世界法律体系简介（中英文）

1.how to understand the separation of power?

The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the triaspolitica principle, is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). The model was first developed in ancient Greece. Under this model, the state is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The typical division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. It can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary system where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified.

三权分立，往往不准确交替使用的三叠纪政治学原则，是一个典范的状态的治理（或谁控制的状态）。在古希腊最早开发的模式。在这种模式下，状态分为分支，每个单独的和独立的权力和责任领域，使得一个部门的权力不与与其他部门相关的权力冲突。分支机构的典型划分成一个立法机关，行政和司法机关。它可以对比权力的议会制度，其中行政机关和立法机关（司法机关有时部分）是统一的融合。

Comparison between tripartite and bipartite national systems[edit]

Constitutions with a high degree of separation of powers are found worldwide. The UK system is distinguished by a particular entwining of powers. In Italy the powers are completely separated, and even though the Council of Ministers needs a vote of confidence from both chambers of Parliament, that represents a large number of members (almost 1,000).[14] A number of Latin American countries have electoral branches of government.

Countries with little separation of power include New Zealand and Canada. Canada makes limited use of separation of powers in practice, although in theory it distinguishes between branches of government.

Complete separation of powers systems are almost always presidential, although theoretically this need not be the case. There are a few historical exceptions, such as the Directoire system of revolutionary France. Switzerland offers an example of non-Presidential separation of powers today: It is run by a seven-member executive branch, the Federal Council. However, some might argue that Switzerland does not have a strong separation of powers system, as the Federal Council is appointed by parliament (but not dependent on parliament) and although the judiciary has no power of review, the judiciary is still separate from the other branches.

三方和双方国家制度的比较

与宪法权力分立的高度在世界各地找到。英国系统是由权力的特定缠绕在一起区分。在意大利的权力是完全分开的，即使部长会议需要表决的议会两院的信心，表示有大量的成员（近1,000）的。[14]一些拉美国家有分支机构选举政府。

带电源的小分离的国家包括新西兰和加拿大。加拿大使得有限的使用在实践中三权分立，虽然在理论上区分政府部门之间。

完整的三权分立制度几乎都是总统，虽然理论上这不一定是这种情况。有一些历史的例外，如法国大革命的督系统。瑞士今天提供权力的非总统分离的一个例子：它是由七名成员组成的行政部门，联邦委员会运行。不过，有些人可能会争辩说，瑞士没有权力系统的强大的分离，作为联邦委员会是由议会任命的（但不依赖于议会），尽管司法机构审查没有权力，司法机关仍是从其他分离分支机构。

2.How to Understand the American Judicial System

Step 1 Investigate the origin Investigate the origin of the law. The United States Constitution was finalized in 1788 and is still the supreme law of the land. It was based on the principal that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution protects the sovereignty of each state while mandating that they are unified as one nation. Step 2 Understand the authority Understand the authority of the branches. The power of the federal government was balanced among three equal branches to create a long-lasting government that would serve everyone. The three branches are the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

Americans vote to elect the members of the executive and legislative branches. The members of the judicial branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Step 3 Study the Supreme Court's power Study the Supreme Court’s power. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court and all lower courts are obligated to follow the guides set by the Supreme Court when making decisions.

Step 4 Learn about the inferior courts Learn about the lower courts: district courts and the courts of appeals. District courts handle most federal law cases. The U.S. courts of appeals review the appealed district court cases.

Step 5 Learn the difference between state and federal courts Learn the difference between the state and federal courts. Each state has its own court system. State courts have hierarchy levels with the highest level being the state’s supreme court. Federal courts make sure that state laws obey federal laws. Now you have a good understanding of the American judicial system.

Congress determines the number of Supreme Court Justices. There have been as many as 9 and as few as 6.

第1步调查的起源调查法的起源。美国宪法定稿于1788年，仍然是土地的最高法律。它是基于委托人所有的人都有生命权，自由权和追求幸福的权利。宪法保护每个国家的主权，同时强制要求它们统一为一个国家。 第2步了解当局了解分支的权威。联邦政府的权力在三个相同分支平衡，以创造一个持 久的政府，将成为每一个人。这三个部门是行政，立法和司法分支。

美国人投票选举行政和立法部门的成员。司法部门的成员由总统任命，并经参议院批准。 第3步研究最高法院的权力研究最高法院的权力。美国最高法院是最高法庭和所有下级 法院有义务遵循最高法院作出决定时设置的指南。

第4步了解下级法院了解下级法院：地区法院和上诉法院。区法院处理大多数联邦法律的案件。美国上诉法院审查上诉地方法院的案件。

第5步了解州和联邦法院之间的区别了解州法院和联邦法院之间的区别。每个国家都有自己的法院体系。州法院有层级最高级别是国家的最高法院。联邦法院确保国家法律遵守联邦法律。现在你有美国司法系统有很好的理解。 大会决定最高法院法官的数量。已经有多达9和少至6。 Law

Lady Justice, a goddess symbolising justice who bears a sword – symbolising the coercive power of a tribunal –, scales – representing an objective standard by which competing claims are weighed – and a blindfold indicating that justice should be impartial and meted out objectively, without fear or favor and regardless of money, wealth, power or identity.[1]

Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.[2] Laws can be made by legislatures through legislation (resulting in statutes), the executive through decrees and regulations, or judges through binding precedent (normally in common law jurisdictions). Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including (in some jurisdictions) arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution (written or unwritten) and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.

