythatperson.Theintoxicationmayoccurbecauseofalcoholordrugs.Theamountofalcoholordrugsthatarenecessarytobeconsumedbyapersontobeconsideredlegallyintoxicatedtodisaffirmcontractsvariesfromcasetocase.Thefactorsthatareconsideredincludetheuser’sphysicalcharacteristicsandhisorherabilityto“hold〞intoxicants.TheDoctrineofSovereignImmunity〔必讀〕Oneoftheoldestprinciplesofinternationallawisthedoctrineofsovereignimmunity.Underthisdoctrine,countriesaregrantedimmunityfromsuitsincourtsinothercountries.Originally,theUnitedStatesgratedabsoluteimmunitytoforeigngovernmentsfromsuitsinU.S.courts.In1952,theUnitedStatesswitchedtotheprincipleofqualifiedorrestrictedimmunity,whichwaseventuallycodifiedintheForeignSovereignImmunityActof1976(FSIA).ThisactnowexclusivelygovernssuitsagainstforeignnationsintheUnitedStates,whetherinfederalorstatecourt.MostWesternnationshaveadoptedtheprincipleofrestrictedimmunity.Othercountiesstillfollowthedoctrineofabsoluteimmunity.TheFSIAprovidesthataforeigncountryisnotimmunefromlawsuitsinU.S.courtsinthefollowingtwosituations:(1)Theforeigncountryhaswaiveditsimmunity,eitherexplicitlyorbyimplication.(2)TheactionisbaseduponacommercialactivitycarriedonintheUnitedStatesbytheforeigncountryorcarriedonoutsidetheUnitedStatesbutcausingadirecteffectintheUnitedStates.Whatconstitutes"commercialactivity"isthemostlitigatedaspectoftheFSIA.Ifitiscommercialactivity,theforeignsovereignissubjecttosuitintheUnitedStates;ifitisnot,theforeignsovereignisimmunefromsuitinthiscountry.TheNationalTreatmentclause〔必讀〕TheNationalTreatmentobligationoftheGATT,liketheMFNobligation,isaruleofnondiscrimination.InthecaseofMFN,theobligationprohibitsdiscriminationasbetweenthesamegoodsfromdifferentexportingcountries.Thenationaltreatmentclause,incontrast,imposestheprincipleofnondiscriminationasbetweendomesticallyproducedgoodsandthesameimportedgoods.Itisacentralfeatureofinternationaltraderulesandpolicy,andexistswithintheGATTsystemtopreventgovernmentpracticeswhichevadethetariffobligations.ArticleⅢisthecentralnationaltreatmentobligationoftheGeneralAgreement,whichestablishesthegeneralprinciplethatinternaltaxesandregulations"shouldnotbeapplied…soastoaffordprotectiontodomesticproduction."TheMFNprinciple〔必讀〕Theunconditionalmost-favored-nation(MFN)provisionisthecornerstoneoftheinternationaltraderulesembodiesintheGeneralAgreementonTariffandTrade(GATT).ThebasicrationaleforMFNisthatifeverycountryobservestheprinciple,allcountrieswillbenefitinthelongrunthroughtheresultingmoreefficientuseofresources.Furthermore,iftheprincipleisobserved,thereislesslikelihoodoftradedisputes.MFNhassometimesbeendescribedasthe"central"policyofGATTandthepostWordWarⅡtradingsystem.ThefactthatitisArticleⅠofGeneralAgreementreinforcesthatposition.“…anyadvantage,favor,privilege,orimmunitygrantedbyanycontractingpartytoanyproductoriginatinginordestinedforanyothercountryshallbeaccordedimmediatelyandunconditionallytothelikeproductoriginatinginordestinedfortheterritoriesofallothercontractingparties.