国际私法英文阅读。。。
law. Upon examination of the other state's law, the forum might then discover that the other law offended its local public policy. Example: the claim, valid under the law of the state where it arose, involves a gambling debt, yet gambling is prohibited in the forum state. In these circumstances, the forum would not entertain the foreign claim. Public policy thus served as a defense against unpalatable results under the otherwise applicable foreign law.
In the United States, courts confined by the rules of the First Restatement had an ultimate escape device available to avoid an unpalatable result. By invoking “public policy”, a court could magisterially sweep away the results called for by traditional rules and, usually without much explanation, apply its own law to achieve the desired result. “Public policy” is all too often employed as a talisman to avoid reasoning on the underlying issues.
Fortunately, both the Restatement (Second) and other modern forms of choice-of-law analysis successfully direct attention to the real questions that a court should ask in this area: How do we know what our policy is here, and why does a foreign law offend that policy? The question, in other words, should not be "what is our policy," but "why should our policy prevail over that of another state in this particular case?"