《美国民事诉讼程序》（节选）毕业论文外文翻译.doc

附录三离婚调解克罗地亚法律和欧洲的解决方案摘自萨格勒布法学院论文（节选）现如今，调解既不是一个关于家庭政策的问题，也不仅仅是局限在立法的层面上，它是在更广泛意义上存在的状态。更重要的是，从国家以及社会的层面上看，有关家庭问题和婚姻问题的存续和变更，使用调解的方式解决这类问题，一般都不会造成扩大的矛盾，方式比较温和不含有攻击性。离婚和家庭纠纷一般在普通人的视野里，作为一项规则，倾向于交谈和谈话等方式平和解决。在这种环境下，不论是困难还是耻辱保留在四面墙内调解，这是门内人，不让外边的人知道，这个时候关于调解解决问题的秘密性和不公开性就很可能会显现出来。此外，在这个过程中，既不需要较强的调解员的游说，甚至都不需要让双方满意调解的合意就能达成。那么，究竟是何者推动着调解的这一进程呢，也就是双方的退让步即利益因素的驱动。它可以进一步说，在调解过程包括，在时间的过程中，相对有限的一群公民，他们为调解所付出的代价肯定比离婚付出的代价要低很多。然而，这个数字的意义却是不同的。如果我们考虑到离婚的周期性速度，比如在克罗地亚离婚，这一过程其实大大改变了调解的意义和价值判断，因为成千上万的市民都参与了调解的这一时间的过程。即使不是这样，我们认为这是没有必要的，以评估主要基于涉及它的人的数目为基础的特定区域的调节的值。而法律保障的公民的意义所要求的却恰恰要求相反。因此，无论从社会上还是个人上来看，每一个特定的婚姻都是值得努力去特定维护的，都不是简单的用诉讼成本这个词就能简单概括的，它涉及到了我们社会生活的方方面面。价值和调解的意义，或者更广泛地，对在所有法律领域争议解决所有的替代方法是不容置疑的。家庭调解过程是特别有价值的，特别是铭记家庭保护的原则宣告。不过，家事调解的过程本身，因为它是现在克罗地亚家庭立法规定，还需要一定的改进，尤其是在描述欧洲法律方面。首先，如上所述，在婚姻过程中介质的状态，家庭经济的融资情况和改进情况，以及儿童和未成年人在家庭中的作为以及在整个调解过程中的地位是有疑问的。如果国家解决这些不确定性，把家庭生活中的一系列矛盾都给解决了，我们认为，这就会导致对调解的一般性的看法，因此，认识到其意义的变化。调解员没有通过，他或她可以保证双方合作的法律授权。不过，气氛应该建立在夫妻双方愿意参加调解，甚至当它不采纳的协议结束。我们认为，正确执行，调解本身能够更好地理解困难和冲突的根源，以及找出其解决方案的可能性。从所有参与这一过程的人，无论是介体和配偶（以及其他家庭成员如果调解的原理也开始被应用到其它家庭纠纷）的方面，这将是非常显著。最后，国家在刺激家庭成员合作的利息也显著。可以看出，不仅在照顾公民，而且在促进主管机构的工作，并减少从众多的诉讼程序中产生的费用。然而，在我们看来，最大的危险来自考虑调解流于形式。被视为没有内容的形式，在调解过程中失去了它的意义。因此，该家庭法领域是一个很好的证明，这是不够的，采取法律行为，而是要确保他们正确的，认真的应用在实践中，因为只有这样的法律得到它的全部意义更重要。进一步关注后现代社会和社会领土归属摘自世界社会学回顾，2005年（节选）一个社会理论的主要切入点就是用人类社会的变化来进行分析。在以下的论述中，通过引入费迪南-滕尼斯的理论“古典社会变革的理论系统化”以及关于后现代社会特点的讨论来研究人类社会的变化。在后现代社会中被被定义的社会中，人们基本上是分开的，即使是仍然紧紧连接在一起的人也会被社会的各种因素所分开。在滕尼斯的描述中，他刻画社会为“有机”和社会的“机械师”。在现在社会中，人们其实只是一个个排列组合的数字，在他们的观念中，人与人之间交往的新形势也是通过数字来表达的，增加了理性和冷漠，少了人情和热情。个体与个体之间的关系是一样的，无分别的，这种个体与其他个体甚至领土之间的关系被定义为“流体”。美国民事诉讼程序（节选）大多数大部分的博学的观察者他们都会同意英美法系的对抗审判制度是值得让人怀疑的。有很多人人怀疑它是否能达到它宣布的预期的目标，也就是对相关实施的确认并对其进行较为恰当的设计。此外也有不少人怀疑它到底是怎样适用的，它的运作模式能不能行得通，它的流程是从哪里到哪里。因为从表面上看，英美法系的对抗审判制度整个构建中并没有什么很科学的关于诉讼程序的东西，也没有什么高深的说服大家的理论，仅仅是有一个有丰富经验的出庭律师，一个相信坦诚的人，曾经这样描述到：我们通过抗辩程序实现公正，也就是说，我们让当事人“打仗”，让当事人为了自己的权利去开一场争夺战。哈佛大学法学院的罗伯特教授更加戏剧化的描述了这样的一段话：庭审其实是一场关于对事实和法律理论的不同见解的比赛。无视科学事实认定的所有规则，这个审讯制度在司法实践中的庭审环节运转的相当好。对抗程序看起来是目前为止为迫使真相浮出水面设计的最好的方法。对抗审判制有几个鲜明的特点。大多数情况下，案件是通过当事人的法律代表人律师向法庭提起的。律师，在法官的指导下，控制证据的内容和动态。诉讼的程序是双方的而不是单方的，片面的。至少在理论的意义上，它为每一方当事人提供了平等的调查案件，向法庭出示证据和做出论证的机会。美国陪审案件中的审判法官只是作为一个仲裁员的身份出现。他（她）把程序规则应用到律师辩护过程中，向陪审团解释实体法程序原则，但基本上陪审团会自行根据优势证据原则决定事实的认定。换句话说，法官是法律的公断人，陪审团是事实的公断人，法官和陪审团属于不同的层面又在同一程序中相互作用推动案件发现真实，推动案件进展。陪审团在运用他们找到的事实作出判决的时候，法官在指令书中给陪审团解释法律。（有时会被叫做法官对陪审团的“指令”）当然如果审判团放弃了审理，审判法官会自己找岀案件的事实，运用相关的法律进行法律审。许多原告和被告会希望案件有一个法官单独审理。当一个案件通过证据出示、证据交换和任何可能做出的审前动议在进行的时候，它将被列入法庭的审判日程表并要指定审判的日期。那时，如果没有出现迟延或者延期等种种的阻碍因素，各方当事人和他们的法律顾问应当出席开庭审理。无论是由陪审团的审判还是没有陪审团的审判都应该遵守相同的一般格式，即使在陪审团审理的案件中，审判一开始是要把很多的时间花在选择案件的陪审团上。但需要注意的是，各个法庭之间做的陈述的顺序有不同之处的，但基本规则是这样的：原告律师和被告律师依次做开场陈述，解释他们将要证明的东西。然后是原告方证人、证据的询问和交叉询问，接下来是被告方证人、证据的询问和交叉询问，原告和被告接下来可以介绍他们的反驳证据。在向法庭提交所有的证据之后，每一方作总结陈词，总结出支持他们所代表那方的证据。往往还是由原告方先做总结，但他有在被告方做完总结陈词后再反驳的权利。在没有陪审团的情况下，法官接下来会对证据作出评价，然后作出判决。在有陪审团的情况下，法官会提醒陪审团有关法律的适用情况。通常情况下，法官会要求各方当事人提交一份可能的指示书，并从这些向法院提出的意见中做出选择。在一些司法管辖区，各种不同类型的法律事件的格式指示书都已经经过审核，当事人不需要就他们特定的案件起草特定的指示书。在少数一些司法管辖区，法官也可能会对证据作出评价。然而，在多数的司法管辖区，这被认为是不恰当的，法官只是被授权做出一个公正的证据总结。陪审团接下来会退庭评议以给出最后的裁定。如果陪审团报告说他们陷入了僵局，法官会退回要求另外再做审议。但如果他们不能打破僵局，法官将宣布未觉判决。如果陪审团最后作出了裁定，法官会做出最后的判决。附录四附录四Divorce mediation-croatian law and European solutions Collected Papers of Zagred law Faculty.2007.Vol 57.Nowadays mediation is neither a priority issue of the family policy, nor of legislation, i.e. the state in the wider sense. What is more, the state has, it seems, taken a rather defensive standpoint concerning family issues and marriage, as well as its dissolution. Divorce and family disputes generally present a parallel world about which the persons involved are not, as a rule, inclined to talk. Difficulties and shame remain within the four walls and may be revealed during mediation, which is secret. Also, there are neither strong mediators lobbies, nor even spouses satisfied with mediation who would promote this process, as it is the case with some other interest groups. It could further be said that the mediation process includes, in the course of time, a relatively limited group of. citizens. Such consideration would certainly be caused by the low rate of