国际法律中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文对照外文翻译文献
(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)
原文:
Evasion of Law and Mandatory Rules in Private International Law
INTRODUCTION
IT has often been asserted that English private international law has no doctrine of evasion of the law. It is true that English law has never developed a general doctrine, like the French one of fraude a la hi, to deal with cases of evasion. Nonetheless, evasion of the law has been recognised as a problem in at least some areas of private international law, and an increasing number of specific anti-evasion measures have been introduced in response to this. The English approach towards evasion is a pragmatic one rather than being based on any broad underlying theory. In particular, the fundamental questions have not been addressed of what is wrong with evasion of the law and how it can be dealt with most effectively. The purpose of this
article is to examine the present law on evasion, determine what is wrong with evasion of the law and put forward proposals for a principled approach to deal with the problem.
I THE PRESENT LAW ON EV ASION
The most obvious sense in which the law is evaded is when persons deliberately flout the law, for example a taxpayer fails to declare all his income to the Inland Revenue, or a person smuggles goods into a country in breach of import controls. In such cases the party seeking to evade the law wishes no law to apply. The private international lawyer may be concerned with this type of case, for instance the English courts may be asked to enforce a contract the performance of which involves the illegal export of goods.Of more interest to the private international lawyer, and the subject of this article, are those cases where laws are evaded by persons showing a preference for the application of one country's law rather than that of another. People can show this preference by going to another country in the expectation that that country's law will be applied to their affairs. This has happened in the sphere of family law where evasive marriages, divorces and abduction of children are well known. Evasion can also take place in the commercial sphere where the particular method of evasion takes a different form, i.e. contractual agreements that a particular law will apply. Those areas in which evasion has been recognised as being a problem: marriage, divorce, child abduction and custody, and contract, will now be examined in detail, after which some conclusions will be drawn on the nature of the approach towards evasion adopted under the present law.
A. Evasive Marriages
Evasive marriages have been a well known phenomenon since the earliest days of conflict of laws. Starting with Brook v. Brook in the middle of the nineteenth century there has been a spate of reported cases involving English couples going to Denmark or Germany to marry in order to evade the English law on the prohibited degrees of marriage. After the marriage the couple would return to live in England. The English courts strongly objected to the attempt to evade English law in these cases and refused to recognise the foreign marriage. The technique for dealing with the evasion was to classify the issue in the case as being one of essential validity and to apply the law of the domicile of the parties, England, to the question of the validity of the foreign marriage. In other words, the courts moulded their private international rule on capacity to enter a marriage to stop evasion of the law. The gradual relaxation
in the prohibited degrees under English law has largely meant the end of such instances of evasion. However, it still remains the case that, for example, an uncle will be unable to marry his niece in England but he may be able to do so under some foreign systems of law.
Better known to laymen than the Danish marriages cases are the Gretna Green marriage cases.At one time young English couples would elope to Scotland in order to evade the English requirement of parental consent for the marriage of a child between the ages of 16 and 21. Such a child could marry in Scotland without parental consent, there being very much less formality for marriage under Scots law. The reduction of the age of majority to 18 in England has meant that in most cases there is no longer any need for young couples to go to Scotland to enter into a valid marriage. However, the attitude of the English courts towards Gretna Green marriages is instructive and contrasts strongly with their attitude towards the Danish marriages. No objection was made to the parties evading the English requirement of parental consent by going to marry in Scotland and these Scots marriages were recognised as being valid. The issue was classified as one of formal validity and the law of the place of celebration was applied to the marriage, i.e. Scots law. The private international law rule was not moulded to stop evasion.
The traffic in evasive marriage was not all one way. There are well known instances of French couples coming to England in order to evade stringent French requirements of parental consent to the marriage of children up to the age of 25. Not surprisingly, in the light of the Gretna Green marriages, these English marriages were regarded as being valid, despite the clear evasion of French law by the parties.
B. Evasive Divorces
In 1868 in Shaw v. Gould Lord Westbury, speaking in the context of a Scots divorce obtained by an English domiciliary said that:
No nation can be required to admit that its domiciled subjects may lawfully resort to another country for the purpose of evading the laws under which they live. When they return to the country of their domicile, bringing back with them a foreign judgment so obtained, the tribunals of the domicile are entitled or even bound, to reject such judgment, as having no extra-territorial force or validity.
