Abstract:As a special legal problem, characterization in private international law is deeply embedded in Savigney's theory, harassing scholars of several generations in this field. Actually, characterization focuses on the interpretation of operative facts which are part of a conflict rule, so it relates only to the process of choice—of—law, and has nothing to do with the civil judicial jurisdiction. Among fact, cause of action, legal relationship and legal rule, which is the object of characterization? To a great extent, the confusion girding this issue gives rise to all the controversies around characterization. The answer should be the substantive legal rules (mainly the foreign substantive rules), based on which the parties state their facts and assert their rights. In fact, characterization reflects a mutual communication between legal rules (especially the foreign rules) and forum's conflicts rules. Consequently, the key issues of characterization are to classify foreign legal rules and to resolve the conflicts of characterization. When the object of characterization is accepted as legal rules, various theories or approaches on characterization, their strongpoint and weakness as well, will be easily understood. "The lex fori doctrine" prefers the conflict rules, while "the lex cause doctrine" prefers the substantive legal rules, both of which stand at the opposite ends of the spectrum, reflecting one side of the same coin and neglecting the other. However, two other approaches, that is, "the comparative law and analytical law doctrine" and "the new lex fori doctrine", attempt to surpass the mentioned two theories by trying to take both ends of the spectrum into consideration. Comparatively, "the new lex fori doctrine" deeply touches the nature of characterization, while "the comparative law and analytical law doctrine" is too Utopian to be practical. In conclusion, the way to characterization remains to be a flexible and unsettled process, like swing of the pendulum, oscillating between the two extremes of the conflict rules and the substantive rules, and finally stopping at a certain point based on specific cases. The issue of characterization, naturally, should be resolved by providing the judges with guidance from theories, principles and approaches, rather than enacting legislative rules by parliament.

An Analysis of the Anglo-American Rule of Character Evidence and Its Principles

The Expert Testimony System in Anglo-American Evidence Law

The Concept of Evidence: Its History of Evolution and Its Epistemological Reconstruction

The Relevancy Principle in the Federal Rules of Evidence

Exclusionary Rules in China

Characterization: What is Characterized and the Main Theories

Theoretical anlysis on Exclusionary Rules of Illegal Evidence Chen Ruihua

Privilege Rules: The System and Practice in USA-On the Universality and Differences of Privilege Rules and Their Establishment in the Context of P.R. China

Chinese Mode of Illegal Evidences' Exclusion

Ascriptive Characteristics and Perceptions of Impropriety in the Rule of Law: Race, Gender, and Public Assessments of Whether Judges Can Be Impartial

On Rules of Defendant's Confession

The Rules of Evidence in Procedural Adjudication

New Doctrine of Legal Evidence

The Evolution of the Concept of "Person" in Criminal Jurisprudence

Authentication of Real Evidence

On the Legality Requirements of Evidence in Civil Action

The Realm of Criminal Law

Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law

On the Authentication and Forensic Appraisal of Physical Evidence——Analysis with American Law for Reference

What Kind of Rules for the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence Does China Need?

Understanding the Significance & Complexity of the Brady Rule