divorceability, which has been about the rate 1 in Croatia for years. However, the figure can be expressed differently if we take into consideration the so-called cyclical rate of divorceability according to which every fifth marriage in Croatia is divorced, which considerably changes the meaning and value judgment of mediation since thousands of citizens are involved in this process in the course of time. Even if it were not so, we think that it is not necessary to assess the value of the regulation of a certain area primarily on the basis of the number of persons involved in it. The interest of legal security, namely, requires the opposite. Therefore it is worth an effort to preserve each particular marriage, in spite of (apparent) costs which such a process may incur. The value and meaning of mediation or, more extensively, of all alternative ways of dispute resolutions in all legal areas are indisputable. The family mediation process is especially valuable, particularly having in mind the proclaimed principle of family protection. But the process of family mediation itself, as it is now provided by Croatian family legislation, still requires certain improvements, especially in the light of the described European requirements. Primarily, as mentioned above, the status, financing and improvement of mediators as well as the status of children during the mediation process are questionable. If the state resolved these uncertainties, we believe that it would lead to a change of general opinion towards mediation and, consequently, recognition of its significance. The mediator does not have legal authorization by which he or she could guarantee cooperation of parties. However, an atmosphere should be created in which spouses would be willing to participate in mediation, even when it does not end in the adoption of an agreement. We believe that, correctly carried out, mediation itself enables better understanding of the causes of difficulties and conflicts, as well as finding out the possibilities of their solution. From the aspect of all the persons involved in this process, both the mediator and spouses (as well as other family members if the principles of mediation also started to be applied to other family disputes), it would be exceptionally significant. Finally, the interest of the state in stimulating family members cooperation is also significant. It can be shown not only in caring for citizens, but also in facilitating the work of competent bodies and reducing expenses which incur from numerous proceedings. It seems to us, however, that the greatest danger comes from considering mediation a mere formality. Seen as a form without content, the mediation process loses its meaning. This family law area is therefore a good proof that it is not enough to adopt legal acts, but it is more important to secure their correct and conscientious application in practice, because only thus law gets its full meaning. Unitil Further Notice:Post-Modernity and Socio-Territorial Blonging form International Review of Sociology,2005Vol.15(3)One of social theory's main concerns is the analysis of the changes that take place in human societies. This article systematizes existing knowledge about the characteristics of post-modern societies by incorporating it into Ferdinand Tonnies' classical theory of societal change. Post-modern societies are defined as societies in which people are essentially separated, yet still tightly connected in spite of everything that divides them. Tonnies characterizes community as 'organic' and society as 'mechanic'. In this article, contemporary societies are defined as 'digital'. Their 'psychological' foundation, or founding will, is found in the concept of 'imagination'. New forms of relationships accompany the coming of the digital society. Relationships with other individuals and with the. territory are defined as 'fluid'. Against The Trial System And The Trial Procedure Most knowledgeable observers would agree to against the trial system of Anglo-American law system is questionable. Some people doubt whether it is in order to reach the goal