Expert Opinions as The Most Usual Way to Prove The Content of Foreign Law: An Evolving Attitude towards Them

專家意見作為證明外國法內容的最常見方式：不斷演進的態度

當前外國法適用的問題，顯示出缺乏傳統的解決方式，且嚴重依賴各國的回應。在民事訴訟事件中，外國法的性質無論是事實性（大多數國家）、法律性（如臺灣及其他亞洲國家、大多數歐洲與拉丁美洲國家），或是混合性（如西班牙或美國），以及法院和當事人在主張和證明方面所扮演的角色，所提出的解決方式往往傾向使用專家意見作為確定外國法內容的主要工具。由於成本高又耗時，許多國家日益支持重新審視專家意見的使用，但目前仍無明確的替代方案。

The current situation in relation to the issue of the application of foreign law reflects the absence of conventional solutions and the heavy reliance on national responses. Irrespective of the nature awarded to foreign law in civil procedure cases, either factual–in most common countries–, legal–in Taiwan and other Asian countries, as well as in most of the European and Latin-American countries–, or hybrid–like in Spain or the US–, and of the role played by courts and parties as regards its pleading and proof, the different solutions proposed tend to agree on the use of expert opinions as the main instrument for determining its content. As this is costly and time-consuming, there is growing support in many countries for rethinking its use, although not clear alternative exists yet.