A hundred years later there was considerable judicial concern that, whilst the rules on recognition of foreign divorces should be liberalised and made more flexible, "quickie" divorces obtained abroad after a short period of residence should not be recognised. The technique for achieving this was to introduce at common law a real
and substantial connection test as a basis for the recognition of foreign divorces. A petitioner who was merely temporarily in, for example, Nevada when he obtained his divorce, would not be able to satisfy this test and the foreign divorce would not be recognised. The attitude subsequently changed and the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971 enshrined the Law Commission's philosophy that, if there had been forum shopping, the harm had already been done, and in order to prevent a limping marriage the foreign divorce should still be recognised in England.
This still remains the general view to this day. However, there are two specific statutory anti-evasion provisions which constitute exceptions to this general rule. Both provisions are concerned with extra-judicial divorces. There was a concern shown by the judiciary and then by Parliament that parties should not be able to evade the English system of divorces granted by courts and the English law on financial provision on divorce by obtaining in England an extrajudicial divorce. Since 1974 such extra-judicial divorces have therefore been denied recognition. There was then a concern that the particular statutory provision denying recognition to this type of divorce could itself be evaded by English residents going abroad, for example on a day trip to France, to obtain an extra-judicial divorce which, because it would be recognised in their foreign domicile, would be recognised in England. The latest version of the relevant statutory anti-evasion provision seeks to prevent this by denying recognition to extra-judicial divorces obtained, without proceedings, outside the British Islands if either spouse had for a period of one year immediately preceding the institution of the proceedings habitually been resident in the United Kingdom. The latter provision does nothing to prevent an English domiciliary from evading his financial responsibilities to his spouse by obtaining an extra-judicial divorce in the state of his nationality, and then having this recognised in England. However, the Court of Appeal in Chaudhary v. Chaudhary held that, in such circumstances, recognition of the divorce would be contrary to public policy, thereby preventing the evasion.
C. Child Abduction and Custody
The most recent problem of evasion to arise in the family law area involves cases of child abduction and custody. If the parents of a child are in dispute over the custody of a child and the parent who has not been granted custody by the English courts seizes the child and removes it abroad, there is a deliberate flouting of the English law in that the English custody order has been disregarded. This is regarded as a very serious matter and Parliament has intervened to introduce new criminal offences
concerned with taking a child under the age of 16 out of the jurisdiction without consent. There may also be an element of the errant parent preferring the application of a foreign law in that this parent may seek and obtain a custody order abroad. The problem is essentially one of getting a foreign court to recognise the English custody order or the custody rights (if no order has been made) and return the child to England. There are now international conventions on child abduction and custody, and if the child is removed to a country which is a party to these conventions, that country may be obliged to recognise the English custody order and rights. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned the international conventions were brought into effect by the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, which requires English courts to recognise foreign custody orders and rights in certain circumstances.
D. Evasive Contracts
In contract cases the judiciary appear on the face of it to have a strong objection to evasion of the law. In theory the requirement laid down in Vita Food Products v. Unus Shipping that the parties' choice of the applicable law must be made in good faith, will stop all cases of evasion of the law. Even if the case involves an issue of formal validity of the contract the bona fides doctrine can still come into play. This contrasts with marriage cases where, as has been seen, the evasion of formal requirements is not objected to. However, in practice the requirement of a bona fide choice does not appear to restrict the parties' freedom to choose the applicable law. There is no reported English case in which the parties' choice has been struck out on this ground. It is important to notice that, although the Vita Foods Case introduced a restriction on party autonomy, this restriction did not apply on the facts of the case and the result was to allow parties to evade the Hague Rules.
Much more important than the common law doctrine of bona fides are the specific statutory anti-evasion provisions that have been introduced into the area of contract. The most famous of these is contained in section 27 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. This section prevents evasion of English law, or the law of any other part of the United Kingdom, by restricting the parties' freedom to choose a foreign law. It provides that the Act and the protection it gives to consumers still has effect if the choice of law appears "to have been imposed wholly or mainly for the purpose of enabling the party imposing it to evade the operation of this Act". The section goes on to provide as an alternative that the Act will apply, despite the parties' choice, if "in the making of the contract one of the parties dealt as consumer, and he was then habitually resident in the United Kingdom, and the essential steps necessary for the
