第4(1)条德国私人国际选择将renvoi选择性地适用于其他国家的法律可以支持作为其有意义的原因而提出的renvoi的问题。在外国法律适用的情况下，德国人对renvoi的立场表明了《外国冲突法》的适用。对于理解中国国际私法驱逐出境,在第九条规定,当一个主题是驱逐出境就那么外国法可以应用于民事关系和问题不包括冲突规则的驱逐出境的国家承认。在2010年之前，中国的立法对在中国的renvoi和司法解释保持沉默。在《中华人民共和国民法通则》第178条第2款中所作的司法解释，建议将其完全排除在外。虽然这样的排除实际上已经简化了renvoi的法律，但这可能导致了一个问题，因为过去几年里，renvoi已经出现了一些拒绝的情况，这最终使促进正义和其他方面的问题被拒绝。然而，中国的法律学者一直主张将renvoi纳入其中，至少在某些领域，它将支持国际决策和谐的lex fori的案例。如果一种立场接近完全拒绝Renvoi作为第9条的规定，那么它就会导致一种情况，即部分许可证会使法官的司法任务复杂化。它要么被拒绝，要么被完全允许，以确保外国法律和冲突规则没有改变renvoi被提出的意义。既然在renvoi的立场没有被采纳，那么就有可能适用于论坛法，而不太考虑其他国家的冲突规则，因为它们不适用于根据第9条的任何方式。在这一点上，还提出了关于外国法律的程序法是否需要考虑的问题。对第9条的一种非常字面的解释在这里得到了肯定的答案。程序问题通常由lex fori管理，因此被认为是公认的和公认的原则。他们不能被认为是某个国家的立法意志。
Article Art. 4(1)1 of the German Private International choses to selectively apply renvoi as for those situations where the law of another country could support the issue raised as renvoi for its meaningful cause. Where the foreign law applied, then the German standpoint on renvoi presents that the foreign nations conflict law applies. In the case of an understanding of renvoi in Chinese Private International Law, it is stated in Article 9 that when a subject is renvoi’d then the foreign law could be applied to the civil relation and issue would not include the conflict rules of the country where renvoi is admitted. Before the year 2010 the Chinese legislation was silent on what was to be the renvoi and judicial interpretation on the renvoi in China. A choice to even exclude it completely was suggested by a judicial interpretation made in Paragraph 2 of Article 178 of the General Principle of Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China. Although such an exclusion could in fact have simplified the law in renvoi, this could have led to issue as renvoi of the past years have shown some situation of rejection which ends up convenient for promoting justice and in others would have to be rejected. However, Chinese law scholars have been advocating for an inclusion of renvoi at least in some fields on the context that it would support the cases of lex fori where international decisional harmony would be ensured. Where a stance towards a near complete rejection of Renvoi as article 9 stipulates is allowed then it leads to a situation where a partial permit would complicate the judicial tasks of judges more. It should either have been rejected or have been permitted completely with care taken to ensure that the foreign country law and conflict rules does not change the meaning for which the renvoi is raised. Now since such a standpoint in renvoi has not been taken it so happens that there is a possibility for application of forum law with not much consideration for other country’s conflict rules as they would not be applicable anyways according to Article 9. Additional concerns are raised at this point as to whether the foreign law’s procedural law needs to be considered. A very literal interpretation of Article 9 leads to an affirmative answer here. Procedural issues are usually governance by the lex fori and hence are to be considered as being a well-established and a universally accepted principle. They can neither be considered as a legislative will of a particular country.