请帮忙翻译一下这段话，谢谢！ - 王朝网络 - & |
&&&&&当前位置: &&&&&&&&请帮忙翻译一下这段话，谢谢！请帮忙翻译一下这段话，谢谢！上一篇下一篇字体: || 本文来源: 互联网&&　　这是专业英语，翻译软件是不行的，译出来的东西根本看不懂。谢谢！　　At its inception, Israeli law generally adopted common law as applied in Palestine by the British Mandate prior to 1948. As such, the law included the traditional English mental incompetence-based guardianship regime. However, in 1962, the Israeli legislature, called the Knesset, enacted a totally new law to cover the fundamental field of legal capacity and guardianship. The new law was perceived to be part of the broader novel Israeli jurisprudence in the private law sphere, and was heavily influenced by continental jurisprudence, rejecting the common law jurisprudence in this field　　Interestingly, the Israeli legislative adoption of the civil law's tradition in the field of guardianship was not an exact replica, but rather an original development. Israel adopted the short and principle-like statements as well as the paternalistic
rationale of the continental law tradition. However, it rejected the less restrictive measures of curatorship and tutorship. In particular, the Israeli law recognizes two types of cases in which a court may appoint a guardian over an adult. The first type represents the remains of the common-law influence, allowing the court to nominate a guardian over adults who suffer from mental disability or mental illness, In such cases, the guardianship is full and total in the sense that the ward loses his or her legal rights in all spheres of life. The second type reflects the influence of continental law, authorizing the court to nominate a guardian over a person and/ or property once a finding is made that &a person is unable, permanently or temporarily, to take care of his affairs, all or some....& The regulations governing the functional definition of legal incapacity demand that a medical expert opinion be part of the request to nominate a guardian in mental disability or mental health cases. In practice, such medical opinions are also provided in the loss of functional ability cases, This reality makes the Israeli experience similar to a medical-based model of adult guardianship.　　In a further departure from traditional continental law, Israel attempted to make its legislation more advanced and better suited to Israeli society by adding the legal requirement that a guardian will
nominated 'only if there is no one authorized and willing to take care of the subject's affairs'. With this addition, the Israeli legislature emphasized that guardianship should be used only as a tool of last resort. Moreover, this language emphasized the recognition of de facto care-taking, such as that undertaken by family members. Whenever this de facto reality exists, no formal legal guardianship is justified. Finally, from a procedural perspective, Israeli law adopted various due process protections (which at the time were considered advanced), such as the requirement that the court would hear the subject in person prior to rendering its decisionn5 or the mandatory requirement that the subject receive a copy of the application prior to the hearing.　　起初，以色列法律一般沿袭1948年前英国总督在巴勒斯坦实行的普通法，因此法律中体现的是传统的，英国式的精神疾患监护制度。但在1962年，以色列的立法机构“奈赛特”起草了一项全新的法律，对“法律行为能力”和“监护”的基本定义作出重新诠释，这一新法被视为以色列在私法领域法理学革新的产物，它深受大陆法系影响，屏弃了普通法理学在这一领域的论述。有趣的是：以色列虽然接受传统民法在监护领域的解释，但并非全盘照搬，而是独有创意。它接受大陆法系中那些戒律式的简洁陈述以及父权体制，却将援护、指导这些相对强制性较弱的措施拒之门外。举例来说，以色列法律确认法庭在两种情况下有权为一成年人指定监护人，第一种情况受到普通法的残余影响，允许法庭为精神残疾或疾患者委派监护人，在这种情况下，监护身份一旦确认，就意味着被监护人在一切生活领域完全丧失了法定权利；第二种情况受到大陆法系的影响，授权法庭在业已确认“某人暂时或永久无法料理全部或部分个人事务”的情况下为该人或其产业委派监护人，依照该规定，若要从事实上确认某人已失去法律行为能力，需经医学专家认可，这是为精神残疾或疾患者指定监护人的条件之一。在实际操作中，遇到涉及肢体功能丧失判定的案例时，也需要援引医疗专家的意见，这使得以色列的成年人监护法在实践中成为以医生意见为本的范例。　　以色列法律与大陆法系一个更大的分歧，在于它致力于使法律更具先进性，更适应以色列社会，为此它另外规定：“只有无其他人可指派，且无人愿意料理当事人之事务时”方可指派监护人。以色列立法机构通过这一规定强调监护人的委派是不得已情况下的最后选择，而且行文中强调对事实照料关系的确认，例如来自家人的照料，一旦确认这种关系存在，将不予指派法定监护人。