Notes to Chapter Two
1.See WOLFF,PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 189 (2nd ed.,1950).
2.Hériters Forgo v.Administration des Domaines,Cass.civ.,decision of 5 May 1875,1875 S.Jur.I.409; Administration des Domaines v.Hériters Forgo,Cass.civ.,decision of 24 June 1878 S.Jur.429; Hériters Forgo v.Administration des Domaines,Cass.req.,decision of 22 Feb.1882,1882 S.Jur.I 393.civ.
3.Re Ross [1930] 1 Ch 377.
4.E.RABEL,THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 80 (2nd ed.,1958).
5.In re Annesley,1926 Ch.692.
6.FRIEDRICH K.JUENGER,CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE 77-79 (2000).
7.SOLES & HAY,CONFLICT OF LAWS 67-70.(2nd ed.,1992).
8.DICEY & MORRIS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 73 (Lawrence Collins ed.,13th ed.,1999).
9.GEORGE PANAGOPOULOUS,RESTITUTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 106 (2000).
10.Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Guanyu Shiyong Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minfatongze Ruogan Wenti de Yijian[Supreme People’s Court,Opinions on Application of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China],92 Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Gongbao 22[Bulletin of Supreme People’s Court] (1988) (PRC).[hereinafter Opinions on GPCL].(https://www.daowen.com)
11.ZHONGGUO DIANXING HAISHI ANJIAN PINGXI [ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS ON TYPICAL MARITIME CASES] 17-18(Jin Zhengjia ed.,1998).
12.Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Haishangfa [Maritime Law] art.271(1992) (PRC).
13.CHINESE SOCIETY OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW,MODEL LAW OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (2000); English version,3 YEARBOOK OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 349-390 (Petar Sarczvic & Paul Volken eds.,2001).
14.COLLINS OF MAPESBURY,DICEY,MORRIS AND COLLINS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 90 (15th ed.,2012).
15.JAMES FAWCETT & JANEEN M.CARRUTHERS,CHESHIRE AND NORTH’S PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 51 (14th ed.,2008).
16.FRIEDRICH K.JUENGER,CHOICE OF LAW AND MULTISTATE JUSTICE 75 (2000).
17.COLLINS OF MAPESBURY,DICEY,MORRIS AND COLLINS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 91(15th ed.,2012).
18.Cf.Zhengxin HUO,Two Steps Forward,One Step Back: A Commentary on the Judicial Interpretation (I) on the Private International Law Act Issued by the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC,43 HONG KONG LAW JOURNAL 711 (2013).
【注释】
[1]It should be noted that the contract is governed by the parties’ choice is one category of conflict rule,therefore,Guangzhou Maritime Court’s application of the conflict rule contained in the Maritime Law following the parties’ choice amounts to the repeated application of the conflict rules of the forum,which is illogical in essence.