我國破產法採取屬地主義而無國際破產法制，已落後日本、南韓甚多。政府於2016年提出破產法全面修正案，包含了國際債務清理法制，意義重大。本文針對草案進行探討，結論可舉下面數點：（1）在倒產抵觸法之部分，我國法草案規定仿自德國倒產法。因此關於這些條文之意義旨趣以及其解釋適用應可適度參考德國法。（2）草案第304條雖規定外國倒產程序之效力依該外國法，復設第306至308條之例外，但因起草過程之討論未臻詳盡，故不宜解釋為關於其他事項係全面承認外國倒產程序法之效力。（3）關於抵銷之準據法，草案與我國國際私法通說不同，也與德國法規定有異。由於起草過程並無實質討論，故宜解為法有不備或應進行限縮解釋，以免造成不合理後果。（4）草案就外國倒產程序之承認，未區別「主程序」與「從程序」，此可能在程序競合時造成處理上之困難，或造成不合理結果，立法者宜再進行增修。（5）草案之國際倒產規定似是混合了日本法與德國法之規範模式。不過，日本法與德國法之規範模式有根本上之不同，我國法草案各自擷取了日本法與德國法的部分要素，將來能否順利運作，不無疑慮；法院宜避免說文解字或考據訓詁式的適用，而應力求在個案獲得妥當結果。

The present bankruptcy law in Formosa=Taiwan was enacted in 1935 and contains no international insolvency regulations. In 2016 a draft bill of new Insolvency Law was sent from the Government (Executive Yuan) to the Parliament (Legislative Yuan), which contains new provisions of international insolvency law. This article analysis the draft law, after introducing the present situation of international insolvency law in Formosa. The author observes that the new draft bill on international insolvency law has substantially referred to Japanese law and German law, its 3 articles on conflict of laws concerning insolvency are made in imitation of German law. However, the draft bill has some problems that need to be addressed. The author discusses those issues. Concerning the provisions in the draft bill relating to parallel insolvent procedures, the author argues that the draft bill has some bugs, and might be difficult to understand and to implement. A further discussion regarding the regulation model is therefore recommended.