〞Theprinciplemustbeapplied“unconditionally〞.Thismeans,forinstance,thatastatecaninvokemostfavoredtreatmentwithoutgrantinginturnsomeadvantage.Inotherwords,theprincipleisnotbasedonreciprocity.第二章2.1ThenameofsubjectTheterm“ConflictofLaws〞describesgenerallythebodyoflawdealingwiththequestionsofwhenandwhythecourtsofonejurisdictiontakeintoconsiderationtheelementsofforeignlaworfactpatternsinacaseorconsiderthepriordeterminationofanotherstateorofaforeignnationinacasependingbeforethem.“ConflictofLaws〞isthetermprimarilyusedintheUnitedStates,CanadaandmorerecentlyinEngland,whiletheContinentalcountries,andsomewritersinEngland,atleastsincethewritingofWestlake,referto“privateinternationallaw.〞Neithertermisfullydescriptive.“Privateinternationallaw〞mightconnotethatthesubjectsomehow--inthecontextofprivatedisputes--partakesofthegeneral“l(fā)awofnations,〞publicinternationallaw,thatis,ageneralbodyoflawfortheorderingofaffairsbetweennationsaboutwhichthereexistsacertainconsensus.Rulesofconflictsoflaw,orofprivateinternationallaw,however,relatetolegalissuesbetweenprivatepersonsanddonotemanatefromaninternationalconsensus,suchas“customary(public)internationallaw.〞Insteadtheyarepartofeachstateornation’sdomesticlawandthereforeoftendifferfromonejurisdictiontoanother.IntheUnitedStates,moreover,conflictsrulesareprimarilystatelaw,albeitsubjecttosomeimportantfederalconstitutional,treaty,andstatutoryconstraints,withtheresultthattheymaycomeintoplaybothininterstate(state/state)andinternationalsituations(state/foreignnation).Noristheterm“ConflictofLaws〞anentirelyaccuratedescriptionforitsuggeststhatlaws“conflict〞and,byhypothesis,thatthereisamechanismfortheresolutionoftheconflict.Tostatethatlaws“conflict〞seemstoassumetheexistenceoflawsofequalapplicability.Itisnotuncommontosaythatthesubstantiverulesofdecisionoftwostatesrelatedtoatransactionare“inconflict〞whentherearecircumstanceswhichapparentlyjustifytheapplicationofthelawofeitherstate.However,sinceconflictsrulesaredomesticlaw—aforeignrulewillinfluencetheresultonlyifsoviewedbytheforum.Eitherthedomesticsubstantiveruleortheforeignsubstantiverulewillbeinfluentialbyreasonoftheconflictoflawsruleorapproachoftheforum;hence,thetwosubstantivelawswillnotbe“equallyapplicable〞andin“conflict.〞Italsofollowsfromthenatureofconflictslawasstatelawthatthereisnomechanismofsuperiorauthorityfortheresolutionof“conflicts,〞instead,theaccommodationofconflictingreasonsfortheapplicationoflocalorforeignlaw(sister-stateorforeign-nation)mustbeworkedoutandprovidedbytheforumitselfaccordingtoitsownviewofconflictoflaws.Nevertheless,theterminologyiswellestablished,bothintheUnitedStatesand(asprivateinternationallaw)inothercountries,andwillthereforebemaintainedhere,eventhoughotherterms(suchas“l(fā)awofmultistateortransnationalproblems〞)mightbetechnicallymoredescriptivelyaccurate.Thesourcesofprivateinternationallawincludecustomarystatute(written)law.Inadditiontowrittenlaw,customarylawhasretainedanextremelyimportantroleallovertheworld.

