CHESHIRE,NORTH & FAWCETT
PRIVATE
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
FIFTEENTH EDITION
P199第4段
In justifying this reference to a foreign law, English judges and textbook writers have frequently used the term comity of nations, 「a phrase which is grating to the ear, when it proceeds from a court of justice」. Although the term has been often used, analysis of it reveals that it has been employed in a meaningless or misleading way. The word itself is incompatible with the judicial function, for comity is a matter for sovereigns, not for judges required to decided a case according to the rights of the parties. Again, if the word is given its normal meaning of courtesy it is scarcely consistent with the readiness of English courts to apply enemy law in time of war. Moreover, if courtesy formed the basis of private international law a judge might feel compelled to ignore the law of Utopia on proof that Utopian courts apply no law but their own, since comity implies a bilateral, not a unilateral, relationship. If, on the other hand, comity means that no foreign law is applicable in England except with the permission of the sovereign, it is nothing more than a truism. The fact is, of course, that the application of a foreign law implies no act of courtesy, no sacrifice of sovereignty. It merely derives from a desire to do justice.
為證明對外國法律的引用是正當的，英國法官和教科書作者經常使用「國家禮讓」一詞，「當它來自法院時，這句話就會刺耳」。儘管經常使用該術語，但對其進行分析後發現，該術語是以一種無意義或誤導性的方式使用。這個詞本身與司法職能不符，因為禮讓是主權者的事，而不是需要根據雙方權利決定案件的法官的事。如果給這個詞一個禮貌的通常含義，那幾乎與英國法院在戰時準備採用敵對法律相一致。此外，如果禮讓是國際私法的基礎，那麼法官可能會被迫無視烏託邦的法律，因為有證據表明烏託邦法院除了自己的法律外沒有其他法律，因為禮讓意味著雙邊關係，而不是單邊關係。另一方面，如果禮讓意味著除非得到君主的許可，否則任何外國法律都不適用於英格蘭，這無非是無稽之談。當然，事實是，適用外國法律並不意味著僅僅出於禮讓，也沒有犧牲主權。它僅源於對正義的渴望。