Question

法律英语在线翻译

“Conflicts Justice” Versus “Material Justice”[8]

(1) The fundamental theoretical dichotomyin the purposes of choice of law is between the objective of choosing the“proper” legal system to govern a multi-state dispute or the objective ofreaching the fairest possible result in the individual case. It is clear thatthe traditional theory described in the preceding historical note purports tobe jurisdiction-selective, with a leap in the dark to the legal systemindicated by the critical connecting factor regardless of its content. It thussubscribes to the objective of “conflicts justice” versus “material justice”,although its critics based much of their attack on demonstrations that thecourts were in fact avoiding blind jurisdiction-selection through such evasionsas re-characterization of the legal category involved in the controversy, thedefense of ordre public, or even use of renvoi. The modern theories, on theother hand, all purport in one way or another to take substantive justice intoaccount. Since less than one fourth of the American states still adhere to thetraditional theory, it must therefore be said that some form of pursuit of theobjective of substantive justice is the prevailing view.

(2)The matter is greatly complicated, however, by the fact that the moderntheories have no unified position on this question, but rather represent pointson a broad continuum. The range of these points is quite remarkable.
不要翻译软件翻译的那种！！！

Answer 1

"冲突正义"与"实质正义"

（1）在追求冲突正义的思想指导下，基本理论二分法的意义在于找一个“最适当的国家”并适用它提供的法律来解决有关多国法律冲突的实体问题。很明显，传统的冲突法制度也就是管辖权的选择规则，只注意选择适当的国家并提供使用的实体法，而不管其他的因素。在实践中必然会引起“冲突正义”和“实质正义”的发生，识别、反致、公共秩序保留、法律规避等本意是落实与完善管辖权选择规则，但往往被法院用来左右判决结果或被当事人用来作为规避本该适用法律的借口。另一方面，现代理论，在一种或另一种方式上去支持实质正义。因为少于四分之一的美洲国家仍坚持传统的理论，因此它必须说传统的冲突正义以追求实质正义为目标的看法是普遍的。

（2）冲突正义的问题是非常复杂的，但是，由于没有统一的现代理论在这一立场提出的统一观点，而是代表一些广泛的连结点。这些连结点的提出也是很伟大的。

望楼主采纳哦~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Answer 2

"冲突正义" 与 "实质正义"
就选择法律目的而言，基本理论二分法作用于两者间：以选择适当的法律体系来解决多国争端为目的，或以在个例中得到可获得的最公平结果为目的。显然，传统理论，即记载中所指的管辖权选择规则，鲁莽的选择一个仅由有争议的连接因素控制到法律体系，而不考虑其内容。这样的做法必然会引发“冲突正义”和“实质正义”矛盾的产生，批评大多立足于抨击和证明一个事实：法庭实际在通过重新定性争议涉及的法律条款、公共秩序保留，甚至是驱逐出境等规避方法来逃脱管辖权盲选。另一方面，现代理论以一种或另一种方式支持正义。鉴于只有不到四分之一的美洲国家仍沿用传统理论，实质正义在某些方面来说可以算是普遍观点。
问题相当复杂，但是，现代理论就这一问题并没有同意观点，而是仅仅一个广泛的连续体发表观点且观点所涉范围甚广......

Answer 3

“冲突正义”对“物质正义”[8]
(1)法律选择目的的基本理论二分法在于，选择“适当的”法律体系来管理多国争端的目标和在个案中寻求尽可能公平的结果的目标。显而易见，在之前的历史笔记中描述的传统理论声称是有选择性的司法管辖，无论其内容如何，都是通过关键的关联因素向法律体系的飞跃。因此，它赞成“冲突正义”与“物质正义”的目标，尽管其批评者将他们的大部分攻击建立在法院事实上正在避免盲目的管辖权选择的示威游行之上，例如通过对争议中所涉及的法律范畴的重新定性、维护公共秩序，甚至使用反致制度。另一方面，现代理论都以这样或那样的方式声称要考虑实质正义。由于少于四分之一的美国州仍然坚持传统理论，因此必须说，某种形式的追求实质正义的目标是主流观点。
(2)然而，这个问题非常复杂，因为现代理论在这个问题上没有统一的立场，而是代表了一个广泛连续统一体上的观点。这些观点的范畴相当值得注意。

Answer 4

“冲突正义与实质正义”[ 8 ]（1）的基本理论dichotomyin法律选择的目的是选择“正确”的法律制度，治理一个多国家争端或目的达到公平的可能结果在个别情况下，目标之间。很明显，传统理论在前面的历史说明声称被管辖的选择性，与冒险的法律systemindicated的关键连接因素不管其内容。它thussubscribes的“冲突正义”与“实质正义”的目的，但大部分在示威，法院管辖权实际上是避免盲目选择通过这样的evasionsas卷入争议法律范畴的重新鉴定攻击的批评，艺术的公共秩序，甚至使用反致。现代理论，另一方面，所有声称在一种或另一种方式采取实质正义的考虑。由于低于美国四分之一仍坚持传统的理论，因此它必须说，某些形式的目标追求实质正义是普遍的看法。（2）问题是非常复杂的，然而，事实moderntheories没有统一的对这一问题的立场，而是代表了一个广泛的连续点。这些点的方位是很了不起。

Answer 5

The fundamental theoretical dichotomyin the purposes of choice of law is between the objective of choosing the“proper” legal system to govern a multi-state dispute or the objective ofreaching the fairest possible result in the individual case. It is clear thatthe traditional theory described in the preceding historical note purports tobe jurisdiction-selective, with a leap in the dark to the legal systemindicated by the critical connecting factor regardless of its content. It thussubscribes to the objective of “conflicts justice” versus “material justice”,although its critics based much of their attack on demonstrations that thecourts were in fact avoiding blind jurisdiction-selection through such evasionsas re-characterization of the legal category involved in the controversy, thedefense of ordre public, or even use of renvoi. The modern theories, on theother hand, all purport in one way or another to take substantive justice intoaccount. Since less than one fourth of the American states still adhere to thetraditional theory, it must therefore be said that some form of pursuit of theobjective of substantive justice is the prevailing view.