试题库在线考试题库-历年真题模拟试题及答案-考博英语在线试题测试中心-希赛网

题库

首页 > 题库 > 华东政法大学

He does not ___ as a teacher of English as his pronunciation is terrible.

Ms. Breen has been living in town for only one year, yet she seems to be ___ with everyone who comes to the store.

It’s usually the case that people seldom behave in a ___ way when in a furious state.

John complained to the bookseller that there were several pages ___ in the dictionary.

In spite of the wide range of reading material specially written or ___ for language learning purposes, there is yet no comprehensive systematic programme for the reading skills.

People ___ that vertical flight transports would carry millions of passengers as do the airliners of today.

I felt ___ to death because I could make nothing of the chairman’s speech.

2. Translate the following paragraph into English (5 marks) 一些澳大利亚土著（indigenous Australian）抗议者周五连续第二日成为头条新闻，他们聚集在澳大利亚议会外，并放火焚烧了国旗。此举的前一天，愤怒的抗议者包围了举行午餐仪式的建筑，保安人员从一家堪培拉餐厅拖出了朱莉娅吉拉德（Julia Gillard）总理。原住民领袖批评这些人的行动，说他们危害了让澳大利亚土著与更广泛的社会协调的努力。澳大利亚广播公司网站上的视频显示，在堪培拉议会外的抗议者围成一圈，点燃了澳大利亚国旗，并高呼，“这里始终是也将永远是原住民的土地。”

1. Translate the following paragraph into Chinese (5 marks) As we knelt on the cold ground and worked the soil, gently introducing the plants and bulbs to their new home, we alternately chattered and giggled and remembered quietly. We planted the flowers in a heart shape, sketched out in the snow by Matsumarasan (松村女士). I tried to imagine what it must feel like to be her. To be kneeling on the ground that you once called home, now empty and exposed. What it must feel like to look at your home town and see most of it destroyed. Only memories remain.

Ⅹ. (Intellectual Properties)In cases where a nominative fair use defense is raised, we ask whether (1) the product was “readily identifiable” without use of the mark; (2) defendant used more of the mark than necessary; or (3) defendant falsely suggested he was sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder. This test “evaluates the likelihood of confusion in nominative use cases”. It’s designed to address the risk that nominative use of the mark will inspire a mistaken belief on the part of consumers that the speaker is sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder. The third factor speaks directly to the risk of such confusion, and the others do so indirectly: Consumers may reasonably infer sponsorship or endorsement if a company uses an unnecessary trademark or “more” of a mark than necessary. But if the nominative use satisfies the three factor New Kids test, it doesn’t infringe. If the nominative use does not satisfy all the New Kids factors, the district court may order defendants to modify their use of the mark so that all three factors are satisfied; it may not enjoin nominative use of the mark altogether. The district court enjoined the Tabaris from using “any TTT domain name, service mark, trademark, trade name, meta tag or other commercial indication of origin that includes the mark LEXUS.” A trademark injunction, particularly one involving nominative fair use, can raise serious First Amendment concerns because it can interfere with truthful communication between buyers and sellers in the marketplace. Accordingly, “we must ensure that the injunction is tailored to eliminate only the specific harm alleged.” To uphold the broad injunction entered in this case, we would have to be convinced that consumers are likely to believe a site is sponsored or endorsed by a trademark holder whenever the domain name contains the string of letters that make up the trademark. In performing this analysis, our focus must be on the “‘reasonably prudent consumer’ in the marketplace”. The relevant marketplace is the online marketplace, and the relevant consumer is a reasonably prudent consumer accustomed to shopping online; the kind of consumer who is likely to visit the Tabaris’ website when shopping for an expensive product like a luxury car. Unreasonable, imprudent and inexperienced web shoppers are not relevant. The injunction here is plainly overbroad — as even Toyota’s counsel grudgingly conceded at oral argument — because it prohibits domain names that on their face dispel any confusion as to sponsorship or endorsement.87. The 3 factor test for nominative fair use is NOT designed to _.88. Consumers may reasonably infer sponsorship or endorsement because _.89. From the underlined sentence, one can infer that ___.90. Which of the following is NOT necessary for the court to uphold the broad injunction made by the lower court?

