议事规则的诉讼律师的管理和授权立法：他们告诉或试图告诉他的律师可能会，可能不会，他们承受的手段律师可以带来或企图实现的结果要求。
一个显着因素，目前美国的程序解决法律上的争议是敌方系统，该系统的特点是审判程序的形式在普通法国家，在民间以及刑事案件。其基本特点是，在作出决定的法官，或法官与陪审团
格西，或法官与陪审团
格西，或法官与陪审团，谁认定的事实和适用法律的意见党派提出的主张代表各方。在该系统中的审判程序的责任，开始西装，塑造问题，并用于生产的证据几乎完全取决于当事方。法院也几乎没有任何积极作用。它没有这样做自己的调查。它甚至很少问一个问题。最常见的是只负责指导程序按照一定的程序规则和决策上的法律问题出现。这个系统是要对比什么是一般所谓的调查制度，主要用于国家的民法传统，如法国和德国。在调查制度的审判，法官适用法律和认定事实，他自己的积极调查，并询问在审判。

inquisitorial system
职权主义，答题不易，互相帮助，手机提问的朋友在客户端右上角评价点满意即可.
如认可我的回答，请点击采纳为满意回答按钮.

陪审制度（Jury system）是指国家审判机关吸收非法律职业者参加法庭审判，与职业法官共同行使审判权的司法民主制度。原始陪审制度的雏形最早出现于公元前400年以前的古希腊，此后，古罗马和大陆法系国家中的法国、德国及丹麦等都曾出现过原始陪审制度的雏形。但后来随着封建专制和王权的强化，这些在欧洲大陆出现的原始陪审制度雏形均被扼杀。严格司法制度意义上的陪审制正式起源于中世纪的英国。②现代形式的陪审团审判制度（Trial by jury） 是一种在司法程序中，审判机关吸收非职业法官或非职业审判员组成陪审团参加审理刑事、民事案件，并由陪审团和职业法官依法律规定各自的职权，根据提交给法庭的证据而共同确定有争议事实问题的司法民主制度。陪审团审判制度是英国法对世界法的贡献。伴随着英国在海外的殖民扩张，英国的陪审团审判制度也被带到全球各地为世界上许多国家所仿效。在资产阶级革命时期，倍受称颂的陪审制度作为资产阶级与封建王权对抗的一项民主制度，被资产阶级赋予新的内容和内涵而盛行于英美等资本主义国家。随着英美法系陪审制度的不断发展，许多大陆法系国家如德国、法国等都根据大陆法系的体系和本国的实际情况，学习借鉴英国陪审团制度的优点而创设了参审制度。前苏联和东欧等国家也都借鉴实行了参审制度。我国自清朝末年接受西方法律思想以来，也借鉴大陆法系国家而移植了陪审制度。陪审制度在司法民主和民主政治上的进步意义及其在人类法制史上显赫功绩，历史已有定论，毋庸置疑。但陪审制度的缺陷和弊端客观存在，英美法系国家的陪审团制度逐渐萎缩，趋于衰落；大陆法系国家的参审制度流于形式，名存实亡，发展前景暗淡；日本等许多国家尝试过陪审制度但终又将其废除。从陪审制度国际发展的潮流来看，整个陪审制度的发展呈现出普遍衰微趋势。印度属于英美法系，有陪审制度；而法国、德国、瑞典、挪威和意大利属于大陆法系，适用参审制度。

当然有啦

希望有帮助。
1.“不当”的含义 What is Unfair？
2.不正当竞争 Unfair Competition
3.关税及其他进口税收 Customs Duties and Other Import Charges
4.法律英语中撇号（’）的几个简单使用规则
5.经济法上的制裁 Sanctions in the Economic Law
6.语言与国际商事活动 Language in International Business Transactions
7.Talking to the Police
8.美国联邦和州刑事司法系统比较
9.The difference between criminal and civil court?
10.美国证据规则简介
美国的证据法与其他程序法一样，也带有对抗式诉讼和陪审团制度的特征。很多证据规则都是围绕着陪审团的只能而制定的。
Read more »
11美国刑事诉讼程序简介
美国的刑事诉讼法律在很大程度上受其宪法的影响。例如，美国宪法的第四、第五、第六等修正案都直接与刑事诉讼有关。
Read more »
12美国民事诉讼程序简介
美国的民事诉讼具有两个显著的特点：其一是对抗制或抗辩制（adversary system）;其二是陪审制（jury system）。
Read more »
13美国知识产权法简介
美国早在1790年就由国会颁布了《版权法》和《专利法》，后来经过多次修订，逐渐扩大保护的范围。从20世纪中期开始，美国的现代知识产权法律体系逐步形成。
Read more »
14美国家庭法简介
在美国，家庭法亦可称为“家庭关系法”. 它涉及婚姻、夫妻关系、离婚、分局、父母子女关系、收养、监护和供养等问题。
Read more »
15美国环境保护法简介
16.法律英语中的破折号和连字符应该在什么情况下使用？
17.保险立法及其所覆盖的险种 Insurance Legislation and Types of Risks Covered
18.保险人不受监督之自由 Insurers’ Freedom From Supervision