A general distinction can be made between (a) civil law jurisdictions (including canon and socialist law), in which the legislature or other central body codifies and consolidates their laws, and (b) common law systems, where judge-made precedent is accepted as binding law. Historically, religious laws played a significant role even in settling of secular matters, which is still the case in some religious communities, particularly Jewish, and some countries, particularly Islamic. Islamic Sharia law is the world's most widely used religious law.[3]

The adjudication of the law is generally divided into two main areas referred to as (i) Criminal law and (ii) Civil law. Criminal law deals with conduct that is considered harmful to social order and in which the guilty party may be imprisoned or fined. Civil law (not to be confused with civil law jurisdictions above) deals with the resolution of lawsuits (disputes) between individuals or organizations. These resolutions seek to provide a legal remedy (often monetary damages) to the winning litigant. Under civil law, the following specialties, among others, exist: Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus ticket to trading on derivatives markets. Property law regulates the transfer and title of personal property and real property. Trust law applies to assets held for investment and financial security. Tort law allows claims for compensation if a person's property is harmed. Constitutional law provides a framework for the creation of law, the protection of human rights and the election of political representatives. Administrative law governs what executive branch agencies may and may not do, procedures that they must follow to do it, and judicial review when a member of the public is harmed by an agency action.

International law governs affairs between sovereign states in activities ranging from trade to military action. To implement and enforce the law and provide services to the public by public servants, a government's bureaucracy, military, and police are vital. While all these organs of the state are creatures created and bound by law, an independent legal profession and a vibrant civil society inform and support their progress.

Law provides a rich source of scholarly inquiry into legal history, philosophy, economic analysis and sociology. Law also raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, and justice. There is an old saying that 'all are equal before the law'. In 1894, the author Anatole France said sarcastically, \alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.\Aristotle declared, \object to confirm and exalt into a system the exploitation of the workers by a ruling class\justice\

正义女神，女神的象征正义谁承担剑 - 象征着法庭的强制力 - ，鳞片 - 较客观的标准，其中竞争性要求称重 - 和一个眼罩，表明司法应公正入狱客观，无惧还是青睐和考虑钱，财富，权力或身份。[1]

法律是通过社会机构来实施管理行为规则体系。[2]法律可以通过立法（导致法规）进行立法通过，通过具有约束力的先例（通常在普通法通过法规的规定，法官或行政机关司法管辖区）。个人可以建立具有法律约束力的合约，包括可能选择接受替代仲裁正常法庭程序（在某些司法管辖区）仲裁协议。的法律本身的形成可以通过的结构（书面或书面）以及其中编码的权利的影响。该法塑造政治，经济，历史和社会的各个方面，并作为人与人之间关系的调解人。

一般可以区分（一）民事法律管辖区（包括佳能和社会主义法），其中立法机关或其他中央机构编纂并巩固他们的法律，以及（b）普通法制度，在法官作出的先例被接受之间进行作为具有约束力的法律。从历史上看，宗教的法律，甚至在解决的世俗事务中发挥了作用显著，这仍然是在一些宗教社区，特别是犹太人，还有一些国家，特别是伊斯兰的情况。伊斯兰教法是目前世界上使用最广泛的宗教法。[3]

法律的裁决一般分为简称为（一）刑法及（ii）民法两个主要领域。刑法处理被认为是有害于社会秩序，在其中有罪的一方可能会被监禁或罚款的行为。民法（不要与大陆法系国家上述混淆）涉及诉讼的（争端）的个人或组织之间的分辨率。这些决议寻求提供法律救济（往往金钱赔偿）的获奖当事人。根据民法，以下专业，除其他外，存在：合同法规定了从买车票到交易的衍生品市场。物权法规定的个人财产和不动产的转让和标题。信托法适用于为投资和金融安全资产。侵权法律允许赔偿要求，如果一个人的财产受到损害。宪法规定设立法律，人权保障和政治代表的选举的框架。行政法律管辖什么行政分支机构可以或不可以做什么，他们必须跟着做程序，司法审查时，一名市民被一个机构的行动受到伤害。国际法律管辖主权国家之间的事务活动，从贸易到军事行动。为了贯彻和执行法律和公务员，政府的官僚机构，军队提供的公共服务，警察是至关重要的。而国家的所有这些器官都创建并受法律约束的生物，一个独立的法律界和活跃的公民社会宣传和支持他们的进步。

