敬请 高 手 帮 忙 将 下 面 的 句 子 中 的inappropriate... 和(a) 段 译 成 英 文， 先 谢 了。
[ 跟贴目录 ] [ 返回论坛 ]
常 客 乙 于 2000/01/20 09:26:39 发表在 汉英
--Provision should be made for access to information either through operation of law or by court order in appropriate cases as to the defendant's assets.
--The grant of such relief should be discretionary. It should be available:
(a) on a showing of a case on the merits on a standard of proof which is less than that required for the merits under the applicable law;
(b)on a showing that the potential injury to the plaintiff outweighs the potential injury to the defendant
--Provision should be made for access to information either through operation of law or by court order in appropriate cases as to the defendant's assets.
[ 回应主贴 ]
[ 返回论坛 ]
跟贴目录:
appropriate适当的场合/案例
作者：渔夫 - 2000/01/20 10:44:06
***
---------------------------
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
Just FYR.
作者：hz - 2000/01/20 23:07:05
***
(a)在依照标准证据指认对错，并且该证据比依照相关法律指认所需证据为少的案例呈示中。
说明：我这儿的用语极可能不是合格的法律术语，只是个意思罢了。另外，前些时laoliu的一帖使我
了解了一些什么是司法系统中的三类standard of proof；我猜您问题中的standard of proof指的应是三
类中任何可能的一类。附上laoliu原文供参考。
作者：laoliu - 2000/01/12 03:09:53 ***
There are three standards of proof in the American legal system: a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt.
A preponderance of the evidence, which means that the fact to be proven is more probable than not, must be shown in most civil cases.
By clear and convincing evidence, one shows that the truth of the allegations is highly probable. Used in some civil fraud suits.
To convict a person of a criminal offense, the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt arises when the factfinder (such as a jury member) cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists.
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
corrections:“标准证据”应为“证据标准”；后半句两处“证据”应换成“标准”。
作者：hz - 2000/01/21 02:07:47
***
(a)在依照某证据标准指认对错，并且该标准比依照相关法律指认所要求的标准为低的案例呈示中。
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
胡猜一通
作者：a fei - 2000/01/21 02:19:06
***
应通过法律行动开放信息。涉及到被告财产的，如果合适，也可依据法庭的命令予以开放。
--下列情况可酌情予以从轻处理。
(a) 该案件证明具有酌定从轻情节，但举证标准低于适用法律规定的酌定从轻情节举证标准；
(b) 证明原告可能受到的伤害比被告严重。
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
谢 楼 上 诸 位， 还 有 不 明 白 的 地 方
作者： 常 客 乙 - 2000/01/21 06:05:58
***
提 问 题 时 本 想 将 有 问 题 的 地 方 用 粗 体 显 示， 可 试 了 几 次 都 不 行， 当 时 没 时 间 一 一 列 举 了，只 好 请 诸 位 译 整 句。 现 将 疑 点 列 出， 请 教 各 位：
1. in appropriate cases as to the defendant's assets.
in appropriate cases 是 否 修 饰 either through operation of law or by court order?
as to the defendant's assets 是 否 修 饰 information?
如 果 是， 这 句 子 是 不 是 写 的 有 点 别 扭？
2. on a showing of a case on the merits on a standard of proof
这 几 个"on" 把 我 搞 糊 涂 了。What does " a case on the merits" mean? What does " on a standard of proof" mean? Could anyone explain, possibly by paraphrasing?
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
乱点一气
作者：a fei - 2000/01/21 07:26:59
***
我也是胡扯，现在继续。阿飞实在是不懂什么语法，只好说些外行话。
1. in appropriate cases as to the defendant's assets.
》in appropriate cases 是 否 修 饰 either through operation of law or by court order?
我觉着是指后一个。否则TNND说不通，应该跟得比较紧。
》as to the defendant's assets 是 否 修 饰 information?
如 果 是， 这 句 子 是 不 是 写 的 有 点 别 扭？
可能是。我觉得是指“PROVISION of access to information”，这样处理可能比较安全。
》2. on a showing of a case on the merits on a standard of proof
》这 几 个"on" 把 我 搞 糊 涂 了。What does " a case on the merits" mean? What does " on a standard of proof" mean? Could anyone explain, possibly by paraphrasing?
