“法治”和“人治”应该怎样翻译
中西政治文化中“人治”与“法治”比较-精选文档
中西政治文化中“人治”与“法治”比较中国的基层官员经常为这样的情况而烦恼，即面对一些上访群众的极端行为，如果满足其诉求，又会催生更对极端行为；如果置之不理，又会积累社会矛盾、影响长治久安。
处理也不对，不处理也不对。
这种进退失据的困境，反映了我国法治意识的缺失。
那么中国为什么法治意识相较于西方显得那么单薄呢？这恐怕要对比中国与西方传统政治文化的源头，从中或许我们可以找到些许原因。
一、中西政治传统中对“人治”与“法治”理解存在巨大差异中国古代的“法治”概念来源于法家之言，它的含义是指用法律来治人，即把法律当成治人的工具；而在西方传统的政治中，法治的含义是“Rule of law”，即法律的统治，意味法律是最高的统治者，任何人都要受法律的约束。
两者的本质区别在于，前者的核心在于权力制约，亦即治官，而后者的核心在于治民。
儒家是中国传统政治思想的代表。
儒家崇尚人治论，主张贤人政治，认为道德高尚的人应居于王位。
人治论的理论基础是性善论，认为人可以成为道德高尚的人。
因此，儒家在政治上寄希望于统治者的道德自律，对统怡者的人性采取了一种非常信任的态度，而忽视了对统怡者的外在制约。
儒家的贤人政治学说为最高统治者赋予了最好的德性，同时也赋予其最高的权力。
尽管儒家“圣王”说的初衷是只有圣人才有资格做王，而在政治实践中则是王最有资格做圣人。
与儒家形成鲜明对比的是，西方法治理论中的“中人”说，其不承认有什么道德超人，统治者与普通人的道德水平并无区别，而且都存在着人性的弱点。
因此，西方“法治”两个基本点：一是保权即保护人民的权利（Right），二是限权即限制统治者的权力（Power）。
正是因为中西传统文化的差异，对“人治”与“法治”的理解相距甚远，导致中国传统文化中“法治”思维的单薄，人们维护自身权利的意识很差。
究其原因，正如亚里士多德所说，“让一个人来统治，这就在政治中混入了兽性的因素。
” 同时，马克思也曾说：“君主政体的原则总地说来就是轻视人、蔑视人，使人不成其为人。
人治与法治英语作文800字孟子的故事
全文分为作者个人简介和正文两个部分：作者个人简介：Hello everyone, I am an author dedicated to creating and sharing high-quality document templates. In this era of information overload, accurate and efficient communication has become especially important. I firmly believe that good communication can build bridges between people, playing an indispensable role in academia, career, and daily life. Therefore, I decided to invest my knowledge and skills into creating valuable documents to help people find inspiration and direction when needed.正文：人治与法治英语作文800字孟子的故事全文共3篇示例，供读者参考篇1The Debate of Rule of Law vs Rule of Man: Lessons from the Story of MenciusAs students, we often hear about the importance of the rule of law and how it is a cornerstone of a just and stable society. Butwhat does the rule of law really mean, and how does it differ from the rule of man? To explore this concept, let's turn to a famous story from ancient China about the philosopher Mencius.During the Warring States period, Mencius traveled from state to state, advising rulers on how to govern justly and bring peace to the land. On one occasion, he engaged in athought-provoking debate with King Xuan of Qi about the fundamental principles that should guide a ruler.King Xuan proudly proclaimed, "In my state, there is a man with such a penetrating insight that, if horses pass by, he knows their tracks; if birds fly past, he knows their routes. Such a man is worthy to be a sage, is he not?"Mencius was unimpressed by this boast of an individual's extraordinary abilities. He responded, "There is one principle that the sage embraces: to derive benefit for the world by holding fast to proper policies. Even if there were one so skilled as your humble servant, it would be better to have no such person than to have one."The king was taken aback, wondering how having someone with exceptional observational skills could be seen as inferior to having no such talent at all. Mencius then explained the crux of his argument."If you govern the state by personal skills and experience, then everyone from the wise to the unwise