Ⅸ. (Litigation Procedure)A related consequence of the trial’s disappearance would be the increasing bureaucratization of American society. Corporate bureaucracies rationally organized to achieve profit maximization would be less qualified. We would have to rely more completely on our often politically beleaguered administrative agencies to control the latter. And even within the legal system itself, formalistic modes of adjudication, which parallel bureaucratic decision-making, would be less qualified. Bureaucratic modes of social ordering seek “to exclude questions of value or preference as obviously irrelevant to the administrative task, and it would view reliance on nonreplicable, nonreviewable judgment or intuition as a singularly unattractive method for decision”. Insofar as a bureaucratic apparatus grinds forward mechanically and inexorably we may end up with what Hannah Arendt has famously called an irresponsible “rule by nobody”.It is unlikely, however, in many cases that general rules really do decide particular cases. Instead of a mechanical system deciding cases deductively, what we will probably have in many cases are judges deciding cases in the interstices of complex rules which do not themselves decide the case. Unlike the devices of the trial, which can really “get inside” the decision-maker and whose moral sources actually can trump the subjectivity of a lone decision-maker, complex patterns of jurisdictional, procedural, evidentiary, and substantive rules can invite manipulation by a Cartesian judge viewing those rules from a distance. After all, as Judge Posner, put it, “There is almost no legal outcome that a really skillful legal analyst cannot cover over with legal varnish (漆)” at least “when the law is uncertain and emotions aroused”. The grim picture that thus emerges from the trial’s disappearance is a bureaucratized world where the run of cases are ground out by an irresponsible mechanism and the remaining cases “when the law is uncertain and emotions aroused” by the untutored subjectivity or political commitments of the judge. There is another effect of the declining importance of public processes of adjudication.We are continuing to lose a major source of public information on important questions of general concern. “As long as courts continue to be places that provide public data in volume and kind outstripping that produced about adjudication in administrative agencies, and as long as private providers do not regularly disseminate information about or provide access to their processes,” then “with the declining trial rate comes a diminution of public knowledge of disputes, of the behavior of judges，and of the forging in public of normative responses to discord.”83. The underlined sentence means that bureaucratic modes of social ordering _.84. The statement closest in meaning to Judge Posner’s statement is _.85. When courts continue to be places that provide public data, the declining trial rate does NOT come with ___.86. According to the author, what will NOT happen if trial disappears in the United States?

Ⅷ. (Forensic Appraisal)Forensic evidence has played a role in many Canadian wrongful convictions. In 2007, the Supreme Court held in a 4:3 decision that post-hypnosis (催眠后) identifications should not be admitted because of their unknown reliability and the risk of wrongful convictions. This decision presents a potential for Canadian courts to place stricter reliability-based restrictions on the admissibility of expert evidence including unreliable forensic evidence offered by the state. At the same time, various inquiries have made many important recommendations about reforming the practice of the forensic sciences. Many of these recommendations have been implemented, though the tendency has been to do so on a discipline-by-discipline and jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis.A number of wrongful convictions in Canada have been caused by faulty forensic evidence. There are two main ways to respond to such dangers. One is by reforming the production of the state’s forensic evidence. The other is for the courts to place reliability based restrictions on the admissibility or content of forensic evidence offered by the state. The Commission of Inquiry into Proceedings Against Guy Paul Morin in its 1998 report found that Ontario’s Forensic Centre for Forensic Science had made numerous mistakes in the production of hair and fibre evidence that purported to link Mr. Morin to the murder before his DNA exoneration. This inquiry heard testimony that Crown prosecutors had assumed that the Centre was infallible despite finding problems in contamination of evidence and the misuse of published research. Many reforms were introduced at that central crime laboratory in Ontario in the wake of the highly publicized inquiry. A decade later, a similar inquiry was held in the neighbouring province of Manitoba when hair comparison evidence was again refuted by DNA testing. The Manitoba inquiry heard that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police labs had stopped conducting hair comparison evidence in light of more advanced DNA testing, but stopped short of recommending that such hair comparison evidence be inadmissible. It also did not recommend that the crime laboratories be separated from the police. Finally, it suggested that it did not have jurisdiction to order a national audit of cases that relied on hair comparison evidence, even though the province of Manitoba had conducted such an inquiry.Many of the same themes found in the Morin inquiry which focused on hair and fibre comparison evidence re-emerged a decade later when the Ontario Commission of Inquiry into Forensic Pediatric Pathology (the Goudge Inquiry) recommended similar reforms to the practice of forensic pathology.79. After the Supreme Court decision in 2007, the admissibility of forensic evidence became _.80. Which of the following is NOT the way to respond to the dangers of wrongful conviction? 81. One finding in common in the inquiry of the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba is that _.82. The underlined word “theme” can be replaced by the following word in the context ___.