这里的题眼应该是“merits”。我读过一些中文的法学普及读物，知道法官在决定是否从轻发落时考虑的因素有两种：1）法定从轻情节；2）酌定从轻情节。又联想到前文的discretionary和grant of relief，就认定merits是酌定从轻情节了。这是我翻译这个句子的根本出发点，如果站不住脚，那么一切都是白费工夫。
且认为我的判断基本正确，剩下的就好办了。standard of proof which.......你完全可以不管，只把它作为standard就可以了。前面第一个on不管它，是跟available的。showing of a case on merits就是show某个case具有merits，show的原则就是根据standard of proof which。。。。。。
不对请笑话我。
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
my understanding
作者：hz - 2000/01/21 17:35:07
***
--对于在适当的案例中，可经由法律的实施或法庭的命令来掌握被告财产情况一事，应该制定出法律
条款。
--是否同意补偿，是(法官?)自主的(按：想是相对于法律硬性规定而言)。下列情况下应准予补偿：
(a)如果案例呈示时的是非指认是基于 比 依照适用法律进行指认 标准为低的 证据标准；
(b)如果案例呈示对于原告的潜在伤害超过对于被告的潜在伤害。
您谈到的问题：
(1)我认为句子的主干是
Provision should be made for access to information as to the defendant's assets.
(Yeah, I think "as to the defendant's assets" 修饰 "information")。而
either through operation of law or by court order 与 in appropriate cases
之间不存在修饰与被修饰的关系。两者并列地修饰“access”。
(2)“on a showing of”中“showing”是名词，“展示”“呈示”，指法律程序中把一件件证据往
外搬、以搞清是非曲直这个过程；那么“on”也就不难理解了；
“a showing of a case on the merits”的动词化说法就是“show a case on the merits”。在字典中
能找到这样的例句：
“We must decide the case on its merits.” (meaning “according to the rights and wrongs of the case, without being influenced by personal feelings”)
类推，我觉得“show a case on the merits”似乎也不难理解了，即“实事求是”“不搀杂情绪”
“对就是对，错就是错”地呈示某个案例。
对错(“merits”)需要标准，所以就有了“on a standard of proof”这个修饰短语，“依...标准”
之意。依照常识判断对错同依照适用法律判断结果可能会很不相同，修饰语的一长串词讲的就是这
回事。“证据标准”这个汉语短语听起来很别扭，但是参阅一下laoliu那段解释我感觉就清楚多了。
或者简单些，象a fei说的，不管怎样，说到底就是个“标准”。
一两句相关的题外话：看来涉及具体专业知识较多的内容仅凭英文语法分析进行翻译实在是头疼，
我也搞不懂那些法律行话，可是起了头又放不下，只好连查带蒙。译完了，好象猜到了一点上下文
。Relief是指法庭上，尤其是“公平法庭”(court of equity：法律不够用，凭人们对于“公正”的
公共标准进行判决等)上原告所要求的补偿。为什么要求这种补偿呢？就是下面(a)(b)中罗列的两种
情形。在第一种情形中，所据标准有利于被告，因而造成对原告不够公平；第二种情形中，案例呈示
过程本身(例如由于法庭的公开性等)对原告的潜在伤害超出了对被告的潜在伤害，于原告也是一种不
公平处，所以规定至少在此两种情形下，原告索取某种补偿的要求应得到准许。
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
补充一句
作者：hz - 2000/01/21 20:13:05
***
我想我知道“证据标准”是什么意思了。其实不了解具体是个什么标准也完全不妨碍理解。这句话
的意思在于，依照适用法律，原告的某条证据本应是合格算数的；可是在一个较低的证据标准(例如
常识标准)下，这条证据也许就算不得是证据了：那么在这个框架下定案，当然比在法律框架下定案
对被告更有利，因为标准放宽了。所以原告据此要求补偿应是合理的。
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
Paraphrase
作者：laoliu - 2000/01/22 02:25:34
***
In those cases as seen appropriate by the Court, arrangements should be made, or it should be made convenient, for the Plaintiff to examine documentation regarding the Defendant's assets, either through operation of existing laws or by an order issued from the Court.
It's the Court's sole discretion, or the Court has the authority by itself, to award the specific relief that the Plaintiff has sought, which may include any or all of such requests as that he receive financial compensation, that it be declared that certain facts exist, and that the Defendant be prohibited from the continuation of an offending act or be compelled to do something to prevent imminent and possibly irreparable harm. The awarding of such remedy should take place
1) upon a showing of a case, or upon the validation of the Plaintiff's case, by presentation of argument or evidence, for which the Court may lower the standard of proof, or the level of certainty and the degree of evidence necessary to establish proof, so that relief could be awarded even when evidence presented by the Plaintiff might not be sufficient to establish its validity under normal circumstances.
Standards of proof:
Standards of proof are very much subjective ones: in most civil cases, if a trier of fact (a judge or juror) thinks that there is a fifty-one percent possibility that the offending act by the Plaintiff caused the injury to the Plaintiff, she must decide for the Plaintiff. This standard of proof here is called a preponderance of the evidence.
Courts of equity
The courts of equity, as opposed to the courts of law, where cases are tried on the basis of written law and common law, hear only those cases for which there are no adequate remedy at law. The two types of courts have been united in England and most U.S. states.
Consider this example: D gave P a good beating and P was hospitalized for a few days. D was arrested and convicted of assault and battery. D spent three months in jail and was released.