will try to imitate you, each claiming to have skills and experience just as good as yours," he said. "In this way, the governance of the state will fall into disorder. But if you govern the state by adhering to the proper way, then even common people will be able to discern clear paths, and the state will attain order."In other words, Mencius was advocating for the rule of law, where clear and consistent principles and policies guide the governance of the state, rather than relying on the whims, skills or personal experiences of any individual ruler or official – the rule of man.The rule of law provides a objective, stable framework that applies equally to all citizens, rich or poor, powerful or powerless. It prevents the concentration of power in the hands of any one person or group who could abuse that power for their own benefit. Just laws, impartially enforced, cultivate a society of order, justice and human rights.In contrast, the rule of man is inherently subjective, unpredictable and prone to corruption or tyranny. When rulers wield absolute authority based on their personal judgments,desires or talents, it opens the door to favoritism, oppression and a disregard for the greater good of the people.History has borne out the wisdom of Mencius' teachings time and again. Periods of rule of law and adherence to fair, transparent systems of governance, like the Roman Republic or modern democracies, have generally brought prosperity and freedom. Periods of rule by the whims of individuals or elites, like feudalism or totalitarian dictatorships, have led to oppression, instability and suffering.Looking at current events, we can see how the rule of law is still an ongoing struggle in many nations grappling with authoritarianism, corruption and human rights abuses. Places where rule of law is strong tend to be beacons of economic development, social progress and human flourishing. It is a principle worth defending and upholding.As students looking towards becoming future leaders, citizens and shapers of society, we would be wise to heed the insights of the ancient Chinese philosopher. A just and sustainable system must be built on the cornerstone of the rule of law, not the rule of man. Those are ideals worth striving for in our modern age.篇2The Great Debate: Rule of Man or Rule of Law?As a student, I've often pondered the age-old question –what is the ideal way to govern a society? Should we rely on the wisdom and virtue of great leaders, or should we have a system of laws that applies equally to all? This dilemma, known as the choice between the "rule of man" and the "rule of law," has been debated by philosophers and thinkers for centuries. And perhaps no one has illustrated this conundrum better than the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius through his famous stories.One of Mencius' most renowned tales is that of King Xuan of Qi. The king, known for his love of rare animals, acquired a beautiful albino deer. However, he