经典法律案例视角下的法律英语翻译策略探究
法律英语英文案例分析(3篇)
第1篇IntroductionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a landmark decision in the field of contract law, particularly focusing on the interpretation of written contracts and the principles of consideration. This analysis will delve into the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, the court's reasoning, and the broader implications of the decision.Facts of the CaseThe case of Johnson v. Smith revolves around a contract between two individuals, John Johnson and Mark Smith. Johnson, a well-known contractor, agreed to undertake the construction of a residential property for Smith, a real estate developer. The contract was a detailed written agreement, outlining the scope of work, the timeline, and the payment terms.The contract stipulated that Johnson would complete the construction within six months from the date of the contract, with payments to be made in installments upon the completion of specific milestones. However, after three months, Johnson encountered unforeseen delays due to issues with the foundation of the property. Despite several attempts to renegotiate the terms with Smith, Johnson was unable to secureadditional time or funds.Johnson, unable to meet the contractual obligations, decided toterminate the contract. He notified Smith of his intention to cease work and demanded payment for the work completed up to that point. Smith, however, refused to pay, arguing that Johnson had breached the contract by failing to complete the work within the stipulated time frame.Arguments PresentedJohnson's Legal Argument:1. Force Majeure: Johnson argued that the unforeseen delays were due toa force majeure event, which excused him from fulfilling his contractual obligations. He cited the unforeseen foundation issues as an example ofan event beyond his control that prevented him from completing the work on time.2. Modification of Contract: Johnson claimed that he and Smith had verbally agreed to modify the contract to extend the completion date. He provided evidence of several conversations between the two parties, which he argued demonstrated an intention to alter the original terms.Smith's Legal Argument:1. Breach of Contract: Smith contended that Johnson's failure to complete the work on time was a clear breach of the contract. He argued that the contract was a legally binding agreement and that Johnson was obligated to complete the work within the specified timeframe.2. No Modification of Contract: Smith denied the existence of any verbal agreement to modify the contract. He argued that any such modification would require a written document to be legally binding.Court's ReasoningThe court, after hearing both parties' arguments and examining the evidence presented, ruled in favor of Smith. The court's reasoning can be summarized as follows:1. Force Majeure: The court found that while unforeseen delays may indeed be grounds for excusing performance under certain circumstances, the evidence presented by Johnson did not establish that the foundation issues were a force majeure event. The court emphasized that such events must be beyond the reasonable control of the contractor and must prevent the contractor from fulfilling their obligations.2. Modification of Contract: The court ruled that the evidence of verbal agreements between Johnson and Smith was insufficient to prove a modification of the contract. The court emphasized that modifications to written contracts should be in writing and signed by both