Acknowledgments论商务谈判中语言的交际技巧

This thesis is developed from my years of study on campus; Numerous people have lent me a helping hand in completing this research.
Firstly, special thanks go to Mr. Zhou Wenge, the instructor of this paper as well as a respectable teacher in School of Foreign Studies, Hunan University of Science and Technology, whose frequent guidance and invaluable suggestions lead to the accomplishment of the thesis. Mr. Zhou’s hardworking and responsible spirits set a good example for all the undergraduates of 2006.
Secondly, thanks go to all the university leaders and teachers, who have imparted the essence of knowledge to me, especially to Mr. Zhang Jinghua, who has taught me Translation and whose original ideas and interesting lectures make great impression on me and finally lead to the start of the thesis.
Last but not the least, thanks go to all the school librarians, who have done very much in supplying us with reference books, as well as to those authors whose works have been quoted by me in the thesis.
Abstract

Based on the characteristics of spoken language and strategies used in negotiation, this thesis discusses the methods to avoid pragmatic failures and understand the different language communicative skills in different cultures, and elaborates several ways to master good language communicative skills in order to give full play to language’s advantages so as to increase the successful chances of international business negotiation.

Key words: language communicative skill; international business negotiation; characteristic; pragmatic failure
中文摘要

贸易谈判是贸易活动很重要的环节,而语言则是谈判的媒介，商务谈判的过程是1个围绕双方经济利益, 通过语言进行沟通和协商的过程，实质上就是谈判者运用语言进行协调磋商，谋求1致的过程。本文从语言表达和施展谈判策略出发，探讨了避免谈判语境中的语用失误，分析了不同文化背景下的语言交际方式，阐述了如何运用语言，掌握良好的语言表达技巧，从而更好地发挥语言在谈判中的作用，以提高商务谈判的成功率。

英美法系与大陆法系的异同比较研究

Civil law and common law is the world's principal legal systems of the two, covering some of the world's major countries. Representatives of civil law in Germany, France and China; and common law is of course the United Kingdom and the United States as its representative. Civil law and common law between the different points of comparison, has been compared by jurists keen topic. Two Legal, in many ways, there is a larger difference, I only proceedings to compare them.

All along, the comparison jurists tend to assume that all the world's well-developed legal systems, similar to the need always to meet a similar approach. [1] However, the civil law and common law in the proceedings on the great differences on the assumption that it broke. Such as the summary of the preparation and conduct of civil proceedings, to the court for the fact that the way to choose or to question a witness or expert mode of the great differences have made this assumption can not be established. And Two Legal because there are so many differences, they are subject to various reasons, such as geographic differences, ethnic habits, cultural characteristics, historical traditions, etc., but I think the main reason or the ideological and cultural traditions impact. Two Legal countries different in many ways of thinking habits, created a big difference in Two Legal.

Anglo-American legal systems in many of the features of the proceedings, in fact, is a decisive result of the fact that the proceedings from the jury system. Now, the general view was that Britain only in criminal cases to use the jury system, and is in serious crimes and the defendant himself that "not guilty" when used. [2] Nevertheless, the civil proceedings in the United Kingdom is still permeated with the traditional jury system. And the impact of the jury system, so that civil trials and criminal trials, as there are many specific proceedings. [3] This will make the proceedings from civil law countries.