soon learned that his prized possession lacked the natural fear of humans and would often wander into dangerous situations. Worried for the deer's safety, the king asked Mencius what he should do.Mencius responded with a metaphor that cut to the heart of the rule of man versus rule of law debate. He said, "In keeping the deer, you should provide it with an enclosure where it can roam about, eating grass and drinking water like other deer." In other words, Mencius advocated for a system of laws – an"enclosure" – that would protect the deer without relying on the king's constant vigilance.However, King Xuan was not convinced. He argued that he loved the deer dearly and would ensure its safety through his personal care and attention. Mencius saw the folly in this approach, warning that "If you rely on people, what will you do when you don't have the right people? If you rely on an enclosure, you can protect the deer without anyone's help."This tale illustrates the fundamental flaw in the rule of man –it is inherently unstable and dependent on the whims and virtues of individual leaders. Even the most benevolent ruler can make mistakes or be succeeded by a tyrant, putting the well-being of the people at risk. The rule of law, on the other hand, provides a consistent and impartial framework that protects the rights and freedoms of all, regardless of who is in power.Mencius drove this point home with another famous story, this time about a man named Ox Mountain. Ox Mountain was a skilled butcher who, when asked the secret to his craft, replied, "What I care about is the Way, which goes beyond mere skill." He explained that he carefully studied the natural patterns and structures of the animals he butchered, never forcing his knife against the natural grain.Mencius used this tale to highlight the importance of following the natural order and principles of governance, rather than relying on the personal whims of rulers. Just as Ox Mountain respected the inherent nature of the animals he worked with, a good government should respect the inherent rights and freedoms of its people, enshrining them in a system of laws that cannot be violated on a ruler's mere say-so.As a student, I find these stories profoundly insightful and relevant, even today. They remind us that while strong and virtuous leadership is certainly desirable, true stability and justice can only be achieved through a system of laws that transcends any individual ruler. The rule of law provides a consistent, impartial framework that safeguards the rights and freedoms of all citizens, regardless of who is in power.At the same time, Mencius' tales remind us that the rule of law is not a panacea – laws must be grounded in reason, justice, and a respect for the natural order of things. They should protect the inherent rights and dignity of the people, just as Ox Mountain respected the inherent nature of the animals he worked with.In the end, the choice between the rule of man and the rule of law is not an either/or proposition. A truly just and stablesociety requires a balance of both – virtuous leadership tempered by a robust system of laws that enshrines the fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens. It is a delicate equilibrium, but one that is well worth striving for, as Mencius' timeless wisdom reminds us.