parties to be legally binding.Broader ImplicationsThe decision in Johnson v. Smith has several broader implications for contract law:1. Interpretation of Written Contracts: The case underscores the importance of interpreting written contracts strictly according to their terms. Parties should carefully review and understand the terms of their agreements before entering into them.2. Consideration: The court's decision highlights the principle of consideration, which is a fundamental requirement for a contract to be legally binding. Both parties must provide something of value (consideration) in exchange for the promises made in the contract.3. Modification of Contracts: The case serves as a cautionary tale for parties attempting to modify contracts. Any modification should be in writing and signed by all parties involved to avoid disputes over the terms of the agreement.ConclusionThe case of Johnson v. Smith is a compelling example of the complexities involved in contract law, particularly in the interpretation of written contracts and the principles of consideration. The court's decision serves as a valuable precedent for future cases and underscores the importance of careful contract drafting and adherence to contractual obligations.第2篇IntroductionThis legal English case analysis focuses on the United States v. John Doe, a landmark case that revolves around the interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The case highlights the complexities surrounding the definition of "authorized access" and its implications for individuals accused of unauthorized computer access. The analysis will delve into the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, the court's decision, and the broader implications of the ruling.Facts of the CaseJohn Doe, an employee of XYZ Corporation, was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) after he accessed the company's computer system to retrieve personal information about his colleagues. Doe had been terminated from his employment and, feeling aggrieved, sought to retaliate against the company by leaking sensitive information to the media. Doe argued that he had authorized access to the company's computer system, as he was an employee at the time of the alleged offense.Legal ArgumentsThe prosecution argued that Doe's access to the company's computer system was unauthorized, as he had exceeded the scope of his employment by accessing information that was not necessary for his job. The prosecution cited the CFAA, which defines "unauthorized access" as "access to a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access."Doe, on the other hand, contended that his access was authorized, as he was an employee at the time of the offense. He argued that the term "authorized access" should be interpreted broadly to include any access that is not prohibited by the company's computer usage policy.Court's DecisionThe district court ruled in favor of Doe, finding that his access to the company's computer system was authorized. The court interpreted the term "authorized access" narrowly, holding that it did not encompass access that was merely beyond the scope of the employee's job responsibilities. The court further stated that the CFAA was not intended to criminalize all unauthorized computer access but rather to target those who exceeded their authorized access or accessed computers without authorization.