“Conflicts Justice” Versus “Material Justice”[8]
(1) The fundamental theoretical dichotomyin the purposes of choice of law is between the objective of choosing the“proper” legal system to govern a multi-state dispute or the objective ofreaching the fairest possible result in the individual case. It is clear thatthe traditional theory described in the preceding historical note purports tobe jurisdiction-selective, with a leap in the dark to the legal systemindicated by the critical connecting factor regardless of its content. It thussubscribes to the objective of “conflicts justice” versus “material justice”,although its critics based much of their attack on demonstrations that thecourts were in fact avoiding blind jurisdiction-selection through such evasionsas re-characterization of the legal category involved in the controversy, thedefense of ordre public, or even use of renvoi. The modern theories, on theother hand, all purport in one way or another to take substantive justice intoaccount. Since less than one fourth of the American states still adhere to thetraditional theory, it must therefore be said that some form of pursuit of theobjective of substantive justice is the prevailing view.
(2)The matter is greatly complicated, however, by the fact that the moderntheories have no unified position on this question, but rather represent pointson a broad continuum. The range of these points is quite remarkable.
不要翻译软件翻译的那种!!!