20世纪末,已故的美国国际私法学家荣格教授掀起了强劲的冲突法革命的余波。荣格教授在他的著作中,对主流冲突法的正统理论进行了深入批判,见地深刻,论述有力。从实体法方法的角度对美国冲突法革命进行了评价。他不仅否定多边主义方法,也否定单边主义方法即法则区别理论,同时也否定柯里的新单边主义方法,他对传统法律选择思想的批判,可谓集美国冲突法革命的全部批判之大成。他主张法官在审理国际私法案件时,应从个案中直接归纳出国际性质的、专门的法律规则,这种方法称之为实体法方法。① At the end of the 20th century, Professor John Jung, the late U.S. private international law scientist, set off a powerful afterthought in the revolutionary law of conflict. In his writings, Professor Jung condemned the orthodox theory of the mainstream conflict law deeply and meticulously. From the perspective of substantive law, this article evaluates the revolution of the conflict law in the United States. He denied not only the method of multilateralism but also the theory of unilateralism, that is, the theory of discriminating the law. At the same time, he denied Curie’s new unilateralism. His critique of the traditional law choice was the culmination of all the criticisms of the revolution in the conflict law in the United States . He advocated judges in the trial of cases of private international law, should be directly from the case summed up the international nature and special rules of the law, this method is called the substantive method. ①