16见前注3，第43页。
17根据《罗马公约》第4条1款的规定，如果当事人未明确选择合同适用的法律，也无法从合同条文或案件具体情况合理认定当事人的选择，则合同应适用与之有最密切联系国家的法律。按照第4条2款的规定，履行合同特征性义务的一方当事人订立合同时的惯常居所地国家，或该当事人是法人组织或非法人实体时，其管理中心所在地国家，应推定为与该合同有最密切联系的国家。但是，如果合同是在其特征性义务履行者的贸易或专业活动过程中订立的，则该方当事人的主营业地所在国应推定为与合同有最密切联系的国家；如果特征性履行行为是在上述主营业地以外的另一营业地（例如分支机构所在地）完成，则与该合同有最密切联系的国家应是该另一营业地所在国。
18有关本案详情，参见前注10，第144页。
〔本文刊载于《中国法学》2002年第3期〕
[Abstract] In the transaction of a letter of credit，the par-
ties may often be situated in different jurisdictions having different
字串5
laws regarding both substance and procedure. When incorporated，
letters of credit are governed by the Uniform Customs and Practice
for Documentary Credits（UCP）。While the UCP is a set of rules
and practice on the use of letters of credit，this particular codifica-
tion does not offer solutions in the absence of a choice of law to the
problem of conflict of laws over disputes involving letters of credit.
The purpose of our study is to analyse doctrinal opinions and case
study on the matter and to propose a method for solving conflict of
字串4
laws. Furthermore，any solutions introduced here must respect the
autonomy principle of the letters of credit.
〔Key words〕letter of credit applicable law
conflict of laws autonomy principle