making of the contract were taken there, whether by him or by others on his behalf". The section, more controversially, also prevents parties from evading foreign law. It restricts the right of parties, whose contract has a foreign objective proper law, to choose the law of part of the United Kingdom by providing that, in such a case, certain sections of the Act will not apply as part of the proper law.
Another example of a statutory anti-evasion provision is to be found in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, implementing the Hague-Visby Rules. Under the old Hague Rules there was a problem of people evading those Rules by the insertion of a choice of law clause in their contract. This gap was closed by the insertion in the Hague-Visby Rules of a new Article X to replace the original Article X in the Hague Rules. This lays down the territorial scope of the new Rules, and is coupled with a provision in the implementing legislation which states that the Rules, as set out in the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971, shall have the force of law. According to the House of Lords in The Hollandia the intention of Parliament was for the new Rules to apply whenever the case comes within Article X, regardless of whether there is a foreign proper law. Their Lordships were concerned to interpret the Act and the Hague-Visby Rules in such a way as to prevent the possibility of their being evaded. As Lord Diplock said:
[the Hague-Visby Rules]
should be given a purposive rather than a narrow literalistic construction, particularly wherever the adoption of a literalist construction would enable the stated purpose of the international convention, viz., the unification of domestic laws of the contracting states relating to bills of lading, to be evaded by the use of colourable devices that, not being expressly referred to in the rules, are not specifically prohibited.
An Ad Hoc Approach
What is noticeable about the present law on evasion is that no general principle has been developed to explain why evasion is regarded as objectionable in some cases but not in others. The law seems quite inconsistent, with evasive Gretna Green marriages being regarded as perfectly acceptable but evasive Danish marriages being regarded as beyond the pale. The whole approach towards evasion is essentially an ad hoc one; not only are different types of evasive marriage treated differently, but also evasive marriages are treated in isolation from evasive divorces or evasive contracts. This ad hoc approach extends to the technique for dealing with those cases where evasion is regarded as objectionable. In some cases specific statutory anti-evasion
provisions have been adopted to deal with evasion; in other cases the technique has been to mould common law rules to deal with the problem. The result is that the present law on evasion can be seen to be unduly complex, uncertain and inconsistent.
A more principled approach is needed but before this can be developed an answer is required to the fundamental question, which so far has been ignored under English law: what is wrong with evasion of the law?
II WHAT IS WRONG WITH EV ASION OF THE LAW?
A. Moral Guilt
The term evasion is a loaded one, with connotations of shifty, underhand behaviour. It is easy to fall into the trap of automatically assuming that a desire to evade the law is in itself morally reprehensible. This is what has happened in the area of contract choice of law. The requirement that the choice of the applicable law must be made in good faith concentrates on the motives of the parties, and if these are impure the choice is necessarily regarded as a bad one and to be struck out. Yet there is nothing wrong in principle with parties choosing the law to govern their transactions. Indeed, it is very desirable that they should make such a choice. Party autonomy produces certainty in the law and upholds the expectations of the parties. In some cases this choice may be made on the basis that the application of one law is more convenient than that of another. In other cases the choice may be made on the basis that the content of one law is preferred by the parties to that of another. For example, the parties to an international insurance or shipping contract may choose the law of England to apply, despite the fact that there is no connection with this country, because they regard English law as being well developed in this area. No one would stigmatise this type of conduct. Is it any worse if the parties choose a law to apply because they prefer some specific provisions of that law to that of some other country? What the parties are usually trying to do in such a case is to ensure that a law is applied which provides that their transaction, whether it is a commercial contract or a marriage, is valid. This should not be a cause for concern, nor should it be condemned on the mistaken basis that the parties' motives are impure. Moreover, there is something slightly hypocritical in the judiciary making this type of moral judgment when they themselves are quite prepared to escape from applying a law the content of which is not to their liking by using such devices as public policy and renvoi.
Whilst there is nothing wrong with the parties' motives in cases of evasion, this does not mean that the practice is unobjectionable. In some cases the evasion may
involve unfairness to someone else; the evasion may even be against the national interest.
译文：
国际私法中的法律规避和强制性规则
引言
人们常常说，英国的国际私法学说中没有法律规避原则。