篇3The Debate Between Rule of Man and Rule of Law: Lessons from MenciusIn the realm of political philosophy, few concepts have sparked more heated debates than the contrasting ideologies of "rule of man" and "rule of law." At the heart of this discourse lies a fundamental question: Should a society be governed by the whims and virtues of its leaders, or by an unwavering set of laws and principles? This age-old dilemma finds a compelling illustration in the teachings of Mencius, the renowned Confucian philosopher of ancient China.Mencius, a student of the great Confucius himself, was a staunch advocate of the "rule of man" or "rule of virtue" philosophy. He believed that a just and prosperous society could only be achieved under the guidance of a virtuous and benevolent leader, one who embodied the Confucian ideals ofren (humanity) and yi (righteousness). In his famous parable of the Well Field system, Mencius extolled the virtues of a ruler who prioritized the welfare of his people and governed with compassion.The story goes that during a time of famine, a wise ruler divided the arable land into nine equal parts. Eight parts were cultivated by eight families, while the central plot was tilled by the collective efforts of all. This ingenious system not only ensured a fair distribution of resources but also fostered a sense of community and cooperation among the people. Mencius saw this as a shining example of how a virtuous ruler, acting with benevolence and wisdom, could bring order and prosperity to his kingdom.However, the "rule of law" camp, championed by philosophers like Han Feizi, offered a contrasting perspective. They argued that relying solely on the virtue of rulers was an inherently flawed and unstable system. Human beings, no matter how virtuous, are prone to biases, emotions, and the corrupting influence of power. Instead, they advocated for the establishment of a comprehensive legal system, where the actions of rulers and citizens alike would be governed by a set of impartial and unchanging laws.The proponents of the "rule of law" contended that such a system would provide a much-needed check on the arbitrary exercise of power and ensure a more equitable and just society. They pointed to the potential for abuse and tyranny that could arise when a ruler's whims and personal interpretations of virtue held sway over the lives of countless subjects.As a student reflecting on these competing philosophies, I find myself drawn to aspects of both perspectives. While the notion of a virtuous and benevolent leader guiding society with wisdom and compassion is certainly appealing, history