of it announced, the confirmation of the implementation of relevant and appropriate design. In addition it is doubtful whether it is how to apply. What he did not very scientific about the proceedings, a trial lawyers with rich experience, a people who believe in honest, once described: we through a plea to realize justice, that is to say, we let the "war". Harvard law school professor Robert is more the dramatic said, when hearing a different opinions on the facts and legal theory. Ignore the scientific fact that all the rules, the interrogation system works quite well. Against the program seems to be the current design the best way to force the truth emerged. Against the trial system has several distinctive features. In most cases, the case is by the legal representative of the parties, lawyers filed to the court. Lawyer, under the guidance of a judge, control the content and dynamic of the evidence. Litigation procedure is both sides rather than unilateral, partial. At least in the theory of sense, it provides each of the parties with equal investigation, presenting evidence to the court and make arguments. The jury at the trial judge in the case just appear as an arbitrator. He (she) the rules of procedure in the process of the application to a lawyer, to explain to the jury substantive law procedure principle, but basically themselves in accordance with the principle of advantage evidence the jury decided the cognizance of facts. In other words, the judge is the arbitration law, the jury to the umpire. The fact that the jury found in using their decision, the judge to the jury in the instruction book the interpreter of law. (sometimes called the judge to "instructions") of the jury, of course, if you give up the jury trial, the trial judge will find their own file the facts of the case, using relevant legal law review. Many of the plaintiff and the defendant will hope the case has a trial judge alone.When a case through the exchange of evidence and any pretrial motions that may be made on time, it will be included in the court trial schedule and specify the date of the trial. At that time, if you do not see any delay or delay, the parties and their legal counsel shall be present at the hearing. And without a jury trial by jury should comply with the same general format, even in a jury trial cases, trial at first is to spend time on the choice of cases the jury. Between each court order of presentation is slightly different, but the basic rule is this: the counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant lawyer made an opening statement, in turn explain they are going to prove something. Then, the prosecution witness evidence inquiries and cross-examination, next is the defense witnesses and evidence inquiries and cross-examination, the plaintiff and the defendant can introduce their next rebuttal evidence. After submit all the evidence to the court, each party summation, summed up the evidence of support they represent the party. Often or by the plaintiff to do first, but he has in counter again after you summarize the defendant's rights. In the absence of the jury, the judge then evaluates the evidence, and then make a decision. With the case of the jury, the judge will remind the jury relevant laws apply. Under normal circumstances, the judge may require the parties to submit a possible instruction book, and from these to the opinion of the court to make a choice. In some jurisdictions, a variety of different types of legal event format instructions are reviewed, the parties do not need for their specific cases to draft specific instructions. In a few jurisdictions, the judge may also evaluates the evidence. However, in most jurisdictions, this is considered to be inappropriate, the judge is authorized to make a fair summary of evidence. The jury will leaves the next review to give the final ruling. If the jury report that they are deadlocked, the judge will be returned for another review. But if they can't break the deadlock, the judge will announce her decision. If the jury made a ruling, the judge will make the final decision.