This HTML5 document contains 61 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n12https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
dbpedia-zhhttp://zh.dbpedia.org/resource/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
goldhttp://purl.org/linguistics/gold/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Characterisation_(law)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Incidental_question
Subject Item
dbr:Incidental_question
rdf:type
dbo:WrittenWork
rdfs:label
Incidental question 先决问题
rdfs:comment
Incidental questions in private international law with respect to the problems and elements discussed below In the Roman conflict of laws, an incidental question is a legal issue that arises in connection with the major cause of action in a lawsuit. The forum court will have already decided that it has jurisdiction to hear the case (resolving any issue relating to forum shopping) and will be working through the next two stages of the conflict process, namely: characterisation and choice of law. For example, the court may classify the cause as "succession", but it notes that the plaintiff brings the claim for relief as the deceased's widow. Before the court can adjudicate on the main issue, it must first decide whether the plaintiff actually has the status claimed, i.e. the incidental quest 先决问题，又稱附隨問題，是国际私法中的一个术语，是指有的争诉问题的解决，是以首先解决另一个问题为条件。该争诉问题被称为本问题或主要问题，而需要先行予以解决的问题称为「先决问题」。例如，在解决离婚或继承问题时，首先要判断婚姻是否有效。 先决问题最早由德国学者和在1932年至1934年提出。
dcterms:subject
dbc:Conflict_of_laws
dbo:wikiPageID
2484529
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1122231955
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Get_(conflict) dbr:Law_of_Canada dbr:Characterisation_(conflict) dbr:Marriage_(conflict) dbr:Nevada dbr:Canada dbr:Forum_shopping dbr:Private_international_law dbr:Lex_causae dbr:Court dbr:Lex_domicilii dbr:Plaintiff dbr:Community_property dbr:Bigamy dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Canada dbr:Hungary dbr:Lawsuit dbr:Lex_loci_actus dbr:California dbr:Lex_loci_celebrationis dbr:Israel dbr:Italy dbc:Conflict_of_laws dbr:Brazil dbr:Choice_of_law dbr:Domicile_(law) dbr:Public_policy_(law) dbr:Lex_situs dbr:English_law dbr:Jurisdiction dbr:Jurisdiction_(area) dbr:Nationality dbr:Divorce_(conflict) dbr:Nullity_(conflict)
owl:sameAs
wikidata:Q6014621 n12:4myN9 freebase:m.07h4x_ dbpedia-zh:先决问题
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Spaced_ndash dbt:Portal_bar dbt:Unreferenced dbt:Conflict_of_laws
dbo:abstract
Incidental questions in private international law with respect to the problems and elements discussed below In the Roman conflict of laws, an incidental question is a legal issue that arises in connection with the major cause of action in a lawsuit. The forum court will have already decided that it has jurisdiction to hear the case (resolving any issue relating to forum shopping) and will be working through the next two stages of the conflict process, namely: characterisation and choice of law. For example, the court may classify the cause as "succession", but it notes that the plaintiff brings the claim for relief as the deceased's widow. Before the court can adjudicate on the main issue, it must first decide whether the plaintiff actually has the status claimed, i.e. the incidental question would be the validity of the claimed marriage. The inconvenient reality is that many lawsuits involve a number of interdependent legal issues. In purely domestic cases, this poses no difficulty because a judge will freely move from one domestic law to another to resolve the dispute. But in a conflict case, the question is whether the incidental question is resolved by reference either to its own choice of law rules, or to the same law that governs the main issue (the lex causae). States have not formulated a consistent answer to this question. For an incidental question to arise, the forum court must have applied its characterisation rules to determine that: * the main cause of action is governed by a foreign law; * as a precondition to the main cause of action, there is a subsidiary question which has its own choice of law rule pointing to a different lex causae; * there will be a different result depending on which foreign law is applied. Suppose that a French court hears the case of an American national who dies domiciled in California leaving movables in England. The French choice of law rule would refer the distribution of personal property to California law which has community property provisions entitling his widow to share in his estate. The marriage was in England and, as both the lex loci celebrationis and the lex situs, English law declares it valid even though it is void ab initio under California law because it is considered bigamous (see nullity): a divorce decree granted by the American courts was recognised as valid in England, but not in California. Should the widow's claim be determined by the English or California law? There are different views: * the widow's claim should be dismissed because otherwise the French conflict rule that succession to movables is governed by California law would be undermined; * the widow should be entitled to share in her husband's estate because otherwise the French conflict rule that the validity of the marriage is governed by English law would be undermined. One of the more interesting cases on this topic is the Canadian Supreme Court case of Schwebel v Ungar [1964] 48 DLR (2d) 644 in which a Jewish husband and wife, domiciled in Hungary, married in Hungary. While they were emigrating to Israel, they found themselves in Italy and the husband divorced his wife by get. Under the laws of Hungary (their lex domicilii) and Italy, the religious form of divorce was invalid, but it was recognised as effective by the law of Israel where they acquired a domicile of choice. Subsequently, the wife moved to Canada and, without abandoning her Israeli domicile, went through a second ceremony of marriage. The second husband petitioned for nullity alleging that the marriage was bigamous. The Supreme Court held the marriage to be valid. The main question was the wife's capacity to marry which, under Canadian law, is determined by her lex domicilii, i.e. the law of Israel at the time of the second ceremony. The incidental question was the validity of the divorce which was to be determined either by their lex domicilii at the relevant time or by Italian law as the lex loci actus. The judgment seems to suggest that the court decided both questions by reference to the law of Israel as the law governing the main question. In Lawrence v Lawrence [1985] Fam 106 the English Court of Appeal was asked by the second husband to rule on the validity of another potentially bigamous marriage. The wife first married in Brazil and then divorced the husband in Nevada (this was not recognised in Brazil) and immediately married the second husband in Nevada. The two laws were the wife's lex domicilii to which English choice of law rules referred her capacity to marry (under Brazilian law she lacked capacity to marry the second husband) and the validity of the second marriage which was determined under the lex loci celebrationis. The case was decided by characterising the case as one of divorce recognition rather than capacity to marry. The outcome suggests that the same law will be applied to both the main and the incidental questions on the understanding that the forum court is probably making a policy decision on which outcome is the more desirable – in both cases, the courts seem to have been interested in upholding the validity of the second marriage reflecting a rebuttable presumption in both jurisdictions to recognise marriages valid under their lex loci celebrationis in default of any strong policy reason to the contrary. 先决问题，又稱附隨問題，是国际私法中的一个术语，是指有的争诉问题的解决，是以首先解决另一个问题为条件。该争诉问题被称为本问题或主要问题，而需要先行予以解决的问题称为「先决问题」。例如，在解决离婚或继承问题时，首先要判断婚姻是否有效。 先决问题最早由德国学者和在1932年至1934年提出。
gold:hypernym
dbr:Issue
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Incidental_question?oldid=1122231955&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
5880
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Incidental_question
Subject Item
dbr:Choice_of_law
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Incidental_question
Subject Item
dbr:Hague_Trust_Convention
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Incidental_question
Subject Item
dbr:Renvoi
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Incidental_question
Subject Item
wikipedia-en:Incidental_question
foaf:primaryTopic
dbr:Incidental_question