最后，在司法程序上，以色列法律采用了各种司法程序上的保护措施（这些措施在当时被认为是先进的），例如要求当事人在法庭作出裁决前出席听证会，或要求当事人在听证会前取得一份申请书副本。　　*英美法系的common law一般译为普通法、习惯法或不成文法，但个人认为译为“普遍法”或“共同法“更切合实际情况，这里姑从原译。你好，　　请你核对一下！　　1948年前，以色列国家采用普通法系，在巴基斯坦境内应用大不列颠训令。因此，以色列国家的法律包括英国传统的无行为能力的监护政权制度。但到了1962年，以色列的立法机构———议会———颁布一部全面的新法，揽概了关于合法能力与监护权利的基本领域。该法在以色列法系里将私法领域范围扩大，并因其在该领域中摈弃了普通法系而对大陆法系产生深远的影响。　　有趣的是，以色列的立法机构在制定监护权时，并没完全照搬传统民法的内容，而只在原有的基础上改进。以色列新法中不仅采用大陆法系传统的家长式基本原理，还采用简练的原则式陈述。然而它在管理者职务和家教制度方面，没那么多限制。具体而言，以法认可在两种情况下，法院可以为成年人任命监护人。第一种情况，对于神志丧失、精神耗弱的成年人，允许法院为其任命监护人。该情况受普通法的影响，因而可见普通法的影子。此时为完全监护，即被监护人在各方面都丧失自己的权利。第二种情况受大陆法系的影响，如果法院裁决“某人为永久性或暂时性禁治产人，为了料理其全部或部分事务.......”,可以为其（或其财产、或两者皆有）任命监护人。　　The regulations governing the functional definition of legal incapacity demand that a medical expert opinion be part of the request to nominate a guardian in mental disability or mental health cases. In practice, such medical opinions are also provided in the loss of functional ability cases, This reality makes the Israeli experience similar to a medical-based model of adult guardianship.　　In a further departure from traditional continental law, Israel attempted to make its legislation more advanced and better suited to Israeli society by adding the legal requirement that a guardian will be nominated 'only if there is no one authorized and willing to take care of the subject's affairs'. With this addition, the Israeli legislature emphasized that guardianship should be used only as a tool of last resort. Moreover, this language emphasized the recognition of de facto care-taking, such as that undertaken by family members. Whenever this de facto reality exists, no formal legal guardianship is justified. Finally, from a procedural perspective, Israeli law adopted various due process protections (which at the time were considered advanced), such as the requirement that the court would hear the subject in person prior to rendering its decisionn5 or the mandatory requirement that the subject receive a copy of the application prior to the hearing.　　At its inception, Israeli law generally adopted common law as applied in Palestine by the British Mandate prior to 1948. As such, the law included the traditional English mental incompetence-based guardianship regime. However, in 1962, the Israeli legislature, called the Knesset, enacted a totally new law to cover the fundamental field of legal capacity and guardianship. The new law was perceived to be part of the broader novel Israeli jurisprudence in the private law sphere, and was heavily influenced by continental jurisprudence, rejecting the common law jurisprudence in this field　　Interestingly, the Israeli legislative adoption of the civil law's tradition in the field of guardianship was not an exact replica, but rather an original development. Israel adopted the short and principle-like statements as well as the paternalistic rationale of the continental law tradition. However, it rejected the less restrictive measures of curatorship and tutorship. In particular, the Israeli law recognizes two types of cases in which a court may appoint a guardian over an adult. The first type represents the remains of the common-law influence, allowing the court to nominate a guardian over adults who suffer from mental disability or mental illness, In such cases, the guardianship is full and total in the sense that the ward loses his or her legal rights in all spheres of life. The second type reflects the influence of continental law, authorizing the court to nominate a guardian over a person and/ or property once a finding is made that &a person is unable, permanently or temporarily, to take care of his affairs, all or some....