涉外侵权法律选择中的“侵权行为地”界定——从侵权一般冲突规则的解释切入  

Ascertainment of the Place of Torts in Choice of Law for Tort Cases Involving Foreign Elements: From the Interpretative Perspective of the General Conflict Rules for Torts

作　　者：林强 LIN Qiang(Law School,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)

机构地区：[1]清华大学法学院,北京100084

出　　处：《现代法学》2018年第4期161-175,共15页Modern Law Science

摘　　要：从比较法的经验来看,国际私法中隔地侵权之"侵权行为地"的界定背后有不同的利益和政策考量,因此,对侵权一般冲突规则中的"侵权行为地"仅能做常态化的界定,其他特殊侵权类型对"侵权行为地"的界定如有特别的利益或政策考量,宜另行拟定侵权特别冲突规则抑或通过例外条款矫正常态化界定可能产生的不当后果。故从法体系的运作视角来看,对侵权一般冲突规则中的"侵权行为地"做单义化解释抑或复义化的有利于受害人的解释之时,立法上还需要设置侵权特别冲突规则及例外条款作为补充。我国现行立法中侵权特别冲突规则设置不足,还缺失了重要的例外条款,故不宜强行借鉴任何一种解释模式。此种立法缺漏,无法通过法解释的方法予以克服,需要由立法从根本上解决问题。From the perspective of comparative law,different interest and policy considerations underlie different definitions of the place of cross-border delicti,and the place of cross-border delicti could only be normally defined in the general conflict rule for torts. No matter how to define the place of torts in the general conflict rule for torts,either unifying it as the place of harm or the place of acting or even defining it in favor of victims,conflict rules for specific torts and the escape clause are needed to avoid unfair results caused by application of general conflict rule for torts. In view of lack of these two sorts of conflict rules in nowadays Chinese legal framework,it＇s unwise to define the place of torts in any of the above-mentioned ways. These legislative deficiencies should be remedied by future legislative perfection instead by legal interpretation approaches.

关 键 词：侵权一般冲突规则 侵权特别冲突规则 隔地侵权 侵权行为实施地 侵权结果发生地 

分 类 号：DF97[政治法律—国际法学]