Ⅶ. (Civil and Commercial Law)Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams set off an international firestorm on February 7,2008 by suggesting that some “accommodation” of Muslim family law was “unavoidable” in England. His suggestion, though carefully qualified, prompted more than 250 articles in the world press within a month, the vast majority denouncing it. England, his critics charged, will be beset by “licensed polygamy,” barbaric procedures, and brutal violence against women encased in suffocating burkas (穆斯林妇女穿的长袍). Critics proclaimed that Muslim citizens of a Western democracy will be subject to legally ghettoized Muslim courts immune from civil appeal or constitutional challenge. Consider Nigeria, Pakistan, and other former English colonies that have sought to balance Muslim Shari’a (伊斯兰教法) with the common law, other critics added. The horrific excesses and chronic human rights violations of their religious courts — even ordering the faithful to stone innocent rape victims for dishonoring their families — prove that religious laws and state laws on the family simply cannot coexist. Case closed.This case won’t stay closed for long, however. The Archbishop was not calling for the establishment of independent Muslim courts in England, let alone the enforcement of Shari’a by English courts. He was, instead, raising a whole series of hard but “unavoidable” questions about marital, cultural, and religious identity and practice in Western democratic societies committed to human rights for all. What forms of marriage should citizens be able to choose, and what forums of religious marriage law should state governments be required to respect? How should Muslims and other religious minorities with distinctive family norms and cultural practices be accommodated in a society dedicated to religious liberty and self-determination, and to religious equality and non-discrimination? Are legal pluralism and even “personal federalism” necessary to protect Muslims and other religious believers who are conscientiously opposed to the liberal values that inform modern state laws on sex, marriage, and family? Is every constitutional accommodation of Muslim family law and Shari’a courts a dangerous step on the slippery slope toward empowering that faith, some of whose leaders subvert the very democratic and human rights values that now offer them protection? These and other hard questions are becoming “un¬avoidable” for many modern Western democracies with growing and diverse Muslim communities, each making new and ever louder demands. If current growth rates of Muslim communities in the West continue, a generation from now the Danish cartoon “crisis” is going to seem like child’s play.75. The best topic for the first paragraph is _.76. The author thinks that the “case won’t stay closed for long” because the Archbishop _.77. Which of the following questions does the author NOT ask in the second paragraph?78. The questions raised by the author are becoming “unavoidable” for many modern Western democracies NOT because ____.