法律规定的学术探究的丰富来源纳入法制历史，哲学，经济分析和社会学。法律还提出了关于平等，公平，公正的重要和复杂的问题。有句老话是“所有在法律面前一律平等”。 1894年，笔者法朗士讽刺地说，“在其雄伟的平等，法律禁止富人和穷人在桥下睡觉，乞讨街头，并窃取了面包。”[4]写作公元前350年，希腊哲学家亚里士多德宣称，“法治比任何个人的规则更好。”[5]米哈伊尔·巴枯宁说：“所有的法律已经为它的目的是确认和统治阶级拔高到一个系统中对工人的剥削” [6]西塞罗说：“更多的法律，正义少”。[7]马克思主义学说声称，将不被法律要求一旦国家已经凋谢了。

Constitution of the People's Republic of China

The Constitution of the People's Republic of China (simplified Chinese: 中华人民共和国宪法; traditional Chinese

is nominally the supreme law within the People's Republic of China. The current version was adopted by the 5th National People's Congress on December 4, 1982, with further revisions in 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004. Three previous state constitutions—those of 1954, 1975, and 1978—were superseded in turn. The current constitution is China's twelfth constitution since 1911.[1] See a timeline of all previous constitutions and amendments here. The Constitution has five sections which are the preamble, general principles, fundamental rights and duties of citizens, structure of the state (which includes such state organs as the National People's Congress, the State Council, the Local People's Congress and Local People's Governments and the People's Courts and the People's Procuratorates), the national flag and the emblems of the

state.

中国人民共和国宪法

中国人民共和国（简体中国的宪法规定：中华人民共和国宪法;中国传统

名义上是中国人民共和国境内的最高法律。当前版本已于1982年12月4日通过了第五届全国人民代表大会，进一步修订于1988年，1993年，1999年和2004年以前的三州宪法，那些1954年，1975年，和1978年分别取代反过来。现行宪法是中国的宪法第十二自1911年以来[1]参见所有以前的宪法修正案，并在这里时间表。宪法具有五段这是序言，总则，基本权利和公民的义务，国家的结构（其中包括诸如国家机关的全国人大，国务院，地方各级人民代表大会和地方各级人民政府和人民法院和人民检察院），国旗和国家的象征。

Constitutional enforcement[edit]

There is no special organization tasked with the enforcement of the Chinese constitution. Although in the constitution it stipulates that the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee have the power to review whether laws or activities violate the constitution.

Furthermore, under the legal system of the People's Republic of China, courts do not have the general power of judicial review and cannot invalidate a statute on the grounds that it violates the constitution. Nonetheless, since 2002, there has been a special committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress which has reviewed laws and regulations for constitutionality. Although this committee has not yet explicitly ruled that a law or regulation is unconstitutional, in one case, after the subsequent media outcry over the death of Sun Zhigang, the State Council was forced to rescind regulations allowing police to detain persons without residency permits after the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) made it clear that it would rule such regulations unconstitutional if they were not rescinded.

The Open Constitution Initiative was an organization consisting of lawyers and academics in the People's Republic of China that advocated the rule of law and greater constitutional protections. It was shut down by the government on July 14, 2009.

宪法实施

目前的任务是与中国宪法的实施没有专门的机构。虽然在其宪法规定，全国人民代表大会及其常务委员会有权审查法律或活动是否违反宪法的权力。

此外，中国人民共和国的法律制度下，法院没有司法审查的一般功率和法规，它违反了宪法不能在无效的理由。然而，自2002年以来，出现了全国人民代表大会已经审议了宪法和法律法规的常务委员会专门委员会。虽然这个委员会还没有明确裁定，法律，法规是违宪的，在一种情况下，随后的媒体哗然过孙志刚死亡后，国务院被迫撤销法规允许警察后拘留人没有居住许可全国人民代表大会常务委员会（人大常委会）常委明确表示，这将排除此类法规违宪，如果他们没有撤销。

开放宪法倡议是由律师和学者在中国人民共和国的法律主张和更大的宪法保护的规则的组织。它被关闭，政府在2009年7月14日。

Judicial system of China

The judicial branch is one of three branches of government in the People's Republic of China, along with the executive and legislative branches. Strictly speaking, it refers to the activities of the People's Court system. The Chinese court system is based on civil law modeled after the legal systems of Germany and France, but with local characteristics.[citation needed]

Constitutionally, the court system is intended to exercise judicial power independently and free of interference from administrative organs, public organizations, and individuals. Yet the constitution simultaneously emphasizes the principle of the \courts to adjudicate independently doesn't mean at all independence from the Party. It is the opposite, the embodiment of a high degree of responsibility vis-à-vis Party undertakings.\

司法部门是政府在中国人民共和国三个分支之一，伴随着行政和立法部门。严格地说，它是指人民法院系统的活动。中国法院系统是以德国和法国，法律制度之后，但具有地方特色的模拟民法。[来源请求] 宪法规定，法院系统将独立地行使审判权和无干扰的来自行政机关，社会团体和个人。然而，宪法同时强调的原则，

以“共产党的领导。”[1]在2007年指出的前任最高人民法院院长肖扬，“法院的权力，独立裁决并不意味着从党独所有它是相反的，责任相，以对比方事业的高度的实施例。“ [2]