Legal relief: P obtains a restraining order against D so D has to stay 300 feet away from P. Also, D has to pay P's medical bills. There are specific laws for giving such remedies.
Equitable relief: "just to be fair," D must pay $10,000 for P's pain and suffering. Since no law says $10,000 is the right amount for P's particular injury, the judge or the jury has great discretion to decide on the basis of "justice according to fairness."
Disclaimer： I do not claim any expertise in legal matters. Read at your own risk.
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
Have read at my own risk :-) Very informative. Many thanks!
作者：hz - 2000/01/22 03:18:50
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
Many You're welcome's
作者：laoliu - 2000/01/22 05:51:42
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
:-):-):-)
作者：hz - 2000/01/22 06:05:47
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
非 常 感 谢a fei, hz,laoliu, yufu 等 诸 位 帮 助， 学 到 了 许 多， 谢 谢
作者： 常 客 乙 - 2000/01/24 03:57:03
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
请原谅我的好奇心。如果有更多的前后文，能不能帖出来我看看。谢谢！
作者：A FEI - 2000/01/24 07:15:00
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
Of course, and with pleasure, here you are:
作者： 常 客 乙 - 2000/01/24 10:05:58
***
The text of the ILA ( international law association) on Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation is as follows:
Scope of Principles
1. Provisional and protective measures perform two principal purposes in civil and commercial litigation:
(a) to maintain the staus quo pending determination of the issues at trial; or
(b)to secure assets out of whcih an ultimate judgment may be satisfied.
2. These Principles are intended to be of general application in international litigation.but they were drafted bearing in mind a paradigm case under category(b)above of measures to freeze the assets of the defendant held in the form of sums on deposit in a bank account with a third party mank.
Nature of the Remedy
3.States should make availble without discrimnation provisional and protective measures with the objective of securing assets out an ultimate judgment may be satisfied.
4. The grant of such relief should be discretionary . It should be available:
(a)
(b)
5. The defendant should not be entitled to hide his assets behind a corporate veil or other subterfuge.
6. The plaintiff should ensure that the defendant be informed promptly of the order, notwithstanding any formal legal requirements for service of the order and the legal consequences which may flow from service.
7. The defendant should have the right to be heard within a reasonalbe time and to object to the provisional and protective measure ordered.
8. The court shold have authority to require security or other conditions from the plaintiff for the unjury to the defendant or to third parites which may result from the granting of the order. In determining whether to order security, the court should considcer the availability of the plaintiff to respond to a claim for damages for such injury.
9. Provisions should be made for acess to information either through operation of law or by court order in appropriate cases as to the defendant's assets.
Ancillary Proceedings
10. the jurisdiction ot grant provisional and protective measures should be independent from jurisdiction on the merits.
11. The mere presence of assets within a country should be a sufficient basis for the jurisdiction to grant provisional and protective measures in respect of those assets.
12. It should be a condition for the court exercising jurisdiction to grant provisional and protective measueres that a substantive action is filed within a reasonalbe time either in the forum or abroad( but the court shall not act in aid of a substantive action abroad if there is no reasonalbe possibility of the judgment rendered on the substance in the foreign court being enforceable in the forum).
14. There may be scope for the court exercising substantive jurisdiction to play a subervisory role, on the application of the defendant, over provisioal and protective measures granted in other countries, considering in particular whether in a aggregate thosse measures are justifiable in the lighyt of the action as whole, and the amont claimed in it.
15. The applicant for provisional and protective measures must inform the requested court of the current status of proceedings for provisional and protective measures and on the merits in other countries. The possibility is not even excluded of states conferring on their courts permission, where authorized, to communicate directly with relevant judicial authorities in other countries.
.......
Forum Arresti and Foru, Patrimonii
21. The fact that the court has granted a provisional and protective measure does not in itself found jurisdiction over the substantive claim, whether or not limited to the value of the frozen assets.
Interim Payments
22. Theprocedure in domestic law under which the court may order an interim payment(i.e.an outright payment to the plaintiff which may be subsequently revised on final judgment) is not a provisional and protective measure in the context of international litigation.
The international law association, report of the 67th conference held at Helsinki, 12 to 17 August 1996, published by the ILA, London, 1996, p.202-204.
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
谢谢
作者：a fei - 2000/01/24 18:51:32
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
The paraphrasing must have taken a lot of your time, thanks very much indeed. It is very helpful.
作者： 常 客 乙 - 2000/01/24 10:09:37
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
Your explanation and analysis are very clear. You must have been a teacher. Thank you very much.
作者： 常 客 乙 - 2000/01/24 10:12:48
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
You are very welcome. But I've always been a student. :-) Thanks for the context provided!
作者：hz - 2000/01/24 17:12:11
***
[ 回应此贴 |
查看原贴 ]
[ 跟贴目录 ] [ 返回论坛 ]