事实的确如此，英国法律中关于法律规避原则没有发展成一般理论，不像法国中的f raude à la loi （欺诈性法律）来处理法律规避的案件。

然而，法律规避已经被认为是一个问题，至少在一些地区的国际私法中，而且针对法律规避行为，这些地区采取了越来越多的反规避措施。

就英国而言，对待法律规避应是一个务实的行为，而不是基于任何空泛的理论基础，特别是关于法律规避的影响以及如何更有效的解决法律规避这些根本问题仍没有得到解决。

本文的写作目的是考查现行法律对法律规避的规定，确定法律规避的效力，并为解决法律规避的问题提出原则性建议。

一、关于法律规避的现行立法
法律规避给人最明显和最直接的感觉，就是行为人故意规避法律是对法律的无视。

举个例子，一个纳税人没有向税务局如实申报他所有的收入，或是一个人进入国境时走私货物违反了该国的进口货物管制，在此种情况下，行为人试图规避法律就是希望相关法律不能适用，是对法律的无视。

国际私法的法律工作者可能会更多关注此种类型的情况，例如英国法院或许会被要求强制执行一个合同中涉及的非法出口货物。

国际私法的法律工作者更关注的是，在那些法律被人们规避的案件中，显示了行为人对哪一个国家的法律更优先选择适用的问题，这同样是本文的主题。

人们通过进入另一个国家，并希望该国的法律将适用于他们所处的情况来表明他们对法律的选择，这已经在类似规避结婚、离婚、收养等家庭法律关系中非常普遍了，而且在具体规避方法有多种不同形式的商业领域同样发生着，像通过合同、协议使某一特定的法律适用。

在以下领域，法律规避已被公认是一个问题：结婚、离婚、监护和诱拐儿童、合同关系。

现在我将对其详细分述，并在此之后得出一些在现行法律下对待法律规避能接受的实质方法、结论。

（一）结婚关系的法律规避
自早期冲突法产生开始，结婚关系的法律规避就一直是众所周知的现象。

十九世纪中叶布鲁克五世时期，就已经有一系列规避结婚法律的案例报道：英国的夫妇为了规避英国法律中对结婚的禁止性规定而前往丹麦或者德国结婚，待结完婚后又回到英国居住，英国法院强烈反对这种试图逃避英国法律的行为，并拒绝承认这种在国外结婚的效力。

英国在涉外婚姻效力的问题上，解决法律规避的方
法是对这一问题进行有效分类，并适用当事人的国籍法。

换言之，法官要有良好的国际私法规则的专业能力，并将相应规则运用到结婚关系中以禁止当事人规避法律的行为。

英国法律的禁止程度逐渐放宽在很大程度上意味着类似规避行为的结束，然而依旧存在着这样的情况，即在英国法律是不允许一个叔叔与其侄女结婚，但在国外的法律体系中他可能就能这样做了。

比起上述去丹麦结婚的例子，更为人所知的是格雷特纳格林的结婚案件。

曾有一时，年轻的英国夫妇常会私奔到苏格兰，这是因为英国法律要求16-21岁的孩子结婚必须得到父母同意。

在没有父母同意的情况下，为了规避这项规定，年轻夫妇就会私奔到苏格兰，而在那里结婚没有太多礼节和手续，无需征得父母的同意。

随后英国将法定年龄降到18周岁，这意味着多数情况下，年轻夫妇无需再为了获得一个有效的婚姻而去苏格兰了。

对格雷特纳格林结婚案件，英国法院的态度是具有指导意义的，这与他们对待为规避法律去丹麦结婚的态度形成了鲜明的对比。

他们对当事人为了规避英国法律规定“征得父母同意”的要求而去苏格兰结婚不予反对，而且对那样的婚姻效力予以认可，苏格兰的法律也被正式认为有效地适用于结婚关系。

可见，在国际私法规则中并不都是禁止法律规避的。

结婚关系的法律规避并非完全是单向的，也有法国夫妇为规避法律来到英国结婚的著名实例。

在结婚方面，法国有着比英国更严格的的要求，即父母等到子女满25周岁后才能同意结婚，许多为规避该规定的年轻法国夫妇来到英国结婚。

在格雷特纳格林结婚案后，这种方式的婚姻已被认为是有效的，尽管当事人很明显地规避了法国的法律。

（二）离婚关系的法律规避
1868年古尔德.韦斯特伯里五世时期，在苏格兰人为了离婚而去获得英国国籍的大背景下，英国公告说：
一国国籍的公民为了规避本国的法律而合法地利用另一国家法律，是没有哪个国家会承认这种行为的效力。

当他们带着外国法院判决回到自己的国家时，法院有权利甚至有义务拒绝承认这样的判决，因为这个判决是没有域外强制效力。

一百多年以后，有更多的司法部门关注这样的问题，并认为对在外国离婚的承认规则应当是开放的、更加灵活的，但在国外获得短期居留期间“闪电”离婚的效力是不能被认可的，而实现这种规则的方法是在普通法律中介绍一个真正的、实质性的标准作为识别国外离婚效力的基础，对一个只是暂居一国而申请离婚的人，比如暂居内华达州而获准离婚，是不能满足这个标准的，这样的离婚不能得到承认。