In civil law, the proceedings can be divided into multiple partitions hearing. Thus, for a party in court raised an unexpected point of view or evidence, the other party can have sufficient time to the next court hearing further evidence in rebuttal. In the Anglo-American legal systems are very different, due to take a one-time trial, lawyers in order to prevent the same thing happened, not only to their own arguments and evidence make it clear, we must also understand each other's arguments and evidence. Because in common law countries of the trial, if there is unexpected evidence, any party can not easily ask for an adjournment. This makes lawyers must meet with him before the hearing of witnesses in order to find out they will say in court what to do. For such acts, Germany's lawyers say that is a violation of professional ethics. [4] This is not hard to imagine why we are also common law countries litigation often unexpected results, why those who can in the courts to force their own lawyers always respected. And civil law countries the courts have always given people the feeling step by step, and looked good enough, lawyers very difficult to have a very good performance.

Since the common law countries in the use of one-time trial mode, then the judge's role be? Before the start of the trial, the lawyers had carefully prepared for the judges for the controversial issue and the evidence is extremely unclear. It is believed that the judge relied on oral statements through a lawyer to provide all the necessary facts and the law. [5] We all know that in common law countries of the court, lawyers independently decide what to call witnesses, question witnesses. Each party to question witnesses were, and then from the other anti-question. Lawyers question witnesses is also the embodiment of wisdom, good lawyers are often the other witness's testimony can not be trusted, and the judge or jury can not be accepted, thereby losing the effectiveness of the evidence.

Lawyers question witnesses, and judges have a general pay attention only to listen to witnesses. If a judge to speak, are usually only "no effective" or "No null and void" and the judge of statements to determine the question of whether the parties can be adopted. However, common law countries, judges can question witnesses, but their involvement in order to avoid conflict, and remain neutral, and less inclined to open question. There was a very classic case from the negative interpretation of the judge to do so wisely, that is, "Jones v. National Coal Board" case: In that case when the trial judge too many questions, so that the parties can not be with his view that the best way evidence, the Court of Appeal only on the basis of the case back to lower court retrial. [6] This case also illustrates the law of "procedure is superior to the rights of" principle.

Anglo-American judge in the trial have demonstrated a more negative, they are the beginning of the case on the merits ignorant, we must understand in the course of a hearing, which the parties and their lawyers must play a major role. This is mainly because in the Anglo-American legal systems of countries, more common view is that in court proceedings to obtain the true situation in the best way is to allow parties to debate the real situation, which judges would only act as a supervisor of rules of court role, that is, "adversarial" litigation. In civil law countries is just the opposite. In their view, if the judge allows a greater role may be more conducive to discover the true situation. Thus the judge is obliged to ask questions, inform, encourage and persuade the parties, the lawyers and witnesses in order to obtain from them all of the real situation, to avoid the fault of the parties lead to lose. Civil law countries the number of civil trials or with some "inquisitorial" in nature, have some bureaucratic characteristics. [7] for the conduct of proceedings and evidence are required to investigate the main court, the judge who is a positive image of the trial presided over the court. In the United States, "against the system" the implementation of the proceedings is very strict. This is mainly because the common law as long as it is not equitable request, the first phase of civil litigation is still to participate in trial by jury.

l Conclusion
Civil law system inherited from Roman law is mainly generated, and the law is not the succession of Roman law precisely, the difference between the two is enormous. Such as civil law is statutory law, common law and case law, such as it is. In this paper, selected proceedings of comparison, the only civil law and common law judicial system in a concrete difference. Of different legal systems of the differences between it is very meaningful that allows us to learn from each other, in other legal systems in a good system, to improve the country's legal system, which will have an extremely far-reaching implications.

China's socialist legal system construction is in full swing of the stage, in the civil law system based on the statute book at the same time, the appropriate law countries learn from the case law system, to enrich, and improve China's legal system, but also have practical significance. Under the socialist market economic operation process, will inevitably encounter a variety of new situations and problems, which will require us to look at the global, boldly absorb and draw on foreign legal systems of the essence.

