Study On The Teleology Of Friedrich K.Juenger In Choice Of Law

Since the birth of private international law,many scholars have made great efforts in this field,which makes outstanding contributions to the development of this subject,and at the same time have promoted the perfection of the legal order of the whole world.Friedrich K Juenger,one of the leading scholars in the history of American conflict of laws,proposed a theory of “teleology” in choice of law in the 1980s---even though the Second Restatement was available at that time,Juenger never stopped his critical thinking about approaches of choice of law.As a review article of legal theory,the first part of this paper introduces the emergence of the approach of “teleology”,the living environment of Juenger’s childhood,the chaotic theory and judicial practice during the American conflict law revolution drove Juenger to put forward “teleology” in choice of law.The following is the introduction of the main content of Juenger’s approach of “teleology”.On the basis of criticizing the traditional approaches of choice of law,Juenger investigated substantive law approach and put forward approach of “teleology” in General Course of Private International Law to help courts to decide multistate cases better by summing up the contents of scholars’ theories,courts practices,legislation and international conventions.The content of this approach can be roughly summarized into the following parts: First,alternative reference rules,which enable the courts to choose law for particular purpose and particular social effect;the second part is allowing judges to choose,on the basis of their discretion,the results that they considered preferable and more “just” in the entity;and the third part is the use of various means of escape,such as renvoi and public policy,Juenger believes that it is possible to avoid bad results by using escape devices in the face of poor foreign law or harm to the public interest of the country;Part IV is propose that the courts and legislatures to create new,special substantive rules to decide multistate cases,such as the uniform substantive law.In addition,Juenger suggested paths to realize his approach of choice of law,including the creation of new law merchant,the application of better law and the development of alternative reference rules.The method of creating new law merchant does not need to be regulated too much because of its private nature,but the application of better law requires some guidance because it involves the judgment of the intrinsic value of the rules,and the development of the alternative reference rules itself as a way to realize the approach of “teleology”,which can also benefit the application of better law.The nucleus of this approach is a clear result orientation of the range of connecting factors of the alternative reference rules,then it is up to the judges to choose the final applicable law in the result-oriented competing rules.As a new approach of choice of law,this paper focuses on the application of the fourth part of Juenger’s “teleology”,that is,the practice of unified substantive law or substantive rules in American courts.Except for the attempt to develop and apply substantive law in Swift v.Tyson by Story and in “Agent Orange” by Weinstein,as well as similar uniform legislative tendencies in 1996 class action case Georgine v.Amchem Products,Inc.,the temporary law-making activities of American courts in foreignrelated cases are lackluster after searching on American case websites such as Westlaw.The influence of traditional choice of law approach and the distrust of judges make the unified substantive law not favored in the courts.On the basis of the foregoing,this paper ends with an evaluation of “teleology”.Junger believes that “teleology” has many advantages,such as simplifying and rationalizing the foreign law problem,simplifying the judicial tasks of judges in selecting the applicable law,and ensuring the rationality of the final judgment and so on.Some scholars,such as Symeonides,Mathias Reiman,believe that Juenger’s “teleology” enriches the American theory of conflict of laws,but also holds that it attaches too much importance to the unified substantive law rules and offer judges with too much discretion.This paper holds that Juenger’s “teleology” is reasonable,and it does not completely negate the wisdom of traditional approach of choice of law,as scholars say,advocate the substantive law approach to completely replace the traditional approach of choice of law or offer judges with too much discretion.Although there are theoretical defects with unclear internal rules and external obstacles names difficult to reduce to statutory law in a short period of time,with the groundwork laid by the first three parts of “teleology” that has been implemented in American courts for a long time,the ultimate goal of establishing uniform substantive law or substantive rules is expected to be achieved.In addition,Juenger made suggestions to conflicts law scholars in the course of his study of American conflict of laws,arguing that the approach of choice of law shouldn’t be paid too much attention to ignore the purpose of the approach.Juenger’s theory of “teleology” and advice to American conflicts law scholars show his broad mind,from which Chinese scholars should be able to get some enlightenment on the current theory of choice of law and research methods in China.