has taught us time and again that power can corrupt even the noblest of souls. The "rule of law," with its emphasis on impartial and codified principles, offers a safeguard against the potential excesses of individual rulers.However, I also recognize the value of Mencius' teachings and the importance of cultivating virtue and moral character in leadership. A purely legalistic approach, devoid of ethical considerations, can lead to a society that is coldly efficient yet lacking in humanity and empathy.Perhaps the answer lies in striking a delicate balance between the two philosophies. A system that combines the stability and fairness of the "rule of law" with the moral guidanceand ethical leadership espoused by Mencius could pave the way for a truly just and harmonious society. Such a synthesis would not only ensure that the actions of rulers are constrained by a robust legal framework but also that the laws themselves are infused with the principles of virtue, compassion, and the common good.In this modern age, where the complexities of governance have grown exponentially, the lessons of Mencius and his contemporaries remain as relevant as ever. As future leaders and citizens, it is our responsibility to critically examine these ancient wisdoms and apply them to the challenges of our time. Only by striking the right balance between the "rule of man" and the "rule of law" can we hope to build a world that is both just and humane.。
4.1《乡土中国》作品简介-高二语文中职(基础模块)
《乡土中国》提出了“礼俗社会”“差序格局 ”“男女有别”“无讼”“无为政治”“血缘社会 ”等概念，是对当时的中国农村生存环境和农民生 活状态深刻、简约的提炼，至今仍是开启中国传统 乡村社会研究之门的一把钥匙。
墨剑飘雨 liyongqian
李永强g
作品简介二：逻辑架构清晰明确
《乡土中国》由14篇相对独立的文章组成， 看似松散，实则相互关联，通过概念建立 起紧密的内在联系，综合分析了中国乡村 社会的结构和特点。全书基本按照闸释核 心概念、梳理人与人之间的社会关系特征、 探讨维护社会关系的方法、指出乡土社会 的变迁因素这样一个逻辑关系展开。《乡 土本色》是总论，确立“村落”这一论述 核心。《文字下乡》和《再论文字下乡》 主要是从文化传递的角度，分析“熟悉社 会”的基本内涵，与《乡土本色》一起构 成乡土社会的概要分析。在此基础上，作 者从三个角度阐释了乡土社会的基本内容。
乡下人无识字环境
文字下乡
文字在乡土社 会的用处
乡土社会是熟悉社会、面 对面的社区,在空间角度看 可以不需要文字。文字和语 言并非传情达意的唯一工具。
语言在面对面社 群有什么特点
面对面的社群人们之间很熟悉
文字的局限
1.文字是间接接触，有时词不达意
2.文字表达难尽合当时当地的圜局
3.文字传情达意还需要注意文法， 不够随意便捷
《书中大量引用《论语》《孟子》等中国 传统文化典籍里的观点，对“仁义礼智 信”“孝悌”等中国传统文化的重要概念 进行辨析，同时还引用了西方的一些文化 理论，让读者在中西方文化的比较中，加 深对中国传统文化的理解。此外，作者在 释概念理论时不是空洞说教，而是将学术 思考与人们的日常经验相结合，所举事例 鲜活，读来倍感亲切。
内容提要及思维导图
人治与法治的认识
谈谈对法治与人治的认识——法治必然取代人治[摘要]：在研究“依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”问题时，人们会进一步问，为什么一定要实行“法治”？“法治”有什么优越性？一般地说，“法治”的优越性是指它优于“人治”。
在党的十五大报告中讲到，“依法治国，是党领导人民治理国家的基本方略，是发展社会主义市场经济的客观需要，是社会文明进步的重要标志，是国家长治久安的重要保障”。
这些必要性是我国近20年来历史经验的总结，正说明法治本身的优越性和价值，即法治代表理性、效率、文明、民主和秩序。
[关键词]：法治、优越、人治、必然、取代法治无论是作为一种政治理念，一种治国方略，还是作为法学的一个基本范畴，都可以说源远流长，内涵丰富。
党的十五大把依法治国作为党领导人民治理国家的基本方略，把建设社会主义法治国家作为建设中国特色社会主义政治的基本内容。
第九届全国人大第二次会议以宪法修正案的方式，把依法治国和法治国家提升为政治文明的范畴。
这对于全国建设小康社会，开创中国特色社会主义事业新局面具有深远的意义。
依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家，是前所未有的伟大创举，是举世瞩目的超级工程，涉及一系列重大的理论和现实问题，既包括宏观的，也包含微观的。
一、法治与人治的渊源。
法治思想，源远流长。
但源头究竟在何处，很难考证。
作为一个封建统治历史悠久的国家，旧中国留给我们的，封建专制传统比较多，民主法制传统比较少。
有些地方和单位，都有家长式的人物，他们的权力不受限制，别人都要惟命是从，甚至形成了对他们的人身依附关系。
这种家长制作风，除了使个人高度集权外，还使个人凌驾于组织之上，组织成为个人的工具。