Civil law and common law distinction

Generally speaking the distinction between different standards will produce different results, civil law and common law on the judicial, trial basis, the way the proceedings and the court's organizations in four areas, there would be some obvious differences, their summarized as follows: (a) judicial organs: civil law countries generally speaking, its administrative litigation in this case, is not attributable to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, while others accept the establishment of the Administrative Court, the civil law is the Administrative Court and ordinary courts parallel system, different The two-track system; and the principle of law there is no establishment of the Administrative Court, and in criminal and administrative proceedings, such as property belonging to the ordinary courts to accept jurisdiction, not to set up the Administrative Court. (B) trial basis: civil law countries generally speaking, is mainly to statutory and customary law and case law as a supplement; and law in addition to the Constitution of the United States, the other so-called law, all attach importance to the unwritten code Therefore, in order to implement the customary law and the jurisprudence of the main. (C) proceedings by: civil law countries generally speaking, are generally imposed stereotypes referee organs; and Anglo-American legal systems usually adopt the jury system, as well as tour the trial system. (D) the court organizations: civil law countries generally speaking, usually the implementation of collegiate system, so a large number of judges; and Anglo-American legal systems usually adopt a single system, the fewer the number of judges. III Summary In summary, we can on the judicial, trial basis, the way the proceedings and the court's organizations in four areas to explore the civil law and common law on the distinction between the judicial system, a basic understanding of legal systems, there are help us to enter the halls of the law, but also contribute to the overall structure of the legal system and the overall understanding, to build all the people are aware of the legal community.
大陆法系与英美法系是当今世界的两大主要法系，涵盖了世界上一些主要的国家。大陆法系的代表有德国、法国、中国等；而英美法系则当然以英国和美国为其代表。大陆法系与英美法系之间的不同点的比较，一直都是比较法学家们所热衷的话题。两大法系在许多方面都存在着较大的差异，下面我仅从诉讼程序方面对它们加以比较。

一直以来，比较法学家们都倾向于假定，世界上所有发达的法律体系中，相似的需要总是以相似的方法来满足。[1]但是，大陆法系与英美法系在诉讼程序上的巨大差异却打破了这一假定。诸如简易民事诉讼的准备和进行、向法庭提出事实的方式、选择或询问证人或鉴定人的方式等的巨大差异，都使这一假定不能成立。而两大法系之所以会有如此多的差异，则受到了多方面原因的影响，如地理差异、民族习惯、文化特点、历史传统等，但我认为其最主要的原因还是意识形态和文化传统的影响。两大法系国家在许多方面不同的思维习惯，造就了两大法系的巨大差异。

英美法系中诉讼程序的许多特性，实际上是由一个决定性的事实造成的，即该诉讼程序来源于陪审制。现在，普遍的观点认为，英国只有在刑事案件中才使用陪审制，而且是在严重的犯罪并且被告主张自己“无罪”时才使用。[2]尽管如此，英国的民事诉讼中仍然渗透着陪审制的传统。而陪审制的影响，使民事审判和刑事审判一样，有许多特定的诉讼程序。[3]这也就使其诉讼程序区别于大陆法系国家。

在大陆法系中，诉讼可以有间隔地划分为多次的审理。因而，对于一方当事人在法庭上提出的出人意料的观点或证据，另一方当事人可以有充足的时间在下一次的法庭审理中提出进一步的证据予以反驳。而在英美法系中则大不相同，由于采取的是一次性的审理，律师为了防止同样的事情发生，不但要把自己的论点和证据想清楚，还必须了解对方的论点和证据。因为在英美法系国家的审判中，如果出现了意想不到的证据，任何一方都不能轻易地要求休庭。这就使得律师必须在开庭之前会见他的证人，以搞清楚他们会在法庭上说些什么、做些什么。对于这种行为，德国的律师却认为是违反职业道德的。[4]由此我们也不难想象为什么英美法系国家的诉讼经常有出人意料的结果，为什么那些能在法庭上以一己之力翻云覆雨的律师总是受人尊敬。而大陆法系国家的法庭审理却总是给人按部就班的感觉，而显得不够精彩，律师很难有非常精彩的表现。

既然在英美法系国家中采用一次性审理的模式，那么法官的作用如何呢？在审判开始之前，律师们进行了精心的准备，而法官对于争议的问题和有关的证据却极不清楚。据认为，法官靠律师通过口头陈述提供全部必要的事实和法律。[5]我们都知道，在英美法系国家的法庭上，律师独立地决定传唤哪些证人、提问证人。每个证人都是被一方提问之后，再由另一方进行反提问。提问证人也是律师智慧的体现，出色的律师常常能使对方证人的证词不可信，而无法被法官或陪审团采纳，从而失去了证据的效力。