& The regulations governing the functional definition of legal incapacity demand that a medical expert opinion be part of the request to nominate a guardian in mental disability or mental health cases. In practice, such medical opinions are also provided in the loss of functional ability cases, This reality makes the Israeli experience similar to a medical-based model of adult guardianship.　　In a further departure from traditional continental law, Israel attempted to make its legislation more advanced and better suited to Israeli society by adding the legal requirement that a guardian will be nominated 'only if there is no one authorized and willing to take care of the subject's affairs'. With this addition, the Israeli legislature emphasized that guardianship should be used only as a tool of last resort. Moreover, this language emphasized the recognition of de facto care-taking, such as that undertaken by family members. Whenever this de facto reality exists, no formal legal guardianship is justified. Finally, from a procedural perspective, Israeli law adopted various due process protections (which at the time were considered advanced), such as the requirement that the court would hear the subject in person prior to rendering its decisionn5 or the mandatory requirement that the subject receive a copy of the application prior to the hearing.　　败名裂
1948年前，以色列国家采用普通法系，在巴基斯坦境内应用大不列颠训令。因此，以色列国家的法律包括英国传统的无行为能力的监护政权制度。但到了1962年，以色列的立法机构———议会———颁布一部全面的新法，揽概了关于合法能力与监护权利的基本领域。该法在以色列法系里将私法领域范围扩大，并因其在该领域中摈弃了普通法系而对大陆法系产生深远的影响。　　有趣的是，以色列的立法机构在制定监护权时，并没完全照搬传统民法的内容，而只在原有的基础上改进。以色列新法中不仅采用大陆法系传统的家长式基本原理，还采用简练的原则式陈述。然而它在管理者职务和家教制度方面，没那么多限制。具体而言，以法认可在两种情况下，法院可以为成年人任命监护人。第一种情况，对于神志丧失、精神耗弱的成年人，允许法院为其任命监护人。该情况受普通法的影响，因而可见普通法的影子。此时为完全监护，即被监护人在各方面都丧失自己的权利。第二种情况受大陆法系的影响，如果法院裁决“某人为永久性或暂时性禁治产人，为了料理其全部或部分事务.......”,可以为其（或其财产、或两者皆有）任命监护人。&今日推荐&&&&&幽默笑话百态军事探索娱乐女性健康旅游互联网&&　　这是专业英语，翻译软件是不行的，译出来的东西根本看不懂。谢谢！　　At its inception, Israeli law generally adopted common law as applied in Palestine by the British Mandate prior to 1948. As such, the law included the traditional English mental incompetence-based guardianship regime. However, in 1962, the Israeli legislature, called the Knesset, enacted a totally new law to cover the fundamental field of legal capacity and guardianship. The new law was perceived to be part of the broader novel Israeli jurisprudence in the private law sphere, and was heavily influenced by continental jurisprudence, rejecting the common law jurisprudence in this field　　Interestingly, the Israeli legislative adoption of the civil law's tradition in the field of guardianship was not an exact replica, but rather an original development. Israel adopted the short and principle-like statements as well as the paternalistic
rationale of the continental law tradition. However, it rejected the less restrictive measures of curatorship and tutorship. In particular, the Israeli law recognizes two types of cases in which a court may appoint a guardian over an adult. The first type represents the remains of the common-law influence, allowing the court to nominate a guardian over adults who suffer from mental disability or mental illness, In such cases, the guardianship is full and total in the sense that the ward loses his or her legal rights in all spheres of life. The second type reflects the influence of continental law, authorizing the court to nominate a guardian over a person and/ or property once a finding is made that &a person is unable, permanently or temporarily, to take care of his affairs, all or some....& The regulations governing the functional definition of legal incapacity demand that a medical expert opinion be part of the request to nominate a guardian in mental disability or mental health cases. In practice, such medical opinions are also provided in the loss of functional ability cases, This reality makes the Israeli experience similar to a medical-based model of adult guardianship.　　In a further departure from traditional continental law, Israel attempted to make its legislation more advanced and better suited to Israeli society by adding the legal requirement that a guardian will