Ⅵ. (Jurisprudence)Greenberg pronounces my use of the phrase “theory of adjudication” “unusual”, and I am afraid I can only return the compliment, with one qualification: “theory of adjudication” has no standard usage at all, so writing as though there is a usual meaning is, itself, “unusual”. I was quite clear, as Greenberg’s discussion reveals, about what I meant by it, and so the real question is whether anyone is committed to a Foundationalist Story about the theory of adjudication. Greenberg, however, makes the surprising claim that no one is so committed. Recognizing that Dworkin is one possible target of the Realist critique as I reconstruct it, Greenberg claims that “the right-answer thesis is not central to Dworkin’s project.” The right-answer thesis — the idea that every case has a right answer as a matter of law — would be an example of a Foundationalist Story about adjudication, and so the Realist critique would then have a potent, living target. When Greenberg claims the Foundationalist aspect of Dworkin’s theory isn’t central he is not making a claim about the amount of effort Dworkin devotes to defending the right-answer thesis, which is obviously substantial. Greenberg’s real claim is that the Dworkin of Law’s Empire is not necessarily committed to the right-answer thesis. I rather agree with Greenberg that Dworkin “is most concerned to establish...that law depends in a particular way on morality” and that “the right-answer thesis...is a downstream consequence of his overall theory of law in conjunction with his view about morality”. So far, this is just a complicated admission that Dworkin accepts a Foundationalist Story about adjudication; the best Greenberg can do is to assert “that most of Dworkin’s arguments could succeed consistent with the falsity of the right-answer thesis.” Greenberg does not show that this is Dworkin’s view, and it is certainly not Dworkin’s view in his early work, since the “retroactivity” objection to legal positivism turns, quite clearly, on the truth of the right-answer thesis. Greenberg may be correct that one could have a view about the nature of morality different than Dworkin’s and give up the right-answer thesis: John Mackie would be a case in point, though not the one Greenberg has in mind, and not one Dworkin would be happy with. But none of this changes the fact that the actual Ronald Dworkin holds a theory of adjudication involving the Foundationalist Story because he holds a particular view about law and morality.71. Greenberg pronounces the use of the phrase “theory of adjudication” “unusual”. The author rebut the comment __.72. The essence of the right-answer thesis is that _.73. From the underlined sentence, one can know that ___.74. Reading the whole paragraph, which of the following statements is wrong?

Ⅴ. (Constitutional Law and Administrative Law)The Constitution empowers and restricts different officials differently. A constitutional claim is a claim that a particular government actor has exceeded a grant of power or transgressed a restriction. But because different government actors are vested with different powers and bound by different restrictions, one cannot determine whether the Constitution has been violated without knowing who has allegedly violated it. The predicates of judicial review inevitably depend upon the subjects of judicial review. Current practice speaks, euphemistically, of challenges to “statutes,” thus obscuring the subjects of constitutional claims. But the Constitution does not prohibit statutes; it prohibits actions — the actions of particular government actors. Thus, every constitutional inquiry should begin with the subject of the constitutional claim. And the first question in any such inquiry should be the who question: who has allegedly violated the Constitution?This Article’s predecessor, The Subjects of the Constitution, demonstrated the analytical power of this seemingly innocuous question. To begin with, the who question reveals constitutional culprits, triggering the essential backstops of constitutional accountability. If the Constitution has been violated, the People must know who has violated it, so that they can know whom to blame, whom to vote against, whom to impeach. But that is not all. The who question also establishes the two basic forms of judicial review. In the typical constitutional case, the legislature will make a law, the executive will execute it, and someone will claim that his constitutional rights have been violated. The first question to ask such a claimant is who has violated the Constitution? The legislature, by making the law? Or the executive, by executing it?This fundamental dichotomy, between judicial review of legislative action and judicial review of executive action, is the organizing dichotomy of constitutional law. It is this dichotomy that the Court has obscured with its anthropomorphic trope that “statutes” — rather than government actors — violate the Constitution. And it is this dichotomy that the Court has been grasping for with its muddled distinction between “facial challenges to statutes” and “as-applied challenges to statutes”. Properly understood, a “facial challenge” is nothing more nor less than a challenge to legislative action, and an “as-applied challenge” is nothing more nor less than a challenge to executive action.Judicial review of legislative action and judicial review of executive action are two fundamentally different enterprises — formally, structurally, temporally different. And these basic differences dictate both the structure and the substance of judicial review.67. Whether the Constitution has been violated cannot be decided without knowing who has allegedly violated it because _.68. The who question relates to the following BUT .69. The fundamental dichotomy addressed in paragraph 3 refers to _.70. In the last paragraph, the underlined word “enterprises” is closest in meaning with ___.