律师提问证人，而法官一般只注意听取证人的证词。法官如果发言，通常都只是“反对有效”或“反对无效”之类的判断性语句，以决定当事人的问题是否可以被采纳。然而，英美法系国家中的法官是可以提问证人的，但他们为了避免卷入冲突，并且保持中立，而倾向于少开口提问。曾经有一个案例非常经典地从反面诠释了法官这么做的明智，即“琼斯诉全国煤炭委员会”案：在该案初审时法官提问过多，使双方当事人不可能用他认为最好的方式提出证据，上诉法院仅据此就将该案发回下级法院重审。[6]这个案例同时也说明了英美法系中“程序优于权利”的原则。

英美的法官在审判中处处表现得较为消极，他们在案件的开始阶段对案情一无所知，必须在审理过程中了解，因而当事人及其律师就必须发挥主要的作用。这主要是因为，在英美法系的国家，比较普遍的观点是，在法庭审理过程中获得真实情况的最好办法是让当事人辩论出真实的情况，而法官则只是充当法庭规则的监督者的角色，即“对抗制”的诉讼。而在大陆法系的国家却正好相反。他们认为，如果能让法官发挥较大的作用，可能会更有利于发现真实的情况。因而法官有义务提问、告知、鼓励和劝导当事人、律师和证人，以便从他们那里获得全部真实情况，避免当事人的过失导致败诉。大陆法系国家的民事审判多少还是带有一些“纠问式”的性质，具有一些官僚特征。[7]对于诉讼的进行和证据的调查皆以法院为主，法官是以积极审判者的形象主持法庭审理。在美国，“对抗制”诉讼程序的实行是非常严格的。这主要是因为，只要是普通法而非衡平法上的请求，民事诉讼的初审阶段仍然由陪审团参加审理。

l 结 语
大陆法系主要是继承了罗马法而产生的，而英美法系恰恰是未继承罗马法，二者之间的差异是巨大的。如大陆法主要是成文法，而英美法却是判例法等。本文所选取的诉讼程序的比较，只是大陆法系与英美法系在具体司法制度上的一个差异。研究不同法系之间的差异是非常有意义的，可以使我们取长补短，吸收别的法系中的好的制度，来完善本国的法律制度，这将会产生极其深远的影响。

我国当前社会主义法制建设正处于紧锣密鼓的阶段，在立足于大陆法系成文法的同时，适当借鉴英美法系国家的判例法制度等，来充实、完善我国的法律体系，也是具有现实意义的。在社会主义市场经济运行的过程中，将不可避免地遇到各种各样的新情况、新问题，这都需要我们放眼于全球，大胆地吸收、借鉴外国的法律制度中的精华。

大陆法系与英美法系的区别

一般来说不同的区分标准会产生不同的结果，大陆法系与英美法系就审判机关、审理的依据、诉讼程序的方式及法庭组织等四方面，会产生明显的差异，其简述如下： (一) 审判机关：通常对大陆法系国家来说，其行政案件的诉讼，不归于普通法院管辖，而另外设立行政法院受理，故大陆法系是属于行政法院与普通法院并行制，成为不同的双轨系统；而英美法系原则上并无行政法院的设立，而刑事及行政诉讼等都归属于普通法院来管辖受理，不另外成立行政法院。 (二) 审理的依据：通常对大陆法系国家来说，乃是以成文法为主，习惯法及判例法为辅；而英美法系美国除了宪法外，其它所谓的法律，都重视不成文法典，故以实行习惯法及判例为主。 (三) 诉讼程序的方式：通常对大陆法系国家来说，通常实行定型的裁判机关；而英美法系通常采陪审制度以及巡回审判制度。 (四) 法庭组织：通常对大陆法系国家来说，通常实行合议制，故法官的人数较多；而英美法系通常采独任制，故法官的人数较少。三、小结综上所述，我们可以就审判机关、审理的依据、诉讼程序的方式及法庭组织等四方面来探讨大陆法系与英美法系就司法制度的区别，法系的基本了解，有助于我们进入法律的殿堂，更有助于整体法律系统及结构的整体了解，以构建全民都了解法律的社会。

Enter the text to be translated, the most common words of English in business semantic analysis in business correspondence at the beginning of language study on business etiquette in the business activities of the importance of Business English learning methodology in business negotiations language communication skills of credit Permit soft terms of crime prevention and defusing of multimedia network with (my) Business English learning on how the new products in the international market to win the consumer (or market share) law and comparative study of the similarities and differences between civil law

I don't think I can help you...

这些东西楼主您还是一个个上GOOGLE搜吧。

I don't konw.
Sorry,I can't help you!