第一新編的既得權方法論，早期在Cook、Lorenzen、Yntena、Cavers及其他學者的批評下，已「無尊嚴的落幕」。但是Hill認為一損到1950年代末期，「選法革命才大部份由Brainerd Currie一個人的著作正式開始及完成。在英美法的歷史上，他的功績是從來沒有人可以與其比擬。」Posnak則謹慎的將其陳述修正為「」Currie在國際私法的影響上，假如不是比任何人，至少比任何評論員，對任何部門的英美法影響都還要大」Currie理論的主軸是，當在選擇各種競爭的法律時，法院應注重這些法律背後之政策及個別案件中之事實。Currie及他的前輩認為，去選定這些競爭的法律，而不去考慮他們的內容，會如同既得權方法論一般的，在本質上是不健全的，在堅信政策分析的基礎上，個人在早期的著作中強烈的主張，應在所牽連的政策中，確認出主流之價值，以作為法院抉擇之依據。個人將下不自量力的認為，這個 “multistate theory” (Leflar很慈悲的賜此名給作者的理論)，或者在某些方面，於某種程度上，為Reese及Leflar所認許。但是如何機械式的去確認主流價值，以避免所可能引起的爭議，多年來一直困擾作者。如同學禪一般，有日作者突然頓悟，國際私法學者應停止假裝去辨別實體法上之主流價值，而應將此艱鉅的工作交還給國內法專家，尊重他們的專長。於臺灣、英國及美國受過總共十一年的法學訓練後，個人深知於英美國際私法，大部分的法理基礎，是與法院於處理純粹的國內案件的法理基礎一致的。如同Currie在他歷史性的鉅作中所寫的：「現在是回歸我們法律制度所固有的方法的時候，並且由於多年的訓練及經驗，我們的法官及律師對這個方法是完全有能力去使用。」作者一輩子都在鑽研實體法方法論，於內心深?，個人深信此方法論為國際私法正確且唯一的道路，但個人這輩子真的走對路嗎？ 最後附帶一提的是，新德國及英國侵權行為選法規則，很明顯的採納第二新編的最重要關連說。候醍當美國判例法及第二新編（於第6條(2)(b)、(2)(e)、(2)(c)及comment (b)），一再重申分析所牽連的州的政策的必要性時，這些歐洲的新法典卻忽略了上個世紀驚天動地的革命所產生的法學趨勢。這些歐洲新法典，如Maguire v. Exeter & Hampton Elec Co. 一案所用的字眼：「處於現代潮流的一灘死水中。」這些「新」法典正是Cavers於1933年所抨擊的「法域選擇法規」，如果不是位處於大陸法國家，個人實在不願虛光陰，浪費寶貴生命，去評論這些不合時宜的條文。 作者完全贊同Posnak，但於此個人仍願嘗試著去修正其說法如下：「Currie在國際私法的殕響上，假如不是比任何人，至少比任何評論員，對任何部門的法律影響都還要大。」

The early criticism of Cook, Lorenzen, Yntena, Cavers and others led to the “fall from grace” of the vested rights approach of the First Restatement. It was not until the late 1950s, in the words of Hill: “The revolution in choice of law was inaugurated, and indeed accomplished, largely by the writing of one man, the late Brainerd Currie, in a feat without parallel in the history of the common law.” Hill was cautiously modified by Posnak as “Currie had more influence on conflicts law than any commentator, if not person, has had on any area of the common law.” The crux of Currie’s approach is that in choosing between competing laws, courts should take into account the policies behind those laws and the facts of the particular case. Currie and his precursors argued that it is inherently unsound to choose between competing law without reference to the content of those laws, as the vested rights approach did. Firmly believing in policy analyses, in my previous writing, I vehemently advocated the importance of dentifying the prevailing value of the competing policies. In my personal opinion, this “multistate theory” (as Leflar kindly maned it) perhaps to certain extent approved by Reese and Leflar in some aspects. However, for years I have been deeply disturbed by the possible controversy engendered by the identification of the prevailing value. Sudden enlightenment came when one day I decide to forgo the facade’ of identifying the prevailing value, and leave the daunting task to domestic lawyers to do their job. After studying in Taiwan, London and the U.S., I know that in the field of conflict of laws, most of the doctrinal resources are the same resources the court would use in a purely domestic case. As Currie in his celebrated article wrote: “it is time to return to methods that are indigenous to our legal system and that our judges and lawyers are fully competent to utilized by reason of their training and experience.” I have dwelt on substantive law methodology all my life, deep in my heart I know I am heading the right and only path of conflict of laws, but am I? The new German and British choice of laws rules for torts, obviously espouse the idea of the most significant relationship test of the Second Restatement. However while the Second Restatement repeatedly emphasized the importance of analyzing he policies of the involved stated (in section 6(2)(b), Section 6(2)(e), Section 6(2)(c) and comment (b)), those European new codes ignore the revolutionary trend of the last century. Those European new codes in the words of Maguire v. Exeter & Hampton Elec. Co (114N.H. 589, 325A. 2d 778 (1974), “lies in the backwater of the modern stream.” Those “new” codes are what Cavers called “jurisdiction – selecting rules” in 1933, if I were not in a civilian country, I would not waste my precious life to comment on such anachronistic rules. I concur with Posnak, but I am tempted to modify his statement as: “Currie had more influence on conflicts of law than any commentator, if not person, has had on any area of the law.”S