The law protects citizens who are wrongfully deprived of their liberty by another. If you have been the subject of an arrest by the police or other state or federal official which took place without probable cause, in bad faith or if someone deprived you of your liberty, you may be able to make a claim and recover damages, including attorney’s fees and costs. Your rights are safeguarded by both the United States Constitution and state common law. False imprisonment is frequently alleged by a person who feels that he or she was unlawfully arrested. If the police did not have “probable cause” to arrest you, you can sue for false imprisonment. “False arrest” is really just a type of false imprisonment. The police have probable cause when there are enough facts to lead a reasonable person to conclude that you are committing or have committed a crime. This is a considerably higher standard than the mere “suspicion” an officer needs in order to stop you briefly to investigate possible criminal activity. If you feel that you have been the victim of a false imprisonment or false arrest you may wish to contact an attorney. Time is of the essence in many of these cases. In some instances, claims may be barred if they are not brought within a short time after the date of the occurrence. For more information, talk with an attorney.

法律保护市民不被错误的剥夺自由的权利。如果警察或其他州或联邦官员无合理原因、违反规定对你实行逮捕，或者有人非法剥夺你的自由，你可以提起诉讼，要求赔偿损失（包括要求对方支付律师费和其他费用）。你的权利受美国宪法以及州普通法的保护。认为自己被错误逮捕的人通常会抗议这种错误关押。如果警察没有正当理由逮捕了你，你可以以错误关押为由提起诉讼。错误逮捕属于错误关押的一种，当有足够证据表明行为人正在犯罪或者已经实施了犯罪行为时，警察就有了合理逮捕行为人的理由。为了迅速将案犯逮捕以便对犯罪活动进行调查，这个结论必须证据充分而非仅仅是怀疑，如果认为自己被错误关押或错误逮捕时，你也许希望能和律师联系。时间在许多案例中会成为至关重要的因素，一些发生过的案例表明，如果在案情发生后较短时间内没有提出诉求，法庭将会拒绝审理。需了解更多信息可向律师咨询。

Since the legal reforms of the late 1970s and 1980s, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has officially moved to embrace the language of the rule of law and to establish a modern court system. In the process, it has enacted thousands of new laws and regulations, and has begun training more legal professionals.[9] The concept of 'rule of law' has been emphasized in the constitution, and the ruling party has embarked on campaigns to promote the idea that citizens have protection under the law. At the same time, however, a fundamental contradiction exists in the constitution itself, in which the Communist Party insists that its authority supersedes that of the law.[11] Thus, the constitution enshrines the rule of law, yet simultaneously stresses the principle that the 'leadership of the Communist Party' holds primacy over the law.

The judiciary is not independent of the Communist Party, and judges face political pressure; in many instances, private party committees dictate the outcome of cases.[12] In this way, the CPC effectively controls the judiciary through its influence.[9] This influence has produced a system often described as 'rule by law' (alluding to the CPC's power), rather than rule of law.[13] Moreover, the legal system lacks protections for civil rights, and often fails to uphold due process.[14]

自20世纪70年代末和80年代的法律改革，在中国共产党（CPC）已经正式搬到拥抱法治的语言和建立现代法院体系。在这个过程中，它已经颁布了数以千计的新的法律法规，并已开始培养更多的法律专业人士。[9]的“法治”的概念一直在强调宪法，和执政党已开始活动，以促进这个想法，公民有受法律保护。与此同时，然而，从根本上的矛盾存在于宪法本身，在共产党坚持其权威取代了法律。[11]因此，宪法规定的法治，但同时强调原则在“共产党领导”拥有优先于法律。

司法不独立的共产党，和法官面临政治压力;在许多情况下，民营党委决定案件的结果。[12]这样，中国共产党通过有效的控制影响司法。[9]这种影响已经产生通常被描述为“以法治国”的系统（暗指中国共产党的权力），而不是法治。[13]此外，法律制度缺乏保护公民权利，往往不能坚持正当程序。[14]

No two legal systems,then,are exactly alike.Each is specific to its country or its jurisdiction.This does not mean,of course,that every legal system is entirely different from every other legal system.Not at all.When two countries are similar in culture and tradition,their legal systems are likely to be similar as well.No doubt the law of E1Salvador is very much like the Law of Honduras.The laws of Australia and New Zealand are not that far apart.

没有两个法系是恰好相似的。每一种法系对于它的国家和它的管辖范围是特定的。当然，这并不意味着每一种法系是完全不同于其它任何一种法系。当两个国家在文化和传统上相似的时候，他们的法系也很可能相似。难怪萨尔瓦多的法律和洪都拉斯的法律异常相似。澳大利亚的法律和新西兰的法律也不是相差甚远。

The system of criminal procedure in the United States is both adversarial and accusatorial.The adversatial aspects are as follows:the parties themselves develop and present the evidence before a passive and impartial decisionmaker,with the judge acting only as necessary to assure overall fairness of the contest between the sides.Accusatorial principles are not the same as adversarial principles,but they complement each other.Accusatorial principles require the “government in its contest with the individual to shoulder the entire load,”while adversarial principles require that the prosecutor,as the government′s representative,present the case against the defendant.Thus,the prosecutor must bear the entire burden of proving the defendant′s guilt on every element of the crime without the compelled assistance of the accused.The U.S. system allows for exceptions to the accusatorial principle,just as it contemplates exceptions to the asversatial principle,but it remains primarily accusatorial and adversarial.