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, finding that Doe's access was indeed unauthorized. The appeals court held that the term "authorized access" should be interpreted broadly, encompassing any access that isnot explicitly permitted by the company's computer usage policy. The court reasoned that the CFAA was designed to protect computer systems from unauthorized access and that the term "authorized access" should be given a broad construction to achieve this purpose.AnalysisThe United States v. John Doe case presents a critical issue in the realm of computer fraud and abuse law: the interpretation of the term "authorized access." The case highlights the complexities surrounding this issue and the differing interpretations that can arise from it.1. Interpretation of "Authorized Access"The district court's narrow interpretation of "authorized access" was based on the principle that an employee's access is only authorized ifit falls within the scope of his or her job responsibilities. This interpretation, however, could have unintended consequences, as it could make it difficult to prosecute individuals who exceed the scope of their employment in accessing computer systems.In contrast, the appeals court's broad interpretation of "authorized access" aligns with the purpose of the CFAA, which is to protect computer systems from unauthorized access. This interpretation allowsfor a more flexible approach to determining whether an individual has exceeded their authorized access, thereby ensuring that the CFAA is effective in deterring computer fraud and abuse.2. Implications for EmployersThe case has significant implications for employers, particularly in terms of developing and enforcing computer usage policies. Employers must ensure that their policies clearly define what constitutes authorized access and that employees are aware of these policies. Employers should also consider implementing regular training sessions to educate employees on the importance of adhering to computer usage policies and the potential consequences of unauthorized access.3. Broader ImplicationsThe United States v. John Doe case has broader implications for thelegal landscape surrounding computer fraud and abuse. The decision has been influential in shaping the interpretation of the CFAA and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases. The case also highlights the needfor ongoing dialogue and debate regarding the proper balance between protecting computer systems and ensuring that individuals' rights are not unduly infringed upon.ConclusionThe United States v. John Doe case is a significant legal precedent that addresses the interpretation of the term "authorized access" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The case highlights the complexities surrounding this issue and the differing interpretations that can arise from it. While the appeals court's broad interpretation of "authorized access" aligns with the purpose of the CFAA, the case also underscores the need for clear and comprehensive computer usage policies, as well as ongoing dialogue regarding the appropriate balance between protecting computer systems and safeguarding individual rights.