助手标题  
全文文献 工具书 数字 学术定义 翻译助手 学术趋势 更多
查询帮助
意见反馈
   legal evidence 在 国际法 分类中 的翻译结果: 查询用时:0.047秒
图标索引 在分类学科中查询
所有学科
国际法
诉讼法与司法制度
法理、法史
贸易经济
行政法及地方法制
刑法
公安
军事
民商法
更多类别查询

图标索引 历史查询
 

legal evidence
相关语句
  法律依据
    Part II introduces the background, strategic considerations and the claimed legal evidence by the United States on launching the War on Terror.
    第二部分介绍美国发动“反恐战争”的背景、战略考虑和在国际法上宣称所拥有的法律依据
短句来源
  法律依据
    Part II introduces the background, strategic considerations and the claimed legal evidence by the United States on launching the War on Terror.
    第二部分介绍美国发动“反恐战争”的背景、战略考虑和在国际法上宣称所拥有的法律依据
短句来源
  “legal evidence”译为未确定词的双语例句
    Secondly, the articles are too sketchy to address the issues such as the conditions under which the third party can obtain rights and the balance of the interests of the parties to the contract and the third party. As a result, it failed to provide adequate legal evidence for the judgment. Therefore, it is necessary to
    1999年新颁布之《合同法》,对于此问题的规定相当模糊,一则对于第三人是否取得契约上权利未能明确,二则条文过于简略,实际中存在的种种问题如第三人取得权利的条件以及第三人权利保护与契约当事人利益之间如何平衡等均被掩盖而无法凸显,无法为将来之裁
短句来源
    It is necessary to adduce legal evidence to judge whether a state has sovereignty over a territory.
    判定一个国家对某一领土拥有主权,必然要在法律上取得证据。
短句来源
查询“legal evidence”译词为用户自定义的双语例句

    我想查看译文中含有:的双语例句
例句
为了更好的帮助您理解掌握查询词或其译词在地道英语中的实际用法,我们为您准备了出自英文原文的大量英语例句,供您参考。
  legal evidence
The use of statistics and probabilities as legal evidence has recently come under increased scrutiny.
      
Many of these flies are of great medical and veterinary importance in Brazil because of their role as key livestock insect-pests and vectors of pathogens, in addition to being considered important legal evidence in forensic entomology.
      
The authors cite empirical and legal evidence as additional support for their claim.
      
Although DNA fingerprinting has appeared in court as legal evidence for many years, it is unsuitable for species identification as previous multilocus probes produce individual-specific 'fingerprints'.
      
Data validation, as prescribed in guidance documents provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), yields legal evidence that an analytical laboratory has performed analyses according to predetermined specifications.
      
更多          


It is necessary to adduce legal evidence to judge whether a state has sovereignty over a territory. In the case of Taiwan, the principle of prior occupation, which is an important method of territory acquisition, determines that Taiwan has been part of Chinese territory since ancient times. Meanwhile, the requirements concerning territorial change, as laid down in international law, determine that the independence of Taiwan does not have any legal basis. Besides, the recognition of China as recognition...

It is necessary to adduce legal evidence to judge whether a state has sovereignty over a territory. In the case of Taiwan, the principle of prior occupation, which is an important method of territory acquisition, determines that Taiwan has been part of Chinese territory since ancient times. Meanwhile, the requirements concerning territorial change, as laid down in international law, determine that the independence of Taiwan does not have any legal basis. Besides, the recognition of China as recognition of the government of the Peoples Republic of China and the general acceptance of the oneChina principle in international community also demonstrate that Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory.

判定一个国家对某一领土拥有主权,必然要在法律上取得证据。作为国家领土取得方式之一的"先占"原则决定了台湾自古以来就是中国的领土;国际法对于领土变更的条件要求决定了"台独"诉求没有足够的法理支撑;而对我们国家的承认是政府承认的事实以及国际社会对"一个中国"原则的广泛认可,又从另一侧面证明了台湾是中国领土不可分割的一部分。

The unlawfulness of the DPRK nuclear test and the lawfulness of the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1718 (2006) according to international law have common legal sources. Although there have been several specialized treaties prohibiting nuclear tests and supporting the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, these special laws can hardly be used to prove the unlawfulness of the DPRK nuclear test. Nor can the Joint Statement by the Six Parties prove the unlawfulness of the DPRK nuclear test in accordance with the...

