单选题 Marriage may be about love, but divorce is a business. For global couples—born in different countries, married in a third, now working somewhere else and with children, pensions and other assets sprinkled over the world—a contested divorce is bliss for lawyers and a nightmare for others.
Divorce laws vary wildly, from countries (such as Malta) that still forbid it to Islamic states where—for the husband, at least—it may be obtained in minutes. Rules on the division of property and future financial obligations vary hugely, too. France expects the poorer party, usually the wife, to start fending for herself almost immediately; England and some American states insist on lifelong support. Some systems look only at the "acquest"; others count the lot. A few, like Austria, still link cash to blame. Japan offers a temptingly quick cheap break, but—for foreigners—little or no enforceable contact with the kids thereafter, notes Jeremy Morley, a New York-based '"international divorce strategist". Other places may be mum-friendly when it comes to money but dad-friendly on child custody.
The European Union is trying to tidy up its divorce laws. A reform in 2001 called Brussels Ⅱ tried to stop forum shopping, in which each party sought the most favorable jurisdiction, by ruling that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. That worked—but at the cost of encouraging trigger-happy spouses to kill troubled marriages quickly, rather than trying to patch them up. This, says David Hodson, a specialist in international divorce law, favors the "wealthier, more aggressive, more unscrupulous party". It goes against the general trend towards counseling, mediation and out- of-court settlement.
An EU measure called Rome Ⅲ, now under negotiation and penciled in to come into force in 2008, tries to ensure that the marriage is ended by the law that has governed it most closely. It may be easy for a Dutch court to apply Belgian law when dealing with the uncontested divorce of a Belgian couple, but less so for a Spanish court to apply Polish rules, let alone Iranian or Indonesian, and especially not when the divorce is contested.
Such snags make Rome Ⅲ "laughably idiotic-a recipe for increasing costs", according to John Cornwell, a London lawyer. Britain and Ireland Say they will opt out. That, says Mr. Hodson, will give a further edge to London. Since a judgment in 2000 entrenched the principle of "equality" in division of marital assets, England, home to hundreds of thousands of expatriates, has become a "Mecca for wives", says Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm. David Truex, who runs a specialist international divorce outfit, reckons that at least a fifth of divorce cases registered in London's higher courts now have an international element.
For the typical global couple, such high-profile, big-money cases matter less than the three basic (and deeply unromantic factors) in marriage planning. According to Mr. Truex, a rich man should choose his bride from a country with a stingy divorce law, such as Sweden or France, and marry her there. Second, he should draw up a pre-nuptial agreement. These are binding in many countries and have begun to count even in England. Third, once divorce looms, a wife may want to move to England or America (but should avoid no-alimony states such as Florida); for husbands, staying in continental Europe is wise.
Outside Europe, the country—or American State—deemed the most "appropriate" in terms of the couple's family and business connections will normally get to hear the case. But here too unilateral action may be decisive. When Earl Spencer, brother of Princess Diana, divorced his first wife, he surprised her by issuing proceedings in South Africa where they were then living. In England, where they had been domiciled, she might have got better deal. She ended up suing her lawyers.
The lesson for couples? How you live may determine the length and happiness of your marriage. Where you live is likely to determine how it ends,

【正确答案】 A

【答案解析】题目问Rome Ⅲ措施受到人们质疑的原因。第4段首句提出“An EU measure called Rome Ⅲ…tries to ensure that the marriage is ended by the law that has governed it most closely(Rome Ⅲ旨在确保婚姻由与其关系最为密切的法律来终结)”。紧接着作者举例说明，荷兰法院也许很容易运用比利时法律来受理一对离婚无争议的比利时夫妇离婚案件，但要是让西班牙法庭执行波兰(更不用说伊朗或印尼)的规定，就不太容易了，而若是离婚存在争议就更难了。第5段第1句“Such snags make RomeⅢ 'laughably idiotic-a recipe for increasing costs'…Britain and Irdand say they will opt out(这些困难使得Rome Ⅲ可笑至极，只会增加成本……英国和爱尔兰说将选择退出)”。由此可见Rome Ⅲ措施受人质疑的原因是不实用，故A为答案。