在美国，刑事诉讼体系包括对抗式（当事人主义）和控告式（职权主义）。当事人主义包括以下几个方面：当事人自己在一个消极的公正的决策者之前收集和呈现证据，而法官仅扮演一个能够保证争议双方公正的必要角色。职权主义原则与当事人原则不同，但双方是互补的。职权主义原则要求政府在个别争议中承担全部责任。然而当事人主义原则要求政府代表的检察官呈现针对被告的案件。因此，公诉人必须承担证明被告有罪的全部责任， 并且在每一个犯罪要素上排除被告被强迫的帮助。美国体系容许排除职权主义原则，正如他沉思排除当事人主义原则，但它仍保持着主要的职权主义原则和当时人原则。

Direct Examination and Cross Examination

The plaintiff’s lawyer calls her or his witness and question the witness.This is know as direct examination.When the plaintiff’s lawyer has finished,the defendant’s lawyer may cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness .On cross-examination ,the defendant’s lawyer is free either to limit his questions to topics raised by the plaintiff’s lawyer or to limit his questions to topics raised by the plaintiff’s lawyer of to open a new line of questioning.When the defendant`s lawyer has finished,the plaintiff`s lawyer may redirect,or ask assitional questions of the same witness.On redirect examination,however,the plaintiff`s lawyer may ask only questions raised by the defendant`s lawyer on cross-examination;she or he may not open a new line of questioning.Upon completion of redirect,the defendant`s lawyer may recross-examination;she or he may not open a new line of questioning.Upon completion of redirect,the defendant`s lawyer may recross-examine but also is limited to questions raised on redirect.When both lawyers have asked all of their questions,the witness is excused.

原告律师可以直接要求她或者他的证人出庭和询问证人。这就是为人所知的直接询问。当原告律师完成询问后，被告律师可交叉质询原告证人。在交叉质询中，被告律师可以把话题限制在原告律师提前的话题上，也可以开始新一轮的提问。当被告律师结束后，原告律师可以再次直接地询问或对同一证人问其他问题。在再次直接询问中，原告律师仅可以就被告律师在交叉询问中提出的问题进行询问。她（或他）不可以再次提出新问题，当完成再次直接询问后，被告律师可再次交叉询问。但同时也受再次质询中所提问题的限制。当双方律师问完（证人）所以问题后，证人可退庭。

Law and Morality

A society's 'code of morality' may be defined as a set of beliefs; values, principles and standards of behavior, and such codes are found in all social groups. Emile Durkheim, a sociologist, had presented a theory of social cohesion, part of which rested on the notion that in technologically undeveloped societies, such as small tribal groups, there tends to be a single, consensually held moral code to which all members of the group subscribe. In a technologically advanced society such as our own, however, with immense differentiation in terms of social status, income, occupation, ethnic background and so on, it is unlikely that we will find such a monolithic moral code. Rather, there is diversity of moral attitudes on all kinds of social and personal issues.

Most of us, if asked to give an example of an area of moral rules in our society, would probably think of sexual morality, or perhaps acts of violence against the person. Most of us, if asked to give an example of an area of moral rules in our society,

would probably think of sexual morality, or perhaps acts of violence against the person. And, as we shall see, a moral code may not be wholly without its inconsistencies and contradictions: established institutions such as the Church may condemn apartheid, or racial segregation, on moral grounds, whilst other established institutions, notably at government level, may nevertheless maintain commercial and political relations with states which are structured around policies of apartheid, as has been seen for many years in the attitudes of various Western countries, including Britain, towards South Africa. Law and Morality: Divergences and Similarities

Though having much in common, law and morality have important points of divergence. Legal rules, for instance, are backed by official state sanctions and procedures, whereas moral rules, if they involve any sanctions at all, rest upon more diffuse and generalized informal sanctions --we might call this ' social disapproval'. For example, neighbors may shun a person whom they have discovered to be engaging in smuggling. In some instances, particular behavior may offend both legal and moral codes, such as the commission of murder, but in other cases, some people as immoral may define behavior, though that behavior is not unlawful. Examples are telling lies and committing adultery. In yet other cases, social behavior may be unlawful even though no moral disapproval attaches to the action in question; for example, a criminal offence of exceeding the speed the Relationship between Law and Morality

Morality is connected with the law in many ways. To begin with, the conditions under which a person may be held liable in law may be seen as based on the moral idea of ' blame' or ' fault'. At this point it is useful to outline some general considerations of the liability in law.

