将经常居所确定为我国属人法首要连结点是立法者在各种价值博弈之下依据我国国情、法律环境和法律体系做出的较优选择，作为一个具有重要价值且适用日趋广泛的连结点，经常居所最大的问题在于含义不明确，需要在相关法律解释的指引下结合个案才能予以明确。2012 年 12 月 10 日我国最高人民法院通过了《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》若干问题的解释（一）（以下简称《法律适用法解释（一）》），该解释对经常居所做出了法律定义，即在满足“连续居住一年以上”和“作为生活中心”这两个主客观条件基础之上，排除特定例外情形后即可判定法律关系主体的经常居所所在地。然而该解释出台时我国并未积累太多的实践案例，此定义是否具有现实可适用性还有待观察。而截至目前，该解释已实施近十年，通过这近十年的司法实践积累，目前是对该认定规则的司法适用情况进行阶段性搜集和整理的理想时段。法律规则终究需要落实到司法实践，知悉实践问题才能更好地在立法层面上做出修正，在司法层面上做好规范。基于此，本文从四个方面对《法律适用法》中自然人经常居所的认定情况展开了检视与剖析。针对司法实践中自然人经常居所的认定困境，进行成因剖析，以司法适用为切入点，分析了认定规则的适用情况以及法院对概念的把握情况，既有理论的研究也有针对性的案例探讨，以试图为我国经常居所的认定规范提出一些合理化建议。

      具体而言，本文的论证内容将按照以下逻辑展开：

      本文第一部分主要从理论层面引入连结点经常居所的认定问题，论述了有关经常居所性质争论的主流观点与理由、比较分析了主要国家的经常居所认定规则以及我国认定经常居所所遵从的法律准据和价值理念。

      本文第二部分则以问题为导向，聚焦于司法实践，分析现行主客观双重认定规则下，法院在适用客观居住时间标准和主观居住意图标准的过程中所出现的分歧与问题，以及法院在认定推理过程中自身存在的种种不规范现象。从实践案例中识别出认定困境是本部分内容的论述核心。

      本文第三部分回应了第二部分所论述的问题，剖析了这些问题产生的深层原因。一方面，反思了我国现行认定规则设定的不足之处，时间条件由当初的严格性异化为了僵硬性，主观条件则过于笼统而缺乏具体的适用方法；另一方面，挖掘了法院认定经常居所过程中不规范现象频频出现的原因，即法院未意识到连结点经常居所的重要性，加之部门法之间的关联概念又不统一，所以最终在多重因素影响之下加大了法院准确把握适用经常居所概念的难度。针对我国经常居所认定规则在实践适用时所存在的种种问题以及法院未能进行规范化认定的现状，本文第四部分从立法与司法两个视角提出了完善经常居所认定规则的具体方法与路径。立法上，我国应进一步优化并列式主客观认定标准，对于时间条件的认定依赖个案保证灵活化，对于主观条件的认定则提供细化的方法予以指导；司法上，我国应进一步规范法院裁判的思路与过程，要求区分适用近似概念，并重视发挥指导性案例的指引作用。

Determining habitual residence as the primary connection point of China’s personal law is a better choice made by legislators according to China 's national conditions, legal environment and legal system under various value games. As a connection point with important value and increasingly wide application, the biggest problem of habitual residence is that the meaning is not clear, which needs to be clarified under the guidance of relevant legal interpretation combined with individual cases. On December 10,2012, the Supreme People 's Court of China passed the interpretation of the Law of the People 's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relationships ( hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of the Law on Choice of the Law ). This interpretation makes a legal definition of habitual residence, that is, on the basis of satisfying the two subjective and objective conditions of " continuous residence for more than one year " and " living center, " the habitual residence of the subject of legal relationship can be determined after excluding specific exceptions. However, China did not accumulate too many practical cases when the interpretation was introduced, and whether this definition is in line with reality remains to be seen. Up to now, the interpretation has been implemented for nearly ten years. Through the accumulation of judicial practice in the past decade, it is currently an ideal period for collecting and sorting out the judicial application of the rules. After all, legal rules need to be implemented in judicial practice. Only by knowing practical problems can we make better amendments at the legislative level and standardize them at the judicial level.

     Based on this, this paper reviews and analyzes the identification of the habitual residence of natural persons from four aspects. Aiming at the dilemma of determining the habitual residence of natural persons in judicial practice, this paper analyzes the causes, takes judicial application as the starting point, analyzes the application of the identification rules and the court 's grasp of the concept, and has both theoretical research and targeted case discussion, in an attempt to put forward some reasonable suggestions for the identification rules of habitual residence in China.

     This paper mainly consists of the following four parts:

     The first part mainly introduces the theoretical issue, discusses the mainstream views and reasons for the debate on the nature of the habitual residence, and comparatively analyzes the rules of the identification of habitual residence in major countries and the legal guidelines and values that China follows in the process of identifying habitual residence.

      The second part is issue-oriented, focusing on judicial practice, and analyzing the problems that arise in the application of the objective standard and the subjective standard in the practice under the dual identification rules, as well as the various irregularities in the court's own identification reasoning process. Identifying the dilemma of identification from practical cases is the core of this part.

      The third part responds to the problems discussed in the second part and analyzes the underlying causes of these problems. On the one hand, it reflects on the shortcomings of the current identification rules in China. The time condition is alienated from the original strictness to the rigidity, and the subjective condition is too general and lacks specific applicable guidance methods ; on the other hand, it explores the reasons for the frequent occurrence of non-standard phenomena in the process of the court 's determination of habitual residence, that is, the court is not aware of the importance of the connection point of the habitual residence, and the related concepts between the departmental laws are not unified. Therefore, under the influence of multiple factors, it is more difficult for the court to accurately grasp the concept of habitual residence. In view of the problems existing in the practical application of the rule on recognition of habitual residence in China and failure of courts to standardize the identification, the fourth part puts forward the specific methods to adjust the rule for the recognition of habitual residence from the perspectives of legislation and justice. Legislatively, China can modify the parallel subjective and objective identification standards to complementary identification standards, relying on individual cases to ensure flexibility in the process of identification, and providing detailed methods for guidance on the determination of subjective conditions; judicially, China should further standardize the thinking and process of court adjudication, distinguish the application of approximate concepts, and attach importance to the guiding role of guiding cases.