Morecomprehensiveworksofcodificationdidnotappearexceptitthepasthundredyears,andthesignificanceofcustomarylawintheregulationofprivateinternationallawcasesisgenerallygreaterthaninotherareasofthelegalsystem.Thepracticeofcourtsandotherlaw-enforcementagenciesisthebasicsourceofprivateinternationallawinmostcountries.

Internationalcommercialusagesarealsoofgreatsignificanceinthelawoftransactions,buttheyarenotregardedassourceoflawexceptwhenandwhereanappropriateinternationalusageis,expresslyorbyimplication,recognizedorsanctionedbytheStateconcerned.

Agroupofwrittenprivateinternationallawsourceisfoundinthenormsofdomesticlaw,suchasspecialenactments,comprehensiveprovisionsofcivilcodes,orprovisionsonpartialaspects,preambularprovisionsofcivilcodesorenactinglegislationsand/orseveralotherenactments.

Anothergroupofwrittenprivateinternationallawsourceismadeupofinternationalagreementswhich,intheirorigin,aresourceofaninternationalcharacterandbecomepartofdomesticlawthroughappropriateconstitutionalprocedures.Theinternationalagreementscontainingconflictnormsorsubstantivelawrulesformaspecialclassandcanbewellseparatedfrominternationalagreementsthatcreatenodirectrightsandobligationsfornaturalandjuristicpersons.

Thesourceofprivateinternationallawmaybesummarizedasfollows:

(1)Normsofinternal(national)law,theoverwhelmingmajorityofwhichareconcernedwiththelawofconflicts,directlyregulatingfactsofprivateinternationallaw.Theymaybe:(a)writtennorms(act,statutes,etc.);(b)normsofcustomarylaw(practiceofcourtsandotherlaw-enforcementagencies).