'Conditions of liability' may conveniently be divided into 'general' and 'specific' conditions. Specific conditions of liability depend on the precise scope of a given legal rule or set of rules, each of which will be different according to the context of the rules, their history and their objectives. For example, in criminal law the definition of ' theft' is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it, whilst the definition of murder is accepted as 'when a man of sound memory, and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature.., under the king's peace, with malice aforethought... ' These two legal rules dearly lay down different conditions which must be proved by the prosecution before liability can follow. The same variety will be found in the body of law we know as the law of tort, or civil wrongs, which includes rules specifying the conditions under which a defendant will be liable to a plaintiff for wrongs such as assault and battery, trespass to land, nuisance, defamation, negligence and various others; and yet other conditi6ns of liability are found within the law of contract.

Apart from the specific conditions of liability contained within individual roles, however, there are, underlying the idea of liability in law, certain general principles perceived by judges and legislators alike as being fundamental to liability in any branch of the law. These principles are rooted in conceptions of morality (of which the notion of justice is one of the most important), and the way in which these moral principles are incorporated into the law may best be appreciated by means of the criminal law examples cited above. It will be noted that before a person can be convicted of theft, it must be established not only that the accused person 'appropriated property belonging to another', but also that this appropriation took place with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'. Again, a conviction for murder can occur only if it is established, not simply that the accused brought about the death of another, but also that this was done 'with malice aforethought'.

It follows that if someone takes another's property in the belief that it is his or her own, or that if someone muses another's death by accident, then convictions for theft or murder cannot follow. In general, then, it is not considered acceptable in English law to subject a person to legal sanctions unless it can be shown that the person did the act in a 'blameworthy' manner, since we do not normally attribute blame in situations where injury occurs accidentally, or by reason of an honest mistake, or where the person concerned cannot be said to have been responsible for his or her actions. This means, then, that 'blameworthiness' -- a moral principle -- is normally required before we consider it acceptable to subject a person to legal sanctions. By way of illustration of this point: it is a defense in criminal law to show that the accused was, at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, suffering from some mental illness, or was for some other reason not in control of his or her actions. If X is hammering a nail, and D comes along, seizes X's wrist, and uses it to strike P with the hammer which X is holding, it will be D, not X, who will be liable for 6 that injury.

Similarly, in the law of contract, special legal rules apply regarding the capacity to make contracts of minors, mentally disordered persons and drunken persons. Where minors make contracts, the law presumes insufficient maturity to

appreciate fully the contractual bond, although there are exceptions to this: it has long been held that minors may be held bound by the terms of contracts for 'necessaries' (food, clothing and other items deemed essential). With regard to the other exceptional cases, their state of mind is likely to be such as to affect their capacity to understand what they are doing and the contractual obligations which they are taking oil.

These general principles may be summed up in two propositions: first, the law holds liable, as a general rule, only the actual wrongdoer, and second, the law insists, as a general rule, that liability is contingent upon a context in which the person concerned may be said to be morally blameworthy. These underlying general principles, referred to by such phrases as 'individual responsibility' and 'no liability without fault', have long been at the root of liability in English law, and are, despite certain exceptional situations, still regarded as fundamentally important.

法律与道德

一个社会的“道德代码”可以被定义为一组信念;价值观，原则和行为标准，而这样的代码中发现的所有社会群体。涂尔干，社会学家，提出了社会凝聚力的理论，其中的一部分在休息的概念，即在技术不发达的社会，如小部落群体，有往往是单一的，双方一致同意保持道德准则，以其中的所有成员组订阅。在科技发达的社会，如我们自己，然而，随着社会地位，收入，职业，种族背景等，这是不可能的，我们会发现这样一个整体的道德准则方面的巨大差异。相反，有对各种社会和个人道德问题的态度差异。

我们中的大多数，如果要求给在我们的社会道德规则的一个区域的一个例子，可能会认为性道德的，或者对人的暴力行为。我们中的大多数，如果要求给在我们的社会道德规则的一个区域的一个例子，可能会认为性道德的，或者对人的暴力行为。而且，正如我们将要看到，道德准则可能不是完全没有它的不一致和矛盾：建立机构，如教会谴责可能种族隔离或种族分离，在道义上，而其他机构的设立，尤其是在政府层面，仍可保持与它们围绕种族隔离政策，已经多年不见的各种西方国家，包括英国，对南非的态度，各国的商业和政治关系。 法律与道德：分歧异同

虽然有许多共同之处，法律和道德有分歧的要点。法律规则，例如，通过官方的国家的制裁和程序的支持，而道德规则，如果涉及任何制裁都，休息时多漫及全身非正式制裁 - 我们可以称之为“社会不满”。例如，邻居可能顺人，他们已经发现了被搞走私的人。在某些情况下，特定的行为可能会触犯法律和道德准则，如杀人佣金，但在其他情况下，一些人不道德可以定义行为，但这种行为是不是违法的。例子说谎和通奸。在另一些情况下，社会行为可能是非法的，即使没有道德不赞成重视有关的行动;例如，超过了速度法律与道德的关系刑事犯罪

道德是在许多方面的法律联系。首先，作为基于“怪”或“错”的道德观念下，一个人可能被追究责任在法律规定的条件可以看出。在这一点上勾勒法律责任的一些一般的考虑是非常有用的。

