Question

帮忙翻译一段法律英语，急

Dworkin saw the inability of the positivists to recognize any other standards as being law as a weakness which ultimately led them erroneously to propose that in situations where there was no specific law applying to a particular situation---so called "hard cases" ---then judges were liable to use their discretion in order to reache a decision. In this respect, Dworkin specifically criticized Hart's concept of law as a system of rules.

According to Hart's scheme, only those rules which satisfy the criteria of legal validity set out in legal system's rule of recognization may be classified as law. Anything else, including rules of morality and other social standards, can not be law and will therefor not be directly relevant in the processes of adjudication carried out by the courts. Normally, judges will not have any problems identifying the rules of law which apply to a particular dispute and using them to resolve the dispute.
请不要用机译！！！

Answer 1

Dworkin saw the inability of the positivists to recognize any other standards as being law as a weakness which ultimately led them erroneously to propose that in situations where there was no specific law applying to a particular situation---so called "hard cases" ---then judges were liable to use their discretion in order to (reach) a decision. In this respect, Dworkin specifically criticized Hart's concept of law as a system of rules.
Dworkin 认为实证主义者不能将其他标准定义为法律是他们的弱点，这错误最终导致他们遇到所谓的‘棘手案件’时，没有具体的法律适用于该特殊案件，只有让法官们使用他们的任意决定权以便做出判决。针对这点，Dworkin 明确地批评 Hart 将规则体系作为法律的观点。

According to Hart's scheme, only those rules which satisfy the criteria of legal validity set out in legal system's rule of (recognition) may be classified as law. Anything else, including rules of morality and other social standards, can not be law and will (therefore) not be directly relevant in the processes of adjudication carried out by the courts. Normally, judges will not have any problems identifying the rules of law which apply to a particular dispute and using them to resolve the dispute.
根据Hart 的论点，只有那些符合司法系统承认规则所认定有法律效力的标准的规则，才可能归类为法律。除此之外，其他一切包括道德准则及其他社会标准都不可列为法律，因此在法院的裁决过程中没有直接的关系。通常，法官针对某个纠纷应使用那条法则来解决争端是毫无问题的。

【注：原文有几个错字，已用刮弧指出并纠正】

Answer 2

.杜威肯把实证主义在确认其他标准是否可以定义为法律上的无能视为一个弱点.他认为这一弱点最终将把它们错误的引入没有任何一种特殊法律适用于此种特殊案件的境地,这就是所谓的难处理的案件.因此,为了作出结论,就要依赖审判人员自由酌情处理.在这方面,杜威肯针对哈特持有的法律为法规体系的观点提出了明确的批评
根据哈特的理论,只有那些正式生效的法律体系的法规列出的,能够满足法律上的有效性这一标准的法规才可以被定义为法律,其他.例如道德准则,社会标准均不能被定义为法律,因此也不可以直接适用于法庭审判过程.一般来说,法官在确定法律制度是否适用于某一特殊争端和用法律制度去解决这一争端上是没有问题的

Answer 3

德沃金认为，不能实证主义承认任何其他标准，作为法律的一个弱点，最终导致他们错误地建议，在一些情况下还没有具体的法律适用于某一特定情况---所谓的“疑难案件” -当时的法官有可能利用其自由裁量权，以reache决定。在这方面，德沃金特别批评哈特的概念，法律制度的规则。

据哈特的计划，只有那些符合规则的法律效力的标准中规定的法律制度的规则，识别可能被归类为法律。其他事物，包括议事规则和其他社会道德标准，不能将为此法律和不直接相关的过程中所进行的审判法庭。通常情况下，法官将不会有任何问题，确定的法律规则，适用于某一纠纷并利用它们来解决争端。