Divorce
离婚
Divorce without borders
离婚无国界
Jul 31st 2008
From The Economist print edition
A simpler way to part ways
分手何须多磨
SHE was French; he was English; they had just moved to London from Paris. When he found out about her affair, she begged for a reconciliation. He was more ruthless: the same afternoon, he filed for divorce in France, one of the stingiest jurisdictions in Europe for the non-earning spouse and where adultery affects the court’s ruling. Had she filed first in England her conduct would have been irrelevant, and she would have had a good chance of a large share of the marital assets, and even maintenance for life.
她是法国人，他是英国人，他们刚刚从巴黎搬到伦敦。丈夫发现妻子红杏出墙，妻子苦苦哀求，希望能破镜重圆。他却更是无情，当天下午就在法国递交了离婚申请。法国法庭对待离婚案中无收入一方，以及过错方可谓苛刻之至。但如果女方先在英国提起诉讼，（情况将大不一样）。但如果女方先在英国提起诉讼，情况将大不一样。她的过错行为不但不会会影响审判，还有很大机会得到相当一部分共有财产，甚至还包括终生的赡养费。
International divorce is full of such dramas and anomalies, so the natural response of policymakers is to try to make things simpler and more predictable. But the biggest attempt in recent years to do just that, in a European agreement called Rome III, has just been shelved. Instead, several EU countries are now pressing ahead with their own harmonisation deal. Many wonder if it will work any better.
跨国离婚案总是奇闻层出，充满戏剧性，故此，尽可能使案情简化、常规，也就成了审判者们的自然反应。但作为近年在简化案情方面做出最大尝试的《罗马III》欧洲协定最近却被搁置。现在，取而代之的是一些欧洲国家正加紧制订各自的调节协议。许多人对此并不看好。
At issue is the vexed question of which country’s law applies to the break-up of a mixed marriage. The spouses may live long-term in a third country and be temporarily working in a fourth. The worst way to sort that out is with expensive legal battles in multiple jurisdictions.
争论的焦点自然是涉及跨国婚姻时，应该遵从哪一方国家的法律，众说纷纭。夫妇二人还可能长期居住在第三国，或者短期工作在第四国。周旋于各个司法机构，耗资巨大的法庭战争无疑是解决问题的下下策。
The main principle at present is that the first court to be approached hears the case. Introduced in 2001, this practice has worked well in preventing international legal battles, but has made couples much more trigger-happy, because the spouse who hesitates in order to save a troubled marriage may lose a huge amount of money. Rome III aimed to remove the incentive to go to court quickly. Instead, courts in any EU country would automatically apply the local law that had chiefly governed the marriage. This approach is already in force in countries such as the Netherlands. A couple that moved there and sought divorce having spent most of the marriage in France, say, would find a Dutch court dividing assets and handling child custody according to French law.
现在通常的做法是由第一个收到诉讼的法庭着手审理。此做法诞生于2001年，在阻止法庭拉锯战方面颇为有效，但却使夫妻之间变得更乐于争吵，因为犹豫不决，还试图化解婚姻危机的一方将蒙受更大经济损失。而《罗马 III》协议的目标是消除刺激迅速起诉的诱因。依据该协议（在处理离婚案时–译者注）欧洲各国法庭会自动参照本国法律，定义婚姻。在一些国家，比如荷兰，这一做法已然被采纳。举例而言，一对在法国生活多年，刚搬到荷兰的夫妇申请离婚，将由荷兰的法庭处理资产，依据法国法律处理孩子监护问题。
That works fine among continental European countries where legal systems, based on Roman law, leave little role for precedent or the judge’s discretion. You can look up the rules on a website and apply them. But it is anathema in places such as England, where the system favours a thorough (and often expensive) investigation of the details of each case, and then lets judges decide according to previous cases and English law.
这一做法在欧洲大陆尚可发挥作用，因为欧洲大陆各国的法律体系建构都是基于罗马法，审判空间或者说法官决策空间近乎于零。浏览一下网站就可以查阅到相关法律条文，随即应用。但在英国这样的国家，采用这一做法简直就是噩梦。英国的法律体系偏好对每个案件都进行细致入微的深入调查（通常价格不菲），在此基础上，法官依据以往案例和英国法律给出裁定。
Another snag is that what may suit middle-class expatriates in Brussels (who just happened to be the people drafting Rome III) may not suit, for example, a mixed marriage that has mainly been based in a country, perhaps not even an EU member, with a sharply different divorce law. Swedish politicians don’t like the idea that their courts would be asked to enforce marriage laws based on, say, Islamic sharia.
（采用罗马III 协议的–译者注）另一个潜在问题是，在布鲁塞尔一些适用于中产阶级侨民的法律（正是布鲁塞尔人起草了罗马III协议）可能不适用于主要发生在比如说非欧盟国家的跨国婚姻。这些国家的离婚法与瑞典的大相径庭。如果要求瑞典法庭按照伊斯兰法典审理离婚案，该国政客肯定不会高兴。
The threat of vetoes from Sweden and like-minded countries has blocked Rome III. But a group of nine countries, led by Spain and France, is going ahead. They are resorting to a provision in EU rules-never before invoked-called “enhanced co-operation”. This sets a precedent for a “multi-speed” Europe in which like-minded countries are allowed to move towards greater integration, rather than seeking a “big-bang” binding treaty that scoops up the willing and unwilling alike. Some countries worry that using enhanced co-operation will create unmanageable layers of complexity, with EU law replaced by multiple adhoc agreements.
瑞典以及一些观点相近的国家威胁要投票否决改革，致使现行的罗马III搁浅。但由西班牙和法国发率领的一个九国集团却对改革义无反顾。他们正在一个从未被引用过的名为”加强合作”的欧盟规章上做文章。这为强调”多速发展”的欧洲开了一个先例，想法相近的国家可以走向大同，无须不分好恶地接受大刀阔斧的系列改革。一些国家担心”加强合作”的做法将会使多重特别协定大行其道，取代原有欧洲法律，届时局面将更加复杂失控。
The real lesson may be that Rome III was just too ambitious. A more modest but useful goal would be simply to clarify the factors that determine which court hears a divorce, and then let that court apply its own law. David Hodson, a British expert, proposes an international deal that would start by giving greatest weight to any prenuptial agreement, followed by long-term residency, and then take into account other factors such as nationality. That would then make it easier to end marriages amicably, with mediation and out-of-court agreement, rather than a race to start the beastly business of litigation.
说到底，原因或许是罗马III太过野心勃勃。更加适当、有效的做法应该是直接找到由何方处理离婚案的决定因素，让该法庭遵从自己的法律。一位英国专家，大卫·哈德森提出了一种国际规则，（离婚案中）首要考虑婚前协定，其次是长期居住地，再次是诸如国籍等其它因素。如此，经过调解，庭外协议而不是让人生厌的诉讼赛跑，和平离婚才更有望实现。
译者：eirrac http://www.ecocn.org/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13044&extra=page%3D1