“责任条款”可以方便地分为“一般”和“特殊”条件。责任的具体条件取决于给定法律规则的确切范围或一组规则，其中每一个将根据规则，它们的历史和其目标的上下文是不同的。例如，在刑法中“盗窃”的定义是财产不诚实的拨款属于另一个与永久地剥夺该另一人的意图，而被公认为当一个男人的声音记忆，和“的谋杀定义自由裁量权的时代，在非法的境界任何合理的生物..任何误杀县，国王的和平下，有预谋......“这两个法律规则心疼放下，必须由检察机关法律责任之前证明不同的条件下可以随之而来。同一品种将法律的身体我们知道作为侵权法或民事过失，其中包括指定规则的条件下，被告将被处以原告过错，如殴打，侵犯土地被发现，滋扰，诽谤，疏忽和各种其他;和责任还没有其他conditi6ns是合同法中找到。

除了责任包含个人角色中的特定条件，但是，也有，责任在法律上根本理念，法官和立法者都认为作为根本责任在法律上的任何分行一定的一般原则。这些原则根植于道德（其中正义的观念是最重要的）的概念，并在这些道德原则纳入法律的方式，可能最好的上面提到的刑法手段的例子可以理解的。它会注意到，前一个人可以被裁定盗窃罪名成立，它必须建立不仅被控人“占有属于他人的财产”，也表明这种拨款发生了一起永久剥夺它的另一意图“。同样，如果成立，不能简单地认为被告所带来的他人死亡，还以为这样做是“恶意预谋”定罪谋杀只能发生。

因此，如果有人需要他人财产的信念，这是他或她自己的，或者说，如果有人若有所思地说另一个人的死亡事故，则定罪为盗窃或谋杀不能跟随。一般的话，它不被视为英国法律接受问题的人的法律制裁，除非能证明该人在“责备”的方式做的行为，因为我们不正常的地方属性伤害发生情况责怪意外，或因一个诚实的错误，或者有关的地方，不能说这个人一直负责他或她的行动。这意味着，那么，“过失责任” - 一个道德原则 - 通常需要，我们认为这是可以接受的议题的人，以法律的制裁了。通过说明这一点的方式：它是在刑法辩护，以证明被告是，在被指控的罪行发生时，一些患有精神病，或者是其他一些原因并不在他的控制或她的行为。如果X被锤打钉子，和D出现时，抓住X的手腕，并用它来打P与其中X是拿着锤子，这将是D，不是X，谁是承担责任的6伤。

同样，在合同法，特殊的法律规则就使未成年人，精神紊乱者和醉酒者的合同的能力。其中，未成年人订立合同，

法律规定，到期不足以充分领略合同债券，虽然也有例外：它长期以来一直认为，未成年人可能要为'必需品（'食品，服装等受合同条款项目被视为必不可少的）。至于其他的特殊情况下，他们的心态很可能是这样的，影响他们明白他们在做什么以及他们正在采取的石油合同义务的能力。

这些一般原则可归纳为两种主张：第一，法律责任成立，作为一般规则，只有实际的犯错者，二是法律坚持认为，作为一般规则，即负债是在上下文队伍，其中，有关的人可以说是道德上应受谴责。这些潜在的一般原则，通过这样的短语为“个人责任”和“不无过错责任”，简称长期以来一直在负债的英国法律的根源，并且，尽管某些特殊的情况下，仍然被视为具有根本重要性。

Sources of English Law

The expression ' sources of law' can mean at least two different things. It can refer to the historical origins from which the law has come, such as common law and equity. Second, it can refer to the body of rules which a judge will draw upon in deciding a case, and where these rules are to be found. In this second sense the sources of English law today are: Community law, legislation, delegated legislation, case law, legal textbooks, and custom. Community Law

Since the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community, now the European Community, it has progressively, but effectively, passed the power to create laws which are operative in this country to the wider European institutions. The United Kingdom is now subject to Community law, not just as a direct consequence of the various treaties of accession passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, but increasingly it is subject to the secondary legislation generated by the various institutions of the European Community.

European law takes three distinct forms: regulations, directives and decisions. Regulations are immediately effective without the need for the United Kingdom Parliament to produce its own legislation. Directives, on the other hand, require specific legislation to implement their proposals but the United Kingdom Parliament is under an obligation to enact such legislation as will give effect to the implementation of the directives. Decisions of the European Court of Justice are binding throughout the community and take precedence over any domestic law. Legislation

Parliament makes law in the form of legislation, i.e. Acts of Parliament. There are various types of legislation. Whereas public Acts affect the public generally; private Acts only affect a limited sector of the populace, either particular people or people within a particular locality. Within the category of public Acts a further distinction can be made between government Bills and private members Bills. The former are usually introduced by the government whilst the latter axe the product of individual initiative on the part of particular members of Parliament.