The unlawfulness of the DPRK nuclear test and the lawfulness of the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1718 (2006) according to international law have common legal sources. Although there have been several specialized treaties prohibiting nuclear tests and supporting the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, these special laws can hardly be used to prove the unlawfulness of the DPRK nuclear test. Nor can the Joint Statement by the Six Parties prove the unlawfulness of the DPRK nuclear test in accordance with the standards of “publicity” and “intention” established by the ICJ. In contrast, the UN Charter as a general international law may be the most forceful legal evidence to justify the illegality of the DPRK nuclear test. The primary purpose of “maintenance of international peace and security” and the principle of “prohibition of armed threats or use of armed forces” in the UN Charter can be presumed to include the prohibition of nuclear tests. Therefore, the DPRK nuclear test violates not only DPRK’s obligations under the Charter as a UN member-state, but also the provision of “prohibition of armed threats or use of armed forces” which has become a general international customary rule bearing the character of jus cogens.

朝鲜核试验的非法性与联合国安理会第1718(2006)号决议的合法性,在国际法律依据上具有同源性。虽然在禁止核试验和不扩散核武器这一专门领域已经制定了多项条约,但是这些最直接的特殊法都难以用来作为证明朝鲜核试验之非法性的法律依据。根据国际法院确立的“公开”和“意图”标准,六方《联合声明》作为证实朝鲜核试验为违法行为的法律依据也似乎显得牵强。相比之下,作为一般国际法的《联合国宪章》倒是朝鲜核试验之非法定性的有力依据。《联合国宪章》关于“维持国际和平与安全”的首要宗旨和“禁止使用武力威胁或使用武力”原则的含义必定包括禁止核试验。朝鲜的核试验不仅违反了作为会员国和缔约国的《联合国宪章》,同时还违反了“禁止使用武力威胁或使用武力”这一具有强行法性质的习惯法规则和一般国际法原则。

Among various issues of historical and modern disputes between China and Japan,the one over the East China Sea continental shelf and Diaoyu Islands remains the most crucial.Since the disputes involve national sovereign rights,either sides will not be willing to easily make a concession.Under such circumstances,the dispute will have to be settled either through consultation or by submitting to the International Court.In each case,however,China must present solid legal evidence to support its standing.The...

Among various issues of historical and modern disputes between China and Japan,the one over the East China Sea continental shelf and Diaoyu Islands remains the most crucial.Since the disputes involve national sovereign rights,either sides will not be willing to easily make a concession.Under such circumstances,the dispute will have to be settled either through consultation or by submitting to the International Court.In each case,however,China must present solid legal evidence to support its standing.The present paper thus suggests a possible solution to the disputes over the ownership of Diaoyu Islands and the maritime delimitation of the East China Sea.

在中日之间诸多的历史和现实争端中,东海大陆架和钓鱼岛争端最为关键。由于涉及两国的国家主权利益,中日双方决不会轻易让步。中日东海争端无论最终通过协商解决还是提交国际法院解决,中国都必须为自己的主张提供足够的法理支持。本文对钓鱼岛归属及东海海界划分提出了自己见解。

 
图标索引 相关查询

 


 
CNKI小工具
在英文学术搜索中查有关legal evidence的内容
在知识搜索中查有关legal evidence的内容
在数字搜索中查有关legal evidence的内容
在概念知识元中查有关legal evidence的内容
在学术趋势中查有关legal evidence的内容
 
 

CNKI主页设CNKI翻译助手为主页 | 收藏CNKI翻译助手 | 广告服务 | 英文学术搜索
版权图标  2008 CNKI-中国知网
京ICP证040431号 互联网出版许可证 新出网证(京)字008号
北京市公安局海淀分局 备案号:110 1081725
版权图标 2008中国知网(cnki) 中国学术期刊(光盘版)电子杂志社