2. 考研
  3. 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 r

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 r

admin2011-03-11  51
问题     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.  
    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.  
    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.  
    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.  
    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.  
    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.  
    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.  
    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.
Which of the following may possibly be the reason for why several EU countries are now pressing ahead with their own harmonisation deal?
选项 A、Vetoes from some countries blocked Rome III from being put into effect.
B、Citizens in those countries require the government to do so.
C、Rome Ⅲ was just too ambitious to encompass all the issues that may occur in Europe, thus lacking of feasibility in specific cases.
D、Differences between civil law system and common law system force this.
答案C
解析 第三段开头指出“争论的焦点自然是涉及跨国婚姻时，应该适用哪一方国家的法律”，对此各国莫衷一是。选项A说一些国家投了否决票阻碍了《罗马Ⅲ》协议的实 施，而文中是说一些国家威胁要投票否决改革，这其实只是这一焦点的衍生现象。B项文中并未说明。D项提到了大律法系和普通法系的差别，这实际上也是争论焦点的一个表现，因为这个差别，《罗马Ⅲ》协议如何适用就成了大问题。故选择C。   
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/0Qp4777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)