第3篇Introduction:The following case analysis is focused on the legal dispute between Jane Doe, a plaintiff, and XYZ Corporation, the defendant. The case revolves around a breach of contract and negligence claims. The analysis will provide an overview of the facts, legal issues, and the court's decision.Facts of the Case:Jane Doe, a 32-year-old woman, was employed by XYZ Corporation as a sales representative. Jane was required to travel extensively for work, which often involved long hours and demanding schedules. During her employment, Jane was given a verbal agreement by her supervisor, John Smith, that she would receive a bonus of $10,000 at the end of the year if she met certain sales targets.Jane diligently worked towards achieving the sales targets set by the company. She spent countless hours attending meetings, contacting clients, and closing deals. By the end of the year, Jane successfully exceeded the sales targets set by XYZ Corporation. However, when the bonus was due, Jane was informed that her bonus would not be paid due to a change in company policy.Jane was shocked and disappointed by the company's decision. She felt that she had fulfilled her end of the verbal agreement and that the company was breaching its obligations. Additionally, Jane claimed that her supervisor, John Smith, had assured her that she would receive the bonus, which she believed to be a representation made by the company.Jane filed a lawsuit against XYZ Corporation, alleging breach of contract and negligence. She sought damages for the unpaid bonus and for emotional distress caused by the company's actions.Legal Issues:1. Breach of Contract:Jane's primary claim was that XYZ Corporation breached its verbal agreement to pay her the bonus. To establish a breach of contract, Jane had to prove the following elements:a. Existence of a contract: Jane had to show that there was a valid contract between her and XYZ Corporation. In this case, the existence of a verbal agreement was in question.b. Breach of the contract: Jane had to prove that XYZ Corporation failed to perform its obligations under the contract. This involved demonstrating that she met the sales targets and that the company failed to pay the bonus.c. Damages: Jane had to establish that she suffered damages as a result of the breach. This included the monetary value of the unpaid bonus and any emotional distress caused by the company's actions.2. Negligence:Jane also claimed that XYZ Corporation was negligent in failing to pay the bonus. To prove negligence, Jane had to prove the following elements:a. Duty of care: XYZ Corporation had a duty to act with reasonable care towards Jane.b. Breach of duty: XYZ Corporation breached its duty of care by failing to pay the bonus.c. Causation: Jane had to prove that the company's breach of duty caused her damages.d. Damages: Jane had to establish that she suffered damages as a result of the company's negligence.Court's Decision:The court heard both parties' arguments and considered the evidence presented. After careful consideration, the court ruled in favor of Jane Doe on both her breach of contract and negligence claims.Regarding the breach of contract claim, the court held that a verbal agreement between Jane and her supervisor, John Smith, was sufficient to create a binding contract. The court further ruled that XYZ Corporation breached its obligations under the contract by failing to pay the bonus despite Jane meeting the sales targets.In the negligence claim, the court found that XYZ Corporation owed Jane a duty of care and breached that duty by failing to pay the bonus. The court also concluded that the company's breach of duty caused Jane emotional distress, which entitled her to damages.Conclusion:The case of Jane Doe v. XYZ Corporation serves as an important reminder of the enforceability of verbal agreements and the duty of care owed by employers to their employees. In this case, the court recognized the validity of a verbal agreement and held XYZ Corporation liable for breaching its obligations. The decision highlights the importance ofclear communication and adherence to contractual agreements in the workplace.。