家长制就是历史非常悠久的一种陈旧社会现象，是人治的表现形式之一。
所谓人治，最基本的特征是当权者的个人意志超乎社会之上，处理事务和管理社会生活，完全以个人的意志、愿望、能力、政治素养、知识水平、道德品质为转移。
实现这样的统治，带有很大的随意性和很强的专横性。
法治与人治的关系
法治与人治的关系法治和人治都有局限性和优势，应该辩证的看待两者之间的关系，法治的学理基础是法学，强调公平正义的法律制度，人治的学理基础是管理学，强调科学有效的管理技巧，法学和管理学都有其存在的价值，不能单独的强调以法学为理论基础的法律制度而否定管理学的合理性，也不能单独强调以管理学为基础的管理技巧而否定法学的合理性。
现代的科学管理强调科学有效的管理技巧，也重视制度的作用，两者互为表里、相辅相成。
现代的法学理论强调良法善治，管理学和法学的理论目标是相通的，不能割裂的看待两者的问题。
首先，要了解法治、人治的概念。
法治：一种治国方略，是依法办事的原则，是将国家权力的行使和社会成员的活动纳入完备的法律规则系统。
知乎用户：法律与政治的关系？20 赞同·0 评论回答在不同的时代，人们赋予法治不同的社会内涵和意义。
在各种不同的表达方式中，法治包含着多种内涵和意义：（1）法治意指一种治国方略或社会调控方式，在这个意义上，法治是相对于人治而言的；（2）法治意指依法办事的原则，法治作为一个动态的或能动的社会范畴，其基本的意义是依法办事；（3）法治意指良好的法律秩序，无论是作为治国方略，还是作为依法办事的原则，法治最终要表现为一种良好的法律秩序；（4）法治代表某种包含特定价值规定性的社会生活方式，法治不是单纯的法律秩序，而是有特定价值基础和价值目标的法律秩序。
人治：与法治对立的治国方略。
这种对立在古代和近代史上，其内容和表现形式是不尽相同的。
在古代中国，法治论者强调把社会关系纳人法律的轨道，用带有权威性、强制性的法律规范或严刑峻法治理社会，这种法治论与近现代意义上的法治论有着本质上的区别，实际上属于法制的范畴。
人治论者则认为“为政在人”（出自《论语·为政》），强调重视人的作用。
在古希腊，法治强调法律的理性及其一般的指引作用，人治则强调圣贤的智慧及其解决具体问题的个别指引作用。
其次，要理解法治、人治的区别。
人治与法治的区别.ppt1
论法治
• 法治，先秦时期法家的政治哲学思想，强调法律制度在国家治理中的权威地位。如代 表人物之一商鞅主张：“智者作法，愚者制焉；贤者更礼，不肖者拘焉。”（《史 记·商君列传》）需要指出的是，儒法两家在人性和治国理念的方法上表面上存在着很 大的差异，但实质上两家的观点有着内在的相同之处，即法家的“性恶论”与儒家荀 子的“性恶论”接近，法家的“法治论”与儒家的“人治论”在本质上都是“人治”。 同西方的“性恶论”和“法治论”相比较，法家“性恶论”的适用范围小于西方的 “性恶论”，法家将君主和国家、以及高级别的官吏排除在“性恶”的范围之外，而 西方的“性恶论”则包括所有的社会成员；同理，法家的“法治”是“君权至上”、 “国权至上”的法治，西方的“法治”是“宪法至上”的法治。在传统中国法人治精 神的哲学基础问题上，存在着两种不同的观点：一种是性善论，一种是性恶论。前者 的推论是，传统中国的政治制度的存亡取决于人心，其结果是道德的政治化和政治的 道德化；这种理论和实践植根于中国古代哲学之中，这种哲学相信，人只要发掘内心， 就可以找到善的源泉，从而达到道德上的完美境界，这种道德完善同时又是做一个称 职的统治者的先决条件，这与西方政治学传统中的性恶论恰成对照
谈人治
• 人治假设归纳起来，人治论者的基本假设大致有 以下几点： • 1、社会决策中为了法治所需付出的沟通成本高于 个人决策的风险成本。 • 2、社会和国家的统治说到底最终要通过个别 人来进行，特别是贤人和智者。 • 3、社会中会产生这样的具有高尚道德和高度 智慧的人。 • 4、社会应当有而且确实有办法将这些贤人智 者选拔出来，赋予他们以决断事物的最终权力。信人性本善，更不相信 礼教道德可以收到改善人性而天下大治的功效；法家以为人 性是恶的，所以现实中的人总是贪生怕死、趋利避害，因此 为维持社会秩序必须对人性加以利用，表现在政治态度上应 该取法而排礼，具体到刑事政策上便是以恶制恶、以杀去杀、 刑期无期的重刑主义，而刑只可由君主一人来制定和掌握， 这就必然会导致绝对的专制主义和人治法律的产生。事实上， 传统中国的专制政治和法中的人治精神，既不是建立在单纯 的性善论哲学基础上，也不是以纯粹的性恶论为其理论依据 的，而是这两者的结合。儒家两家的理论本身就决定了，无 论是从性善还是从性恶出发，最后在实践上都必然要滑到专 制和人治的行列。因为性善论的教化成果和内心的自省挖掘 结果，在很大程度上主要取决于一两位在位者的潜移默化之 功，社会风气依赖于他们的人格感召力。因此，所谓的德治 和礼治便在不知不觉中滑向了人治，即以极少数人的言行为 标准，要求全体臣民赋予这些人以示范性和绝对的权威性， 最终导致以这些人的意志为全体臣民的意志，并通过制度和 法律而强制推行，使专制和人治制度化、法律化。而性恶论 的法家由于将权力的至上性、唯一合法性赋予了君主，使君 主成为国家的象征，甚至可以是强制方本身，皇帝的言行就 是法律，因此，违法就是背叛皇帝、背叛国家，于是必施重 罚。皇帝可对全体臣民施用法律，唯独他自己可以免除法律 的监督制约，这样，皇权成了绝对的、不可替代的强制力， 法权只是这种强制力的表现和延伸。
人治与法治辨析
人治与法治辨析人治与法治是两种不同的政治文明类型，二者之间既有联系又有区别。
从历史发展和现实实践看，二者之间有着紧密的联系。
从二者的含义来看，人治与法治既有区别又有联系：前者指以人治人，后者指以法治人；从二者的基本特征来看，人治与法治都是对政治权力的制约，都强调权力的独断性和权威性，但人治强调权力的独断性和权威性，法治强调权力的合法性和统一性。
本文将从人治与法治的概念、区别、意义、中国传统历史文化中人治与法治的关系以及法治建设实践中存在的问题这几方面进行分析。
人治与法治的概念人治与法治的概念源自于西方，二者存在着很大的差异，然而在当代中国语境中，二者经常被混为一谈。
实际上，法治与人治是一对既相区别又相互联系的范畴。
从历史和现实角度看，二者既有联系，也有区别。
我国传统法律文化中包含着丰富的人治思想，它不仅为法治的确立提供了文化渊源和思想基础，而且对于我们正确理解和处理人治与法治的关系也具有十分重要的借鉴意义。
法治是一种从历史和现实来看都具有合理性和可行性的治国方式。
但是，必须坚持人治与法治相统一的原则。
坚持人治与法治相统一的原则就是既要反对人治，又要反对法治。
人治与法治的区别二者之间既有联系又有区别：人治与法治是人治与政治与法律的关系；法治是依法治国与以德治国的结合；人治与法治都要求民主、自由、平等、正义等价值理念；人治与法治都具有相对独立性和多样性。
法治是相对于人治而言，它指在一定的历史条件下，以法律来治理国家，从而保障人权和限制权力。