(2)Rulesofinternationalorigin,thetypesofwhichare:(a)internationalagreements:(ⅰ)bilateral;(ⅱ)multilateral:openorclosed(e.g.regional);(ⅲ)layingdown:conflictrules(indirectregulation),orsubstantiverules(directregulation);(ⅳ)establishing:specialrules,oruniformlaw;(b)international(commercial,etc.)usages.第三章RelationshipbetweeninternationalagreementsandU.S.law〔必讀〕TheU.S.ConstitutionpermitsentrybytheUnitedStatesinto"treaties".IndeterminingthelegaleffectsofatreatyunderU.S.law,U.S.courtsdistinguishsharplybetween"non-self-executing"and"self-executing"treaties.Aself-executingtreatyisintendedtohaveimmediatelegaleffectswithinthecontractingstates,withouttheneedforimplementinglegislationorregulations;anon-executingtreatyisnotintendedtohavedirectlegaleffect,butinsteadcontemplatesdomesticimplementinglegislation.Whetheratreatyisself-executingornon-executingunderU.S.lawdependsontheintentionsoftheUnitedStatesinratifyingthetreaty.TheU.S.Constitutiondeclaresthatself-executingtreatiesarethe"SupremeLawoftheLand".Evenwithoutimplementinglegislation,self-executingtreatiesarefederallawthatenjoyessentiallythesamestatusinU.S.courtsasfederalstatutes.Self-executingtreatiescreateenforceablerightsinU.S.courtsandpreemptinconsistentstatelaw.Inthecaseofconflictbetweentreatiesandfederalstatutes,a"last-in-time"ruleapplies:afederalstatutesupersedespriorinconsistenttreaties,andconversely,atreatysupersedespriorinconsistentfederalstatutes.Incontrast,non-self-executingtreatieslackbindingforceinU.S.courtsuntilimplementedbycongressionalstatute.Asaresult,federallawordinaryprevailsoverinconsistentnon-self-executingtreaties.Thesameresultapparentlyalsoapplieswithrespecttostatestatutesandstatecommonlaw.Thestructureofthechoice-of-lawrule〔必讀〕Thetheoryoflegislationdistinguishesbetweenthreestructuralelementsofalegalnorm:fact,provisionandsanction.Thechoice-of-lawrule(conflictrule)isalegalnormofspecialstructureexhibitingsomepeculiarityineachoftheseelements.Itmoststrikingfeatureconsistsinnevercontainingsanctions.Theconsequencesofinfringementaredeterminednotbytheconflictruleitselfbutbythepositiverulesofthelegalsysteminvokedbyit.Inthissenseeveryconflictruleisadependentnorm.Someconnectingfactorsattimesfailtoprovideguidanceforthejudgeinthediscoveryoftheapplicablelaw.Nationality,forinstance,isaconnectingfactorwhichisinapplicabletostatelesspersons(havenonationality).Someconnectingfactors(nationality,domicile,residence,seat,location,etc.)aresubjecttochangeovertime.Itisnecessarythatthepointoftimerelevanttothechoiceoflawshouldalwaysbedefinedintheconflictrules.TheNeedfor“connectingfactor〞〔必讀〕Ineverylegalsystemthereistheneedforsomekindoflinkbetweentheforumstateandapersoninordertodeterminewhenthatstatemayexerciseitssovereignpowerswithrespecttothatperson.Theparticularlinkneededwilloftendependonthepurposeforwhichastatewishestoexerciseitspoweroveraperson.Alittlelinkmaybeneededinorderforastatetoexercisethepowertotax;thefactthatrevenuewasderivedfromanin-statetransactionmaybeenough.Adifferent,moresubstantiallinktotheforumstatemaybeneededwhenthestateseekstorequireapersontodefendhimselfinitscourtsorwhenthestateseekstoimposesubstantiveliabilityuponapersonunderthelawsoftheforumstate.Thepersonallaw〔必讀〕Thepersonallawisnotonlyalegalabstraction,notonlyatheoreticalnotion,butalsoalivingphenomenonoflegislationandpractice.InEurope,theprincipleofnationalitybecamethedeterminantofthepersonallawincontinentalEuropeingeneral.Thepersonallawwaslikewiseadoptedbythesocialistcountries.Theprincipleofdomicileisthegeneralconnectingfactorofthepersonallawfirstandforemostinthecommon-lawcountries,butalsoinsomeothers(e.g.Argentina).Thisisastrongconnection,whichestablishesakindofrelationship,quiteclosetonationality,betweentheforeignState(hostcountry)andthepersonchoosingtoresideinitwiththeintentofpermanentorfinalsettlement.RelationshipbetweenU.S.stateandfederallaw〔必讀〕Therelationshipbetweenstateandfederallawinfederalcourtsgivesrisetocomplexissuesinbothdomesticandinternationalcases.Theseissuesaresubjecttotheso-called“Eriedoctrine〞.Untilthe1930s,thefederalcourtshadfollowedtheruleofSwiffv.Tysonandappliedageneralfederalcommonlawindiversitycases.UnderSwiffv.Tyson,federalcourtsweregenerallyfreetoapplystategeneralfederalcommonlaw,whilestatecourtswereatlibertytoapplystatecommonlaw.InErieRailroadCo.v.Tompkins,however,theSupremeCourtnarrowlylimitedthefederalcourt’sauthoritytofashiongeneralcommonlawrules.Declaringthat“thereisnofederalgeneralcommonlaw,〞theCourtheldthat,intheabsenceofvalidfederallegislation,federalcourtsmustordinarilyapplystatesubstantivelaw,includingstatecommonlawrulesfashionedbystatecourts.TheCourtbaseditsdecisioninlargepartontheperceived“mischievousresults〞thatflowedfrompermittingfederalcourtstoapplyfederallaw,andstatecourtstoapplystatelaw.Toredresstheseperceiveddefects,Erieestablishedfundamentallynewprinciplesgoverningtherelationshipbetweenstateandfederallawthatavalidfederalstatute,treaty,orregulationpreemptsinconsistentstatelaw,andmustbeappliedbybothstatecourtsandfederaldiversityandalienagecourts.Ifnovalidfederalsubstantivelawapplies,however,theEriedoctrineprovidesgenerallythat“procedural〞issuesinfederaldiversityactionsaregovernedbyfederalprocedurallaw,while“substantive〞issuesaregovernedbystatesubstantivelaw.Federalprocedurallawappliesonlyinfederalcourts,notinstatecourts.閱讀3.1BartolusandStatutistsBartolus'smethodofresolvingconflictswasbasedonasimplisticclassificationoflocallaws(statute)intotwocategories:realorpersonal.Realstatuteswerethosethatoperatedonlywithintheterritoryoftheenactingstatebutnotbeyond.Incontrast,personalstatutesoperatedbeyondtheterritoryoftheenactingstateandboundallpersonsthatowedallegiancetoit.Bartolust