英汉法律翻译案例讲评(3篇)
第1篇案例背景：本案例涉及一家英国公司（以下简称“英方”）與中國公司（以下简称“中方”）簽訂的合夥協議。
該協議規定了兩家公司在中國市場上共同開發某項產品的合作細節。
由於兩家公司的語言障礙，需要進行專業的法律翻譯以確保協議的準確性和可執行性。
案例描述：以下是合夥協議的部分原文及其翻譯：原文：1. The Parties agree to form a joint venture to develop and manufacturea new product in the Chinese market.2. The joint venture will be registered and operated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the People's Republic of China.3. The Parties shall contribute capital in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.4. The profits and losses of the joint venture shall be shared equally between the Parties.5. The joint venture shall be dissolved upon the occurrence of any of the following events:a. The termination of this Agreement by either Party.b. The breach of this Agreement by either Party.c. The occurrence of any event that makes it impossible to continue the operation of the joint venture.翻譯：1. 双方同意成立一家合夥公司，以開發和生產一款新產品進入中國市場。
法律英语教学案例分析(3篇)
第1篇一、引言随着全球化的发展，法律英语在国际交流和合作中扮演着越来越重要的角色。
为了培养具备国际视野和法律素养的复合型人才，法律英语教学在我国高等教育中逐渐受到重视。
本文通过对一个具体的法律英语教学案例进行分析，探讨法律英语教学的方法、策略和效果，以期为我国法律英语教学提供参考和借鉴。
二、案例背景某法学院法律英语课程是一门针对法学专业本科生的专业英语课程，旨在帮助学生掌握法律英语的基本知识、技能和思维方式，提高学生的法律英语应用能力。
本案例以该课程的一次课堂教学为例，分析法律英语教学的效果。
三、案例分析1. 教学目标本次教学的目标是使学生了解英国合同法的基本概念和原则，掌握合同条款的英文表达，并能运用法律英语进行案例分析。
2. 教学内容本次教学内容主要包括以下几个方面：（1）英国合同法的基本概念和原则（2）合同条款的英文表达（3）案例分析3. 教学方法（1）讲授法：教师通过讲解英国合同法的基本概念和原则，使学生了解合同法的基本知识。
（2）案例分析法：教师通过分析实际案例，引导学生运用法律英语进行案例分析，提高学生的法律英语应用能力。
（3）小组讨论法：将学生分成小组，就案例进行讨论，培养学生的团队协作能力和表达能力。
4. 教学过程（1）导入：教师简要介绍英国合同法的基本概念和原则，激发学生的学习兴趣。
（2）讲解：教师详细讲解合同条款的英文表达，并举例说明。
（3）案例分析：教师选取一个具有代表性的合同案例，引导学生运用法律英语进行分析。
（4）小组讨论：将学生分成小组，就案例进行讨论，并要求各小组派代表进行汇报。
（5）总结：教师对学生的讨论进行总结，并对学生的表现给予评价。
5. 教学效果通过本次教学，学生掌握了英国合同法的基本概念和原则，熟悉了合同条款的英文表达，并能运用法律英语进行案例分析。
具体表现在以下几个方面：（1）学生的法律英语水平有所提高，能较好地阅读和理解法律英文文献。
（2）学生的法律思维和表达能力得到锻炼，能在实际工作中运用法律英语进行沟通和交流。
经典法律案例视角下的法律英语翻译策略探究
经典法律案例视角下的法律英语翻译策略探究【摘要】英语翻译要遵循“信、达、雅”三原则，同样法律英语的翻译也有其固有的规律和原则可循。
在法律英语文本的翻译中，要注意措辞的准确性，文本句法的通顺性，也要照顾到特殊句式的翻译技巧与策略。
本文旨在借助经典法律案例的视角研究法律文本的翻译策略。
【关键词】法律英语；案例；翻译策略一、法律文本措辞的准确性准确性是法律英语遣词的最重要特征，因此在翻译法律文本的时候，要将准确性作为衡量文本翻译好坏的主要标准。
由于法律文本的翻译涉及两种或者多种语言，不仅要顾及法律语言本身，还要顾及到不同国家不同文化对法律英语的影响，故而准确性在法律文本的翻译过程中是必须严格坚持的原则。
如前些日子争论很大的世界著名歌星MICHAELJACKSON（迈克尔·杰克逊）的遗嘱中提到I present my whole estate to the consigner then functioning under that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust performed on March 22，2002 by me consigner which is called the MJ FAMILY TRUST，any amendments are valid before my death.遗嘱第一行estate一词的选用极为准确，在英语语词中，表达财产的词汇有property，assets，estate。
Property强调个人或团体可合法获得或者拥有的一切有价值的东西，主要包括有价证券，钱财等物品。
Assets指的是个人或公司所有的用于抵偿债务或变卖后支付债务的财产。
Estate主要指房地产。
而在遗嘱第一行所指的财产主要就是房地产，故此词的选择还是相当考究的，切实体现了法律英语翻译的准确性原则。
二、法律文本句法的通顺性通顺性的含义可以从两个角度解读：首先，选择最正确的语词，语词跟原作作者的所思所感是一致的；其次，句与句之间通顺贯通，一气呵成，有条不紊的将原作作者的意图再现出来，对原作的翻译没有任何的歪曲和误读。
英汉法律翻译案例讲评(3篇)
第1篇一、引言随着全球化进程的加快，跨国法律事务日益增多，英汉法律翻译在法律实践中扮演着重要角色。
本文将通过一个具体的英汉法律翻译案例，对翻译过程中的难点、技巧及注意事项进行详细分析，以期对法律翻译工作者提供有益的借鉴。
二、案例背景某跨国公司在我国某地设立分公司，因合同纠纷向我国法院提起诉讼。
该公司提交的英文合同文本中存在多处专业术语，且部分条款表述模糊。
为确保诉讼顺利进行，我国律师对英文合同文本进行了翻译，并提交给法院。
三、案例分析1. 翻译难点（1）专业术语翻译案例中的英文合同文本涉及大量专业术语，如“force majeure”（不可抗力）、“lex loci contractus”（合同准据法）等。
这些术语在英汉法律翻译中具有一定的难度，需要翻译者具备扎实的法律功底和丰富的翻译经验。
（2）条款表述模糊部分条款在英文文本中表述模糊，如“the parties shall act in good faith”（双方应诚信行事）。
在翻译过程中，需要根据具体语境和合同目的，对模糊条款进行恰当的阐释。
2. 翻译技巧（1）专业术语翻译针对专业术语翻译，翻译者应遵循以下原则：1）准确翻译：确保翻译结果准确无误，避免产生歧义。