Ⅳ. (Criminal Law)The first challenge for criminal responsibility for collective perpetrations is whether the notion of collective action can be made sense for the purposes of International Criminal Law. As Kutz suggests the issue of inclusion and exclusion of members from a collective action is “always both normative and factual”, because “the choice of appropriate descriptive level” remains a matter of legal policy. If the requirements for collective action are set too strict then many participants will be excused. On the other hand too lax requirements increase prosecutor’s discretion and allow charging wider range of individuals, at the expense of implicating too many individuals and possibly rendering punishment controversial and over-inclusive on the level of the system.In any case a collective intentions test is necessary in order to be able to hold any particular individual responsible as opposed to charging everyone on the one extreme, or attributing harm to indeterminate causes on the other. Besides identifying individuals involved in cooperative harm doing collective intention will be necessary for attribution of harm to such causally responsible individuals. Furthermore as argued in the section on moral blame a consideration of decision method in a collective action, which is necessary for distribution of moral blame, is also impossible without a conception of collective intention.The problem of collective intentions is downplayed by the “romantic” argument for collective guilt, as it jumps to draw the membership along the state lines, which ultimately leads to problems of “guiltless sincerity” and “excess of transmission by birth”. Part of the “romantic” appeal stems from the implication of state agency in crimes against humanity (through “state and organizational policy”) and war crimes according to the public international law. Whereas the questions of retroactive suspension of legal orders or immunity of state officials are sometimes still relevant legal obstacles for prosecuting human rights violations, this work discards such issues as irrelevant for the purposes of excuses and justifications under the Rome Statute (国际刑事法院罗马规约). Collective action in cases of crimes against humanity or war crimes could be manifested in spontaneous coordinated actions, mob violence, government actions or decentralized networks outside the color of the law. Various passive or indeterminate facts, such as military culture, religious or traditional institutions, ideology or legal system can and often are manipulated by perpetrators to blend collective action with historical, natural or even supernatural causes. This way even leaders and influential decision makers would claim that they followed necessity or that their cruelty were determined by the anarchic, anomic or else apocalyptic conditions of war.63. The best topic for the first paragraph is _.64. To determine collective intentions is necessary _.65. Which of the following statement is NOT mentioned in the paragraph 3?66. Perpetrators can and often manipulate the following BUT ___.

Ⅲ. (International Law)The Panel observes that Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides as follows: “Members shall give effect to the provisions of this Agreement. Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement, provided that such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement. Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice.”The first sentence of Article 1.1 sets out the basic obligation that Members “shall give effect” to the provisions of this Agreement. This means that the provisions of the Agreement are obligations where stated, and the first sentence of Article 61 so states. The second sentence of Article 1.1 clarifies that the provisions of the Agreement are minimum standards only, in that it gives Members the freedom to implement a higher standard, subject to a condition. The third sentence of Article 1.1 does not grant Members freedom to implement a lower standard, but rather grants freedom to determine the appropriate method of implementation of the provisions to which they are required to give effect under the first sentence. The Panel agrees that differences among Members’ respective legal systems and practices tend to be more important in the area of enforcement. However, a coherent reading of the three sentences of Article 1.1 does not permit differences in domestic legal systems and practices to justify any derogation from the basic obligation to give effect to the provisions on enforcement.Therefore, the standard of compliance with Article 61 is the minimum internationally agreed standard set out in that Article. The minimum standard in Article 61 does not defer to China’s domestic practice on the definition of criminal liability and sanctions for other wrongful acts in areas not subject to international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, unless it so states. For example, the second sentence refers to “crimes of a corresponding gravity”, which might refer to domestic practice in other areas. However, the first sentence of Article 61 does not make any such reference.For the above reasons, the Panel confirms its view that the first sentence of Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement imposes an obligation. The Panel will now turn to the terms used in that provision, read in context and in light of the object and purpose of the Agreement, to determine the scope and content of that obligation.59. What is required by Article 1.1 of TRIPS?60. Which of the flowing is the most suitable topic for the 2nd paragraph?61. One can infer from the underlined phrase that the first sentence of Article 61 _.62. The underlined phrase “defer to” in the 3rd paragraph means to _.