nominated 'only if there is no one authorized and willing to take care of the subject's affairs'. With this addition, the Israeli legislature emphasized that guardianship should be used only as a tool of last resort. Moreover, this language emphasized the recognition of de facto care-taking, such as that undertaken by family members. Whenever this de facto reality exists, no formal legal guardianship is justified. Finally, from a procedural perspective, Israeli law adopted various due process protections (which at the time were considered advanced), such as the requirement that the court would hear the subject in person prior to rendering its decisionn5 or the mandatory requirement that the subject receive a copy of the application prior to the hearing.　　起初，以色列法律一般沿袭1948年前英国总督在巴勒斯坦实行的普通法，因此法律中体现的是传统的，英国式的精神疾患监护制度。但在1962年，以色列的立法机构“奈赛特”起草了一项全新的法律，对“法律行为能力”和“监护”的基本定义作出重新诠释，这一新法被视为以色列在私法领域法理学革新的产物，它深受大陆法系影响，屏弃了普通法理学在这一领域的论述。有趣的是：以色列虽然接受传统民法在监护领域的解释，但并非全盘照搬，而是独有创意。它接受大陆法系中那些戒律式的简洁陈述以及父权体制，却将援护、指导这些相对强制性较弱的措施拒之门外。举例来说，以色列法律确认法庭在两种情况下有权为一成年人指定监护人，第一种情况受到普通法的残余影响，允许法庭为精神残疾或疾患者委派监护人，在这种情况下，监护身份一旦确认，就意味着被监护人在一切生活领域完全丧失了法定权利；第二种情况受到大陆法系的影响，授权法庭在业已确认“某人暂时或永久无法料理全部或部分个人事务”的情况下为该人或其产业委派监护人，依照该规定，若要从事实上确认某人已失去法律行为能力，需经医学专家认可，这是为精神残疾或疾患者指定监护人的条件之一。在实际操作中，遇到涉及肢体功能丧失判定的案例时，也需要援引医疗专家的意见，这使得以色列的成年人监护法在实践中成为以医生意见为本的范例。　　以色列法律与大陆法系一个更大的分歧，在于它致力于使法律更具先进性，更适应以色列社会，为此它另外规定：“只有无其他人可指派，且无人愿意料理当事人之事务时”方可指派监护人。以色列立法机构通过这一规定强调监护人的委派是不得已情况下的最后选择，而且行文中强调对事实照料关系的确认，例如来自家人的照料，一旦确认这种关系存在，将不予指派法定监护人。最后，在司法程序上，以色列法律采用了各种司法程序上的保护措施（这些措施在当时被认为是先进的），例如要求当事人在法庭作出裁决前出席听证会，或要求当事人在听证会前取得一份申请书副本。　　*英美法系的common law一般译为普通法、习惯法或不成文法，但个人认为译为“普遍法”或“共同法“更切合实际情况，这里姑从原译。你好，　　请你核对一下！　　1948年前，以色列国家采用普通法系，在巴基斯坦境内应用大不列颠训令。因此，以色列国家的法律包括英国传统的无行为能力的监护政权制度。但到了1962年，以色列的立法机构———议会———颁布一部全面的新法，揽概了关于合法能力与监护权利的基本领域。该法在以色列法系里将私法领域范围扩大，并因其在该领域中摈弃了普通法系而对大陆法系产生深远的影响。　　有趣的是，以色列的立法机构在制定监护权时，并没完全照搬传统民法的内容，而只在原有的基础上改进。以色列新法中不仅采用大陆法系传统的家长式基本原理，还采用简练的原则式陈述。然而它在管理者职务和家教制度方面，没那么多限制。具体而言，以法认可在两种情况下，法院可以为成年人任命监护人。第一种情况，对于神志丧失、精神耗弱的成年人，允许法院为其任命监护人。该情况受普通法的影响，因而可见普通法的影子。此时为完全监护，即被监护人在各方面都丧失自己的权利。第二种情况受大陆法系的影响，如果法院裁决“某人为永久性或暂时性禁治产人，为了料理其全部或部分事务.......”,可以为其（或其财产、或两者皆有）任命监护人。　　The regulations governing the functional definition of legal incapacity demand that a medical expert opinion be part of the request to nominate a guardian in mental disability or mental health cases. In practice, such medical opinions are also provided in the loss of functional ability cases, This reality makes the Israeli experience similar to a medical-based model of adult guardianship.　　In a further departure from traditional continental law, Israel attempted to make its legislation more advanced and better suited to Israeli society by adding the legal requirement that a guardian will be nominated 'only if there is no one authorized and willing to take care of the subject's affairs'. With this addition, the Israeli legislature emphasized that guardianship should be used only as a tool of last resort. Moreover, this language emphasized the recognition of de facto care-taking, such as that undertaken by family members. Whenever this de facto reality exists, no formal legal guardianship is justified. Finally, from a procedural perspective, Israeli law adopted various due process protections (which at the time were considered advanced), such as the requirement that the court would hear the subject in person prior to rendering its decisionn5 or the mandatory requirement that the subject receive a copy of the application prior to the hearing.　　