2）简洁明了：尽量使用简洁明了的语言，避免冗长复杂的句子。
3）符合语境：根据具体语境，选择合适的翻译方法。
例如，将“force majeure”翻译为“不可抗力”，既符合中文表达习惯，又准确传达了原意。
（2）条款表述模糊针对模糊条款，翻译者可采取以下方法：1）根据合同目的，对模糊条款进行阐释。
2）参考类似案例，寻找相关条款的翻译方法。
3）咨询专业人士，获取权威解释。
例如，将“the parties shall act in good faith”翻译为“双方应本着诚信原则履行合同”，既明确了条款含义，又符合合同目的。
3. 注意事项（1）尊重原文翻译过程中，应尊重原文的表述方式和风格，避免过度改写。
法律术语的英汉翻译策略
法律术语的英汉翻译策略随着全球化的深入，法律术语的英汉翻译变得越来越重要。
准确的法律术语翻译有助于确保法律文件的准确理解和执行，进而维护法律权益和促进国际合作。
以下是一些在翻译法律术语时可以采用的重要策略。
专业化翻译对于法律领域的翻译，必须具备专业知识以准确传达法律概念。
因此，在进行法律翻译之前，必须对相关法律进行深入理解，以确保翻译的准确性和权威性。
词义准确在法律翻译中，每个单词都可能影响一整段文字的含义。
因此，在翻译过程中，需要特别注意每个单词的词义，以确保译文的准确性。
如果遇到不确定的词汇，应借助专业词典、网络工具或其他资源进行查询。
语境考虑在翻译法律文件时，语境是决定词义的关键因素。
在不同的语境下，同一个词可能有不同的含义。
因此，在翻译过程中，应根据上下文来确定词义。
遵循惯例在法律翻译中，有些术语有固定的英文表达方式，应遵循这些惯例，以确保译文的规范性和权威性。
例如，“法人”通常翻译为“legal person”，“合同”通常翻译为“contract”。
语序调整由于英语和汉语的语法结构不同，因此在翻译过程中，可能需要调整语序以使译文更符合目标语言的习惯。
例如，在英语中，状语通常放在句首，而在汉语中，状语通常放在句中或句末。
术语统一在一份法律文件中，应确保同一术语使用统一的译法，以避免产生歧义。
如果遇到多种可能的译法，应与法律专家协商以确定最佳译法。
注重修辞法律文件需要具有权威性和庄重性，因此，在翻译过程中，应注重修辞，使译文的语言风格符合目标语言的习惯。
还应注意文体的选择，以使译文更符合目标语言的表达方式。
法律术语的英汉翻译需要遵循专业化、准确性、语境化、惯例化、语序调整、术语统一和注重修辞等策略，以确保法律文件的准确理解和执行。
只有通过深入理解法律知识、熟练掌握语言技能和运用恰当的翻译策略，我们才能提供高质量的法律翻译服务，为国际交流与合作做出积极贡献。
随着全球化的推进，法律术语的翻译越来越受到人们的。
以案例说法律英语(3篇)
第1篇一、引言法律英语是法律领域特有的专业英语，它不仅包括法律术语、法律条文，还包括法律文书、法律文献等。
在全球化背景下，法律英语的重要性日益凸显。
本文将通过具体案例，分析法律英语在实际应用中的重要性，以及如何正确运用法律英语进行法律沟通和表达。
二、案例一：国际贸易纠纷案例背景：甲公司（中国）与乙公司（美国）签订了一份国际货物买卖合同，约定由甲公司向乙公司出口一批货物。
合同签订后，甲公司按照约定履行了交货义务，但乙公司以货物质量不合格为由拒绝付款。
甲公司遂向法院提起诉讼，要求乙公司支付货款及利息。
法律英语运用：1. 诉讼文书在起诉状中，甲公司使用了以下法律英语表达：- The Plaintiff (甲公司) hereby sues the Defendant (乙公司) for breachof contract and claims the payment of the due amount together with interest.（原告（甲公司）现因被告（乙公司）违反合同，要求被告支付到期款项及利息。
）2. 证据材料在证据材料中，甲公司使用了以下法律英语表达：- The quality of the goods delivered by the Plaintiff meets the requirements set forth in the contract.（原告交付的货物符合合同约定的质量要求。
）3. 法庭辩论在法庭辩论中，甲公司使用了以下法律英语表达：- The Defendant's defense is groundless and lacks evidence.（被告的抗辩无理且缺乏证据。
）三、案例二：劳动争议案例背景：张某（中国）与某公司签订了一份劳动合同，约定张某在某公司担任销售经理。
合同履行期间，张某因工作调动原因，向公司提出辞职。
公司以张某违反竞业限制条款为由，拒绝支付张某的离职补偿金。
法律翻译的技巧与策略
法律翻译的技巧与策略在全球化的时代背景下，法律翻译逐渐成为一个重要的领域。
法律文件与文书的翻译涉及到法律术语、法律体系的差异以及跨文化传播等方面的问题。
因此，法律翻译人员需要具备一定的技巧与策略来应对这些挑战。
本文将探讨一些法律翻译的技巧与策略，希望对从事法律翻译工作的人员有所帮助。
首先，准确理解法律术语是法律翻译的关键之一。
法律术语是法律语言的核心，具有严密、明确的定义。
因此，在进行翻译工作时，必须完全理解源文中所使用的法律术语的准确含义，并在译文中恰当地表达。
有时，不同法律体系中的同一术语在概念上存在差异，因此翻译人员还需了解不同体系下的法律术语的异同之处。
其次，了解不同法律体系之间的差异对于法律翻译也至关重要。
不同国家和地区的法律体系在立法、判例以及司法实践等方面存在差异，这就为法律翻译增加了难度。
翻译人员需要熟悉不同法律体系的基本框架以及其背后的法律原则和理念，以便有效地将源文的法律概念和规则传达到目标文中。
从事法律翻译还需要具备一定的横向知识。
法律翻译不仅涉及到法律领域的专业知识，还需要了解其他相关领域的知识。
例如，在涉及贸易法律的翻译工作中，了解国际贸易、海关法规等相关知识将会对提高翻译质量和准确性有所裨益。
这种横向知识的运用可以在翻译过程中更好地理解原文的含义，从而更好地传达到目标文中。
此外，充分利用可用的资源也是法律翻译的重要策略之一。
互联网和各种数码工具为翻译人员提供了丰富的资源。
例如，在线法律词典、法律文献和数据库等都可以帮助翻译人员更好地处理来源文献中的法律术语和相关法律知识。
翻译人员还可以与其他从业者进行交流和合作，互相借鉴经验和知识，提高自身的翻译能力。
要想提高法律翻译的质量，翻译人员还需要注意一些细节。
一方面，正式文书的风格和语言特点需要得到合理的保留。
法律文书通常比较正式、严肃，因此翻译人员在进行翻译时应该注意保持其正式性以及专业性。
另一方面，法律翻译还应注意可读性和可理解性。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
经典法律案例视角下的法律英语翻译策略探究
【摘要】英语翻译要遵循“信、达、雅”三原则，同样法律英语的翻译也有其固有的规律和原则可循。
在法律英语文本的翻译中，要注意措辞的准确性，文本句法的通顺性，也要照顾到特殊句式的翻译技巧与策略。
本文旨在借助经典法律案例的视角研究法律文本的翻译策略。
【关键词】法律英语；案例；翻译策略
一、法律文本措辞的准确性
准确性是法律英语遣词的最重要特征，因此在翻译法律文本的时候，要将准确性作为衡量文本翻译好坏的主要标准。
由于法律文本的翻译涉及两种或者多种语言，不仅要顾及法律语言本身，还要顾及到不同国家不同文化对法律英语的影响，故而准确性在法律文本的翻译过程中是必须严格坚持的原则。
如前些日子争论很大的世界著名歌星MICHAELJACKSON（迈克尔·杰克逊）的遗嘱中提到
I present my whole estate to the consigner then functioning under that certain Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust performed on March 22，2002 by me consigner which is called the MJ FAMILY TRUST，any amendments are valid before my death.