1971年法律委员会所制定的《离婚与合法分居承认条例》对这一态度发生了变化，认为如果行为人已经“挑选法院”（即当事人利用国际民事管辖权的积极冲突，从众多有管辖权的法院中选择一个最能满足自己诉讼请求的法院去起诉），结果就已经定了下来，并且为了解决举步维艰、不稳定的婚姻问题，
在英国，应对规避本国法律而在国外离婚的效力予以认可。

时至今日，英国仍然普遍如此认为，但有两个特殊的禁止规避规定作为这个一般规则的补充，两个补充规定都是涉外离婚的，是司法部门和国会共同的关注的，就是被法院和英国的法律所承认的离婚，当事人不能通过在英国得到涉外离婚的判决而规避英国在财产分割上的离婚制度，自从1974年来这样的涉外离婚就是被拒绝承认的。

值得注意的是，某一特定法律条文对拒绝承认离婚类型做出规定，这个条文本身也可能被当事人通过到另一国家的方式所规避，以“法国一天行”为例，为了得到一个外国离婚的判决而去法国，由于法国是可被视为行为人的国外住所，因此所适用的将是法国的相关法律，而不是英国的。

关于反规避法律的最新理论，就是旨在通过拒绝承认涉外离婚判决来禁止上述行为，英国以外的夫妇，若有一方在国外居住达到一年便视为经常居住地，优于在其本国提起的诉讼。

后者的规定并没有阻止一个通过在其本国获得涉外离婚判决的英国国籍的人规避对其配偶的经济责任，英国也逐渐认识到了这一点。

但是，乔杜里诉乔杜里案的上诉法院认为，在这种情况下，对离婚的承认将违反公共政策，因此禁止此情形下的法律规避行为。

（三）监护和诱拐儿童
最近的法律规避问题主要集中在家庭关系法律领域，涉及监护和诱拐儿童。

一个孩子的父母对孩子的监护权发生争议诉诸法院，法院经过判决裁定一方享有监护权，而另一方却将孩子转移到国外以规避监护权的丧失，这种情况是蓄意藐视英国法律和监护秩序，其后果非常严重，国会已经推出新的刑事罪行关于未经同意将一个未满16周岁的孩子带出国，从而脱离司法管辖的行为。

偏离正路的父母将孩子转移到国外，希望的是通过适用其他国家的法律能获得对孩子的监护权，实质上是让外国的法院承认英国的监护秩序或者监护权利后再将孩子带回国。

现在有了监护和诱拐儿童的国际公约，如果儿童被转移到一个国家而该国是这公约的缔约国，这个国家可能不得不认可英国的监护秩序及监护权力。

对英国来说，关注的是国际公约与1985《监护和诱拐儿童法案》的生效情况，因为这要求英国法院承认某些情况下外国的监护令和权利。

（四）合同关系的法律规避
在合同案件中，司法部门是非常强烈地反对规避法律的行为。

从理论上说，这始于维塔食品公司诉联合国大学船务公司案，在该案件中英国法官和学者总结出各方当事人选择法律适用时必须以诚信为本，禁止一切规避法律的形式。

尽管“维塔诉联合国大学船务案”涉及合同善意理论是否正式有效的问题，但不容否认的是这个理论仍发挥了巨大作用。

正如我们看到的那样，这与婚姻案件完全不同，婚姻关系中形式上的规定并不反对规避。

实践中，“善意选择法律”似乎并不像人们所想的那样限制了当事人自由选择适用法律，英国也没有相关案例的报
道。

值得注意的是，尽管“维塔诉联合国大学船务案”提出了对当事人意思自治的限制，但在实际案件中并不适用，其结果还使当事人去规避“海牙规则”。

比起习惯法中善意原则更重要的是具体法令中关于合同关系的反法律规避的规定，其中最著名的规定是载于1977年《不公平合同条款法案》中的第27节，这一节通过严格限制当事人选择外国法律的自由，阻止当事人规避英国任何法律，它规定了如果法律的选择出现“一方当事人规避法案的适用已经实行了全部或主要部分”，法案仍具有效力，还规定了如果合同缔约一方是消费者，他的惯常居所地在英国，且合同主要履行地也在英国，那么不论当事人选择何国法律，法案仍将适用。

