國(guó)際私法翻譯

1、Agent’sDuties（必讀）代理人的義務(wù)Generally,agentsowetheprincipalthedutiesasfollows;一般來(lái)說(shuō)，代理人的義務(wù)如下：dutyofperformance:toperformthelawfuldutiesexpressedintheagentcontractandtousereasonablecare,skill,anddiligenceintheperformanceoftheseduties.履行的義務(wù)：在代理合同中履行法定職責(zé)并且對(duì)這些職責(zé)給予適當(dāng)?shù)年P(guān)心、采用技巧和積極履行。(2)dutyofnotification:tonotifytheprincipalofanyinformationthatisimportanttotheagent.通知的義務(wù)：通知與代理有關(guān)的任何重要信息的委托人(3)dutyofloyalty:nottoactadverselytotheinterestsoftheprincipal.忠誠(chéng)義務(wù)：不能采取對(duì)委托人利益造成不利的行為。(4)dutyofobedience:toobeythelawfulinstructionsoftheprincipal.Theagentowestodutytoengageincrime,torts,orunethicalconductontheprincipal’sbehalf.服從的義務(wù)：遵從委托人的合法指示，但代理人沒(méi)有義務(wù)從事有關(guān)犯罪侵權(quán)或者代表委托人的不道德行為。(5)dutyofaccountability:tomaintainaccuraterecordsofalltransactionstakenontheprincipal’sbehalfandnottocomminglepersonalmoneyorpropertywiththatoftheprincipal.問(wèn)責(zé)的義務(wù)：維護(hù)所代表委托人進(jìn)行的交易細(xì)節(jié)記錄并且不混同私人的和委托人的錢或財(cái)產(chǎn)。2、internationalinsolvency（必讀）國(guó)際破產(chǎn)Businessenterprisesengagedininternationalcommercewilloftenhaveassets-andcreditors-inseveralcountriesandpotentiallyfaceinsolvencyproceedingsathome,orabroad,orinbothplaces.Andthe"debtor"isdefinedas"apersonthatresidesorhasadomicile,aplaceofbusiness,orpropertyintheUnitedStates.商業(yè)企業(yè)在從事國(guó)際貿(mào)易時(shí)往往在一些國(guó)家有資產(chǎn)和債權(quán)人，并且在國(guó)內(nèi)或者在國(guó)外或者在兩個(gè)地方都面臨著破產(chǎn)程序。而債務(wù)人的定義就是“一人居住或者有住所地營(yíng)業(yè)地或者在美國(guó)有財(cái)產(chǎn)的人”Anoverridingconcernininternationalbankruptciesisthejustandequaltreatmentofunsecuredcreditors.Theprotectionoftheirinterestswilldependontheeffectgiventoalocaldeterminationintheotherjurisdiction.Basically,twomodelsmaybeenvisioned.Oneisterritorial;itrestrictstheeffectofadeterminationtotherenderingjurisdiction.國(guó)際破產(chǎn)首要關(guān)注的是無(wú)擔(dān)保債權(quán)人交易的公正和公平。他們利益的保護(hù)取決于提供給當(dāng)?shù)氐呐袥Q在其他司法管轄區(qū)域的影響。基本上有兩種模式可以設(shè)想。一個(gè)是屬地的模式，這會(huì)限制判決對(duì)管轄權(quán)的影響Asaresult,creditorsmaypursueindependentremediesinthesecondforumand,uponrecovery,Itisimportanttodistinguishbetweentwodifferentsituations.Thefirstiswherethetortwascommittedwithinterritorialwaters.Thesecondiswherethetortwascommittedonthehighseas.對(duì)這兩種不同情況加以區(qū)分是很重要的，第一種情況是侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生在領(lǐng)海內(nèi)第二種情況是侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生在公海海域4、Tortcommittedonthehighseas（必讀）致力于在公海上的侵權(quán)(1)Actsoccurringonboardasinglevessel發(fā)生在船舶甲板上的行為

Atcommonlawthelawoftheflagwasthedecisivefactorwhenevertheactsalloccurredonboardasinglevessel,forashipwasregardedforcertainpurposeasafloatingislandoverwhichthenationallawprevailed.Whereaflagiscommontoapoliticalunitcontainingseveraldifferentsystemsoflaw,asinthecaseofCanadaortheUSA,thelawoftheflagmeansthelawoftheportatwhichtheshipisregistered.普通法系中侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生在一艘船舶上時(shí)應(yīng)適用船旗國(guó)法律，船舶被視為適用國(guó)內(nèi)法的漂浮的島嶼。如幾種不同法系的政體公用同一旗幟，如加拿大或美國(guó)情況下，船旗國(guó)法律指船舶注冊(cè)港口所在地的法律。(2)Externalacts對(duì)外侵權(quán)行為

a)Collisions碰撞

Thereisnodoubtthatthecommonestkindofexternalact,namely,onethatcausesacollision,wasgovernedsolelybythegeneralmaritimelaw.Thisspecialtortchoiceoflawruleispreserved,andthestatutorytortchoiceoflawruleswillnotapplytocollisionsonthehighseas.Thisraisesthequestionofwhatismeantby"generalmaritimelaw".毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)普通的對(duì)外侵權(quán)行為，就是說(shuō)船舶碰撞單獨(dú)按照普通海事法管規(guī)范。這種特殊的侵權(quán)法律選擇被保留下來(lái)，并且法定侵權(quán)法律選擇不會(huì)使用與公海上的碰撞。這就提出了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，何為“普通海事法律”。Thenaturalinferencetodrawfromthisexpressionisthatthereexistsabodyoflawwhichisuniversallyrecognizedasbindingonallnationsinrespectofactsoccurringatsea.Thereis,however,nosuchbodyoflaw.Theexpression,intruth,meansnothingmorethanthatpartoftheforumlawwhich,eitherbystatuteorbyregistereddecisions,hasbeenevolvedforthedeterminationmaritimedisputes.ItisthelawwhichmustbeappliedtoallquestionofcollisionunlessinternationalregulationshavebeenlaiddownbyaconventionbetweenStates根據(jù)這種表達(dá)推測(cè)自然語(yǔ)義是，有一部分法律被普遍認(rèn)為是規(guī)范所有國(guó)家涉及海上的事務(wù)。這種表達(dá)，實(shí)際上是指，基于法規(guī)或法律政策的法律探討逐步形成的海事糾紛的判決。這是必須適用于除通過(guò)國(guó)家之間會(huì)議提出的國(guó)際規(guī)范性主張外所有碰撞問(wèn)題的法律b)Otherexternalacts其他外部侵權(quán)行為

Thequestionthatnowarisesiswhetherthismaritimelawappliedtoallexternalactsotherthanacollision,donebyaforeignshiptothepropertyofan