遗嘱第一行estate一词的选用极为准确，在英语语词中，表达财产的词汇有property，assets，estate。
Property强调个人或团体可合法获得或者拥有的一切有价值的东西，主要包括有价证券，钱财等物品。
Assets指的是个人或公司所有的用于抵偿债务或变卖后支付债务的财产。
Estate主要指房地产。
而在遗嘱第一行所指的财产主要就是房地产，故此词的选择还是相当考究的，切实体现了法律英语翻译的准确性原则。
二、法律文本句法的通顺性
通顺性的含义可以从两个角度解读：首先，选择最正确的语词，语词跟原作作者的所思所感是一致的；其次，句与句之间通顺贯通，一气呵成，有条不紊的将原作作者的意图再现出来，对原作的翻译没有任何的歪曲和误读。
法律文本的翻译要求更为严格，不然会扭曲法律文本原本的意图，在法律裁决中出现严重错误。
在迈克尔·杰克逊遗嘱的第四部分提到如下内容：
“I direct that all federal estat e taxes and state inheritance or succession taxes payable upon or resulting from or by reason of my death （herein “Death Taxes”）attributable to property which is part of the trust estate of the MICHAEL JACKSON FAMILY TRUST，including property which passes to said trust from my probate estate shall be paid by the Trustee of said trust in accordance with its terms. Death Taxes attributable to property passing outside this Will，other than property
constituting the trust estate of the trust intentioned in the preceding sentence，shall be charged against the taker of said property”.
“译文：我指定所有因我死亡或在我死亡之时需支付的联邦遗产税和州继承税（简称“遗产税”）由迈克尔·杰克逊家庭信托基金财产支付，包括由我的遗嘱检验财产归入以上基金的财产部分应由上述受托人按照相关条款进行。
本遗嘱所涉遗产之外的遗产税，除了构成基金财产的部分，应由上述财产获得者支付”
显然，本版本的译文比较通畅顺达，符合英语的习惯表达法，也更符合法律英语的文本要求。
三、特殊句式的翻译策略
1、法律文本中状语从句的翻译方法
法律文本中状语从句居多，并且有其自己的规则，其位置与英语中的频度副词位置相同，一般应放在shall，may，或者will之后，行为动词之前。
这样的结构安排是为了明确状语修饰谓语动词这一语言关系，可以避免状语所修饰的模糊性。
翻译时可按照英文的句序译出。
“The President shall，at stated Times，receive for his Services， a Compensation，which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected，and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the U.S.，or any of them”
“总统在规定的时间内，应得到职务报酬，此项报酬在总统任期内不得增加或减少。
总统在任期内不得接受合众国或任何一州的任何其他报酬”
句中的“at stated Times”为句中的状语限定了“receive a compensation”的时间范围，译为：“在规定的时间内”。
“for his Services”状语短语表明“receive a compensation”的原因，它的位置也值得重视，它切割了谓语动词及其宾语。
忽略这个语言特点，常常会找不到宾语。
常用的习惯表达是“receive a Compensation for his Services”。
2、法律文本中定语从句的翻译技巧
鉴于法律英语的严谨性与准确性的遣词特点，在法律文本的定语从句中，采用“such as”的结构把所修饰的词组放在“such”和“as”之间，这样可以避免在理解法律文件时造成不必要的误读。
“The Economic and Social Council shall set up commissions in social and economic fields and for the improvement of human rights，and such other commissions as may be requested for the perf ormance of its functions”.
经济即社会理事会应设立社会领域、经济领域提高保障人权等各类委员会，并且要设立为履行其职责可能要求的其他委员会。
句中的“such as”引导的定语从句限定了“other commissions”，这就排除了以上提到的社会领域，经济领域，人权方面的委员会的可能性，因而不会产生理解上的误读。
3、法律文本中简略形式的翻译策略
英语从句如果是简略形式，从句位置一般安插到主句中，放在行为动词前，“shall”之后。
英译中时，一般按照原来的顺序翻译出来，也可灵活放在主句之前，具体情况具体分析。
“The Contractor shall，unless otherwise provided in the Contract，make his own arrangements for the engagement of all staff and labor，local or other，and for their payment，housing，feeding and transport”.
句中的“unless otherwise provided in the Contract”为从句的简略形式，意为“unless the Contract otherwise provides”。
参考文献：
[1]王媛媛：论法律英语的语言特征及译者角色[J]，淮阴工学院学报，2007，（05）.
[2]邓扬华：美国官员监督制约机制的特点黔西南民族[J]，黔西南师范高等学校学报，2001，（09）.
[3]李文阳：浅论法律英语的语言特点及翻译，中国翻译，1994，（06）.
[4]杨俊峰：《法律英语案例探究》，清华大学出版社，2007年版.
[5]傅伟良：法律英语翻译，石油工业出版社，2010年版.
多次主持并参与省部级课题研究，现任职于山东政法学院外国语学院。