Ⅱ. (Economic Law)Consider first shareholders’ voting rights. As a matter of law these are severely limited in scope, principally to the right to elect and remove directors. Shareholders have no right to select the company’s CEO; they cannot require the company to pay them a single penny in dividends; they cannot vote to change or preserve the company’s line of business; they cannot stop directors from squandering revenues on employee raises, charitable contributions, or executive jets; and they cannot vote to sell the company’s assets or the company itself (although they may in some cases vote to veto a sale or merger proposed by the board). The rules of voting procedure further limit exercise of the shareholder franchise. Delaware law, for example, presumes only directors have authority to call a special shareholders’ meeting, and shareholders who wait for the regularly scheduled annual meeting to try to elect or remove directors usually must pay to solicit proxies. Finally and perhaps most significantly, in a public firm with widely-dispersed share ownership, shareholder activism is a public good, and shareholders’ own “rational apathy” raises an often-insurmountable obstacle to collective action. As Robert Clark has put it, a cynic could easily conclude that shareholder voting in a public company is “a mere ceremony designed to give a veneer of legitimacy to managerial power”.What about shareholders’ right to sue corporate officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty if they fail to maximize shareholder wealth? Here, too, shareholders’ “rights” turn out to be illusory. The fiduciary duty of loyalty precludes officers and directors from using their corporate positions to line their own pockets. They remain free, however, to pursue other, nonshareholder-related goals under the comforting mantle of the business judgment rule. As I have pointed out in writings with Margaret Blair, courts consistently permit directors “to use corporate funds for charitable purposes; to reject business strategies that would increase profits at the expense of the local community; to avoid risky undertakings that would benefit shareholders at creditors’ expense; and to fend off a hostile takeover at a premium price in order to protect employees or the community”. Contrary to the shareholder primacy thesis, shareholders cannot recover against directors or officers for breach of fiduciary duty simply because those directors and officers favor stakeholders’ interests over the shareholders’ own.55. The first paragraph tells us the following BUT _.56. Which of the following sentence closest in meaning with the underlined sentence?57. According to the second paragraph, what can the company officers do?58. Courts have not allowed directors of companies to _.

I. (Legal History)The elements of vertical pluralism were supplemented with structures of horizontal pluralism through their adherence to the idea of a ius commune (普通法). The Lombard libri feudorum (a twelfth century collection, originating in Lombardy, of feudal customs, which gained wide acceptance as a statement of the various rules governing the relation of lord and vassal.), the main source of feudal law, had early on become a part of the Corpus iuris civilis (民法); and while Canon law maxims were applied also in the context of the Roman ius commune, Canon law included substantial elements of Roman law. Here, the general principle was: ecclesia vivit leg Romana (教会的罗马法). Similarly, the lex mercatoria (商人法) was not a fully independent body of transnational commercial law, but rather consisted of many, mostly local, norms that modified Roman law in matters of commercial practice. Normally, the decisions of the merchants’ courts were based on the ius commune, which was indeed regarded as the “mater legis mercatoriae”（商人法之母）. The Roman rules were only modified in accordance with the needs of commerce on the basis, for example, of the idea of an aequitas mercatoria (商人的正义). Altogether, this was a complex system with rules both conflicting with and complementing each other. For instance, the relationship between Canon law and the secular ius civile (世俗民法) was never without tensions. Indeed, the idea of a ius coinmune was in itself a plural one: the ius commune was based on a range of different legal sources and it integrated two independent legal systems, namely the mundane Roman law on the one hand and the Canon law of the Roman Church on the other hand. For a medieval jurist, the Decretum Gratiani (a collection of Canon law compiled and written in the 12th century as a legal textbook by the jurist known as Gratian) and later collections of Papal legislation were as important sources of the ius commune as the roman Corpus iuris civilis. In addition, these texts were complemented with the Emperor’s legislation (at least within the confines of the Old Empire), with the authoritative Glosses (commentaries) to the corpora iuris Romani (罗马法) and Canonici (as it was later called), and later also with the principles of Natural Law.51. The Lombard libri feudorum is _.52. According to the author, the lex mercatoria _.53. Which of the following statement is closest in meaning with the underlined sentence?54. Which of the following is NOT mentioned as the important source of the ius commune in the paragraph?

DIRECTIONS: For this part, you are going to write a short essay on the title. You should write about 250 words and write your essay on the ANSWER SHEET 2.Title:The income gaps and the further reforms in ChinaNOTES: Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriateness. Failure to follow the instruction may result in a loss of marks.

暂未登录

学员用户尊享特权

老师批改作业做题助教答疑学员专用题库高频考点梳理

上一页 4 5 6 7 8 9 下一页