At its inception, Israeli law generally adopted common law as applied in Palestine by the British Mandate prior to 1948. As such, the law included the traditional English mental incompetence-based guardianship regime. However, in 1962, the Israeli legislature, called the Knesset, enacted a totally new law to cover the fundamental field of legal capacity and guardianship. The new law was perceived to be part of the broader novel Israeli jurisprudence in the private law sphere, and was heavily influenced by continental jurisprudence, rejecting the common law jurisprudence in this field　　Interestingly, the Israeli legislative adoption of the civil law's tradition in the field of guardianship was not an exact replica, but rather an original development. Israel adopted the short and principle-like statements as well as the paternalistic rationale of the continental law tradition. However, it rejected the less restrictive measures of curatorship and tutorship. In particular, the Israeli law recognizes two types of cases in which a court may appoint a guardian over an adult. The first type represents the remains of the common-law influence, allowing the court to nominate a guardian over adults who suffer from mental disability or mental illness, In such cases, the guardianship is full and total in the sense that the ward loses his or her legal rights in all spheres of life. The second type reflects the influence of continental law, authorizing the court to nominate a guardian over a person and/ or property once a finding is made that &a person is unable, permanently or temporarily, to take care of his affairs, all or some....& The regulations governing the functional definition of legal incapacity demand that a medical expert opinion be part of the request to nominate a guardian in mental disability or mental health cases. In practice, such medical opinions are also provided in the loss of functional ability cases, This reality makes the Israeli experience similar to a medical-based model of adult guardianship.　　In a further departure from traditional continental law, Israel attempted to make its legislation more advanced and better suited to Israeli society by adding the legal requirement that a guardian will be nominated 'only if there is no one authorized and willing to take care of the subject's affairs'. With this addition, the Israeli legislature emphasized that guardianship should be used only as a tool of last resort. Moreover, this language emphasized the recognition of de facto care-taking, such as that undertaken by family members. Whenever this de facto reality exists, no formal legal guardianship is justified. Finally, from a procedural perspective, Israeli law adopted various due process protections (which at the time were considered advanced), such as the requirement that the court would hear the subject in person prior to rendering its decisionn5 or the mandatory requirement that the subject receive a copy of the application prior to the hearing.　　败名裂
1948年前，以色列国家采用普通法系，在巴基斯坦境内应用大不列颠训令。因此，以色列国家的法律包括英国传统的无行为能力的监护政权制度。但到了1962年，以色列的立法机构———议会———颁布一部全面的新法，揽概了关于合法能力与监护权利的基本领域。该法在以色列法系里将私法领域范围扩大，并因其在该领域中摈弃了普通法系而对大陆法系产生深远的影响。　　有趣的是，以色列的立法机构在制定监护权时，并没完全照搬传统民法的内容，而只在原有的基础上改进。以色列新法中不仅采用大陆法系传统的家长式基本原理，还采用简练的原则式陈述。然而它在管理者职务和家教制度方面，没那么多限制。具体而言，以法认可在两种情况下，法院可以为成年人任命监护人。第一种情况，对于神志丧失、精神耗弱的成年人，允许法院为其任命监护人。该情况受普通法的影响，因而可见普通法的影子。此时为完全监护，即被监护人在各方面都丧失自己的权利。第二种情况受大陆法系的影响，如果法院裁决“某人为永久性或暂时性禁治产人，为了料理其全部或部分事务.......”,可以为其（或其财产、或两者皆有）任命监护人。&　　免责声明：本文仅代表作者个人观点，与王朝网络无关。王朝网络登载此文出于传递更多信息之目的，并不意味着赞同其观点或证实其描述，其原创性以及文中陈述文字和内容未经本站证实，对本文以及其中全部或者部分内容、文字的真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺，请读者仅作参考，并请自行核实相关内容。&&&&&&&王朝美图& 04:24:48&&&&&&&转载本文&UBB代码&HTML代码复制到剪贴板...&更多内容··········&&&&频道精选&&网友关注··········&&热点推荐&01&&02&&03&&04&&05&&06&&07&&08&&09&&&&王朝女性&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&王朝分栏&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&王朝编程&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&王朝导购&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&王朝其他&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&|&&&&2005-&&版权所有&