从国家和社会治理的角度看，法治是政治文明的基本内容、基本方式和最高阶段。
从历史上看，人治与法治是不同性质、不同形态的概念。
中国古代的人治与中国现代法治都是一个历史过程。
从世界范围来看，任何一个国家的人治与法治都不可能在完全意义上等同。
实现中国现代法治是一项长期而艰巨的历史任务。
人治与法治的区别是一个既有理论层面也有实践层面的问题，它在我国既不可能简单地从正面回答也不可能从反面回答，只能采取辩证分析的态度。
细说英汉写作差异性(1)
细说英汉写作差异性（1）英语写作部分一向是中国考生比较头疼的地方，究其原因，英汉写作差异性无疑是一个非常重要的问题，为此小编特收集整理细说英汉写作差异性，分享给大家，希望对大家大家有所帮助，文中观点仅供参考。
一、英语多省略，汉语多补充例如：①Ambition is the mother of destruction as well as of evil.野心不仅是罪恶的根源，同时也是毁灭的根源。
②Reading exercises one's eyes; Speaking, one's tongue; while writing, one's mind.阅读训练人的眼睛，说话训练人的口齿，写作训练人的思维。
④One boy is a boy, two boys half a boy, three boys no boy.在考研英译汉中，省略是一种很常见现象。
例如：whether...or...是并列连词，or前面省略了不定式to use, and upon中间省了动词depends。
比较：I was all the more delighted when, as a result of the initiative of your Government it proved possible to reinstate the visit so quickly.译文：由于贵国政府的提议，才得以这样快地重新实现访问。
这使我感到特别高兴。
The assertion that it was difficult, if not impossible, for a people to enjoy its basic rights unless it was able to determine freely its political status and to ensure freely its economic, social and cultural development was now scarcely (不足地，不充分地;一定不，绝不)contested (斗争;比赛).译文：如果一个民族不能自由地决定其政治地位，不能自由地保证其经济、社会和文化的发展，要享受其基本权利，即使不是不可能，也是不容易的。
- 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)。
“法治”和“人治”应该怎样翻译
“法治”和“人治”应该说是热词，而非新词。
“法治”建立在民主的基础上，崇尚宪法和法律，认为宪法和法律的权威高于个人意志，它坚持任何组织和个人不能凌驾于宪法和法律之上。
而人治则建立在个人专断与独裁的基础上，主张个人的权威大于宪法和法律的权威，推行人大于法、权大于法的一套。
然而，这样一对重要的法律术语，却常常被错译。
例如，People'sDailyOnline在翻译外交学院院长吴建民的演讲《中国是一个负责任的大国》时，把“法治”译为governance by law；一些权威的汉英词典把“法治”译为rule bylaw、government by rule，把“人治”译为rule of man和rule by individuals，这些译文看似正确，但却都有问题。
先谈rule by law和rule of law。
这两个短语英文中都有，但意思却差别很大。
rule by law，一般翻译为“依法而治”，指当权者按照法律治理国家，但这些法律不一定是由普通公民组成的立法部门制订的。
而rule of law才译为“法治”，指在某一社会中，法律具有凌驾一切的地位。
所谓“凌驾一切”，是指任何人，包括行政机关、法律制订者和执行者都必须遵守，法律是社会最高的规则。
而这些法律本身是经过某一特定程序产生的。
对于社会上常见的违法或脱序现象，尤其是以激烈的、游走于法律边缘的手段向政府争取权利的行为，政治官员常常会呼吁和要求人民“守法”，以尊重“法治”。
其实这是对“法治”的误解，将“依法而治”误为“法治”。
在英语中，rule by law(依法而治)与rule of law(法治)是严格区分开来的。
再谈governance by law和government by rule。
按照上面的说法，gov－ernanee by law应该改为governance of law，
才和“法治”的意思相符。
gov－ernment by rule这一说法本身就有问题，因为“法治”的“法”不是“rule”，而是“law”，最好改为government of law。
最后，“人治”最好译为rule by man。
而rule by individuals 也可以用来翻译“人治”，但不常用。
例如，Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences在定义rule of law的时候，就用到了其
反义词rule by individuals。
RULE OF LAW
One of the cornerstones of democratic society，meaning that everyone is sub-jeet to the law，It is not just the rule that everyone is covered by the Criminal Codeand must be charged and convicted if appropriate，It also means that no one in thesociety，the Prime Minister，cabinet，senior civil servants,judges or police has powerexcept as it is derived from law，Authority can only come from law，namely theConstitution，
a statute，legal regulations，Common Law，municipal by-law，There isa rule of law rather than rule by individuals，(/dict.pl?alpha=R)
综上所述，汉语热词“法治”的译文应该是“rule of law"，间或可用"gov-ernance/overnment of law”；而“人治”则应译为“rule by man"，间或可用“rule by individuals”。