具有争议的是，法案中的这一节对当事人规避外国的法律加以规定，禁止当事人规避外国法律。

如果合同中规定了一个意图适用的外国准据法，该法案的某些部分将不被适用为准据法的一部分，所以《不公平合同条款法案》严格限制了合同当事人选择法律的权利。

另外一个反法律规避的法律是为贯彻执行“海牙维斯比规则”而制定的1971年《海上货物运输法》。

在旧的海牙规则实行中，存在着当事人在合同中插入一个法律选择条款意图规避该规则，在“海牙维斯比规则”中这一漏洞被填补，“海牙维斯比规则”编写了一个新的第十条以代替原来旧的海牙规则的第十条。

新的规则明确规定了适用范围，并规定要声明适用海牙维斯比规则。

1971年《海上货物运输法》在附表中载明了上述规则，具有法律效力。

根据霍兰迪亚上议院的意思，国会意图适用新的“海牙维斯比规则”只要符合新的第十条规定的情形，而不管合同中是否已约定了一个外国的准据法。

大法官们为防止规避法律的可能性，这样解释《海上货物运输法》和“海牙维斯比规则”：
（海牙维斯比规则）应被给予一个立法意思，而不是狭隘的拘泥于字面构造，而且采纳字面意思将会有违国际公约的目的，即有违统一各缔约国关于海上货物运输中各种不同规定的根本目的，规则中没有明确提到的，不是明文禁止的。

一个专门的方法
现行法律中关于法律规避问题令人关注的是，没有形成一般原则去解释为什么有些情况法律规避是被禁止的，而有些情况法律规避却被允许的。

在格雷特纳格林的结婚案中法律规避是被接受的，但去丹麦结婚以规避法律却被认为超越了法律规定而被禁止的，有关的法律规定看起来相当不统一。

总的来说，对法律规避应制定一个原则性的、专门的解决方法，而不是不同类型的情况不同处理，这个专门的方法当然涉及禁止法律规避的案件中。

在一些案件中，特定的反法律规避的条款已渐渐被接受了，而令一些案件中，则采用的是准据法规则的立法技术处理法律规避问题，这么做的结果是，让人感到现行法律处理法律规避问题过于复杂，以及不确定、不统一。

一个更原则性的方法需要被提出，但在此之前要先解决被英国法律忽视许久的一个基本问题：法律规避的问题所在？
二、法律规避的问题所在？
（一）道德的谴责
规避这一词充满了狡猾的含义，是一种欺诈行为，这使得人们很容易自动地掉进先入为主的陷阱，即逃避法律行为本身就是不道德的，这种行为应受到谴责。

以合同关系为例，在合同领域中当事人选择法律就被认为是逃避法律的行为，遭到道德上的谴责。

为了免受道德上的制约，这就要求合同双方当事人合意选择适用的法律必须是出于善意的考虑，动机不纯的选择将被视为恶意的而且选择的法律无效。

赋予当事人选择法律来处理各自事务的权利在原则上并没有错，事实上，这样做还是非常可取的，当事人应该做出这样的选择，当事人意思自治使法律更加确定，维护了当事人的预期和积极性，在一些情况下，当事人的这种选择会使法律适用更加方便，而且还让双方都愿意采用的更好的、更完善的法律得到适用。

比如，国际保险或运输合同的当事人可能会选择适用英国的法律，因为他们认为英国这方面的法律发展得很好、很完善，尽管事实上合同与这个国家没有任何关联，没有人会责难这种类型的行为。

如果当事人选择适用的法律是因为他们更喜好某一完善的法律具体规定，这对其他一些国家来说会很糟吗？各方当事人在这种情况下之所以这么做是确保完善的法律可以被适用，进而为交易提供有力保障，增加了交易的安全性，因此，不论是商业合同行为还是结婚行为都是有效的，这不应该令人担心，也不应继续在这种当事人动机都是不良的错误认识的基础上继续谴责。

而且，在司法部门有一些略伪善的人也在做这种道德判断，他们自己也通过利用公共秩序和反致等手段规避法律的适用，这些被规避的法律内容都不是他们喜欢的。

虽然在这种情况下规避法律，当事人的动机没有什么问题，但这不意味着这种做法无可非议。

有时候，规避法律会给其他人带来不公平，甚至会对一国的国家利益造成损害。