论文部分内容阅读
《法律适用法》第45条的规定,以给予原告单方面法律选择权为形式,体现了立法机关促成有利于原告的判决结果的倾向。与此同时,国际社会出现限制消费者保护的讨论和实践。国外学者从有悖法律的平等观念、不符合产品责任基本政策转变的趋势、增加生产成本、阻碍新产品的研发等多个角度提出了反对给予涉外产品责任案件原告特殊保护的理由。本文在对这些理由逐一分析的基础上认为,我国在国际私法立法中抛弃在法律选择和适用上的“中立”立场,旗帜鲜明地偏向于保护涉外产品责任原告的利益,是符合我国在该领域的实际情况和需要的。以给予原告单方面准据法选择权为达成这一目的的形式,也是合宜之举。
The provisions of Article 45 of the Law Applicable Law, in the form of giving plaintiffs a choice of legal right, reflect the propensity of the legislature to promote the outcome of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. In the meantime, the international community has come out with discussions and practices that restrict consumer protection. Foreign scholars have raised the objections to the special protections of the plaintiffs who give liability cases involving foreign products from the perspectives of opposing the concept of equality of law, not conforming to the trend of changing basic policies of product liability, increasing the production cost and hindering the research and development of new products. Based on the analysis of these reasons one by one, this paper argues that our country abandons the “neutrality” position in the choice and application of law in the legislation of private international law. It clearly positions itself in favor of protecting the interests of plaintiffs responsible for foreign products, The actual situation and needs of the field. To give the plaintiff a single choice of quasi law is a suitable form for this purpose.