Before enactment the future Act is referred to as a bill. Without going into the details of the procedure, bills have to be considered by both Houses of Parliament and have to receive Royal Assent before they are actually enacted. Delegated Legislation

Delegated legislation has to be considered as a source of law in addition, but subordinate, to general Acts of Parliament. Generally speaking, delegated legislation is law made by some person or body to whom Parliament has delegated its general law making power. The output of delegated legislation in any year greatly exceeds the output of Acts of Parliament and, according to Professor Zander's computation, each year there are over 2000 sets of rules and regulations made in the form of delegated legislation as opposed to less than 100 public Acts of Parliament. Case Law

The next source of law that has to be considered is case law, the effective creation and refinement of law in the course of judicial decisions. It should be remembered that the United Kingdom's law is still a common law system and even if legislation is of ever increasing importance, the significance and effectiveness of judicial creativity should not be discounted. Judicial decisions are a source of law through the operation of the doctrine of judicial precedent. This process depends on the established hierarchy of the courts, and operates in such a way that generally a court is bound by the ratio decidendi or rule of law implicit in the decision of a court above it in the hierarchy and usually by a court of equal standing in that hierarchy. Where statute law does not cover a particular area or where the law is silent generally it will be necessary for a court deciding cases relating to such an area to determine what the law is and, in so doing, that court will inescapably and unarguably be creating law. The scope for judicial creativity should not be underestimated and it should be remembered that the task of interpreting the actual meaning of legislation in particular cases also falls to the judiciary and

provides it with a further important area of discretionary creativity. As the highest court in the land, the House of Lords has particular scope for creating or extending the common law, and a relatively contemporary example of its adopting such an active stance can be seen in the way in which it overruled the longstanding presumption that a man could not be guilty of the crime of rape against his wife. It should of course always be remembered that Parliament remains sovereign as regards the creation of law and any aspect of the judicially created common law is subject to direct alteration by statute. Legal Textbook

An extension of the doctrine of judicial precedent leads to a consideration of a further possible source of law, for when the court is unable to locate a precise or analogous precedent it may refer to legal textbooks for guidance and assistance. Such books are subdivided, depending on when they were written. In strict terms only certain venerable works of antiquity are actually treated as authoritative sources of law. Amongst the most important of these works are those by Bracton from the thirteenth century, Coke from the seventeenth century and Blackstone from the eighteenth century. Legal works produced after Blackstone's Commentaries of 1765 are considered to be of recent origin, but although they cannot be treated as authoritative sources the courts on occasion will look at the most eminent works by accepted experts in particular fields in order to help determine what the law is or should be. Custom

The final source of law that remains to be considered is custom. The romantic view of the common law is that it represented a crystallization of common customs distilled by the judiciary in the course of its travels round the land. Although some of the common law may have had its basis in general custom, as Professor Zander points out, a large proportion of these so called customs were invented by the judges themselves and represented what they wanted the law to be, rather than what people generally thought it was.

There is however a second possible customary source of law and that is with regard to specific local customs. Here there is the possibility that the local custom might differ from the common law and thus limit its operation. Even in this respect, however, reliance, on customary law as opposed to common law, although not impossible, is made unlikely by the stringent test that any appeal to it has to satisfy. Amongst these requirements are that the custom must have existed from 'time immemorial', i.e. 1189, and must have been exercised continuously within that period, and without opposition. The custom must also have been felt as obligatory, have been consistent with other customs and in the final analysis must be reasonable. Given this list of requirements it can be seen why local custom does not loom large as an important source of law.

英国法律的来源

表达“法源”意味着至少有两个不同的事情。它可以指历史渊源从法律已经到来，如普通法和衡平法。其次，它可以指规则的机构，法官将借鉴在判案时，并在这些规则可寻。在这个意义上第二个英国法律的今天来源是：共同体法律，法规，授权立法，判例法，法律教科书和自定义。 社区法律

由于英国加入欧洲经济共同体，现在欧洲共同体，它有逐步的，但实际上，通过创造法律，这是工作在这个国家更广泛的欧洲机构的权力。英国现在是受到社会各界的法律，而不是仅仅作为一个直接后果由加入英国议会通过的各项条约，但是它越来越受欧洲共同体的各个机构所产生的次级立法。

欧洲法律采取三种不同的形式：条例，指令和决定。法规，而不需要英国议会产生自己的立法立即生效。指令，在另一方面，需要专门立法来实现他们的建议，但英国议会正在制定这样的立法会落实到执行指令的义务。欧洲法院的裁决具有约束力整个社区，并优先于任何国内法。 立法

议会使得法律立法的形式，即议会法案。有各种类型的立法。而公共行为普遍影响市民;私人行为不但影响民众有限的行业，无论是特定的人或者某一特定地区内。在公众的类别徒进一步的区分可以国库券和私有成员条例草案之间进行。前者通常是由政府提出，而后者斧头个人主动的产品。议会的特定成员的一部分。

前制定未来行动被称为法案。无需进入过程的细节，法案必须由议会两院加以考虑，并有权获得御准他们实际上颁布之前。 授权立法

授权立法已被视为法的另外一个来源，但下属，议会一般行为。一般来说，授权立法是由某些个人或机构对谁议会已授权其一般规律的权力制定的法律。授权立法的任何一年的产量大大超过了议会和行为的输出，根据桑德尔教授

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/wyjd.html