rejection法律英语

区别如下。

1.从语气上看：refuse 属普通用词；而 reject 则属于正式用词,多用于较正式的场合

2.从意思上看：refuse 表示“拒绝”,强调态度的肯定和坚决；而 reject 则强调摈弃、不采用或不使用.They refused him admittance.

refuse是一个英语单词，可以用作名词和动词，可以翻译为废物、垃圾，等等。第三人称单数：refuses过去分词：refused现在进行时：refusing过去式：refused。

reject是一个英语单词，可以用作名词和及物动词，可以翻译为拒绝、抛弃，等等。第三人称单数：rejects过去分词：rejected复数：rejects现在进行时：rejecting过去式：rejected。

rework老美都这么说

1、语气不同。

refuse是最普通的用词，一般指直接地拒绝，语气不那么委婉。例句：

I refuse to answer that question.

我不愿回答那个问题。

reject语气强烈，用于正式场合，如外交和商业条款之类，表示当面明确地拒绝所给、所请、所提议之事，另外还有抛弃或剔除不适当的或不喜欢的东西的意味。例如：

He rejected my friendly advice upon further consideration.

他经过进一步的考虑，明确地拒绝了我友好的建议。

2、搭配不同。

两个词语都可以接名词作宾语，但是permission只能与refuse搭配，plan只能与reject搭配。refuse可接动词不定式作宾语，而reject则不可以。例如:

He refused〔declined〕 to join us in the game.

他拒绝与我们一起游戏。

3、出处、使用时间不同。

refuse1300年左右进入英语，直接源自古法语的refuser；最初源自古典拉丁语的refundere，意为倒回，给回。

reject1415年左右进入英语，直接源自古典拉丁语的rejectus，意为阻止……的前进的jacere，意为扔掉。

人工翻译,保证质量.有一个建议:制定法译成statutory law似乎好一些.因为你题目中给的是enacted law,所以我尊重了你的翻译.还有,在judge和made之间加个连词符比较好;另,个人认为,引号没有必要加.还有题目中的介词和连词不大写,between我改过来了.其他的专业词汇应该不会出太大的差错,呵呵,因为我也是法学专业的.===============================================法官造法和制定法的比较 Comparison between "Judge Made" Law and "Enacted" Law法官造法通常也称为“司法者造法”、 “判例法”或“不成文法”，是指由司法人员通过审判具体案件而制定出适用于个案的法律。In general, judge-made law is also called judiciary-made law, case law and unwritten law, which means judicial functionaries formulate laws applied to individual cases by adjudicating specific lawsuits.制定法通常也称为“立法者造法”或“成文法”，是指由国家的立法机关按照一定程序制定出在社会中普遍适用的法律。Enacted law is usually considered as legislator-made law and written law, which indicates the legislative body of the nation institutes laws universally applied in society according to certain procedures.法官造法和制定法各有长短，现将这两者简单比较如下： Both judge-made law and enacted law have advantages and disadvantages respectively, and comparisons are simply put forward as follows:一、 Ⅰ制定法的着眼点是全社会的普遍情况，因此有利于保障法律的普遍适用性和相对稳定性；而法官造法的着眼点是个案的具体情况，因此可以更好地保障法律的个别适用性和灵活适用性。Enacted law helps to maintain the universal applicability and relative stability of law, the respect of which is the general conditions of the whole society, while judge-made law takes more advantages in particular and flexible applicability of law, focusing on specific situations of individual cases.二、Ⅱ法官造法属于个人造法，它比较容易受到法官的成见、好恶、情感、能力等个人因素的影响；而对于制定法，由于立法机关一般都是由民选代表组成的，在社会中具有广泛的代表性，而且立法者要按照民主的方式和程序集体造法，所以能更好地反映人民的意志。因此，制定法比法官造法更具有权威性和统一性。Judge-made law is individualistic which is more likely to be influenced by personal elements such as prejudice, likes and dislikes, emotions and capabilities of the judges. On the contrary, enacted law can express the will of the people, as the legislative body, establishing laws in terms of democratic methods and procedures, is usually composed of delegates who are broadly representative in society. Hence enacted law is more authoritative and more integrative than judge-made law.但是，也正因为立法者造法需要通过复杂的程序来集思广益，所以效率比较低；而司法者造法的效率则比较高。 However, the complicated proceedings needed in enacted law also lead to lower efficiency compared with judge-made law.三、 Ⅲ制定法往往过于原则化、抽象化，法官手中掌有太大的自由裁量权，法院判决的随意性太大；而法官造法的规定则往往比制定法的规定更为具体详细，它可以更有效地限制法官个人的自由裁量权，防止法官在审判中把个人的成见、情感等因素作为判决的依据，从而更好地维护社会正义和实现司法公正。Enacted law is usually of excessive principle and abstraction, and thus over-discretion is endowed to judges, which results in great arbitrariness of court judgment; whereas regulations in judge-made law are more specific and detailed, which prevents judges taking personal prejudices and emotions as the basis of adjudication by effectively restricting discretion of judges, thereby protecting social justice and achieving judicial fairness.当然，若法官随意造法，就等于否定了立法的作用。如果法官可以超越甚至抛弃现行法律的精神和原则，随心所欲地创造法律，那就会导致司法越权甚至司法专横，这将会使法官的权力过大而使公民的权利随时面临着法官新造之法的威胁。 Indeed, judges’ making law at random means denial of the functions of legislation. If judges can create laws at will beyond or even discarding the spirits and principles of present laws, authority-exceeding as far as arbitrariness of judicature will occur, which over-magnifies the power of judges with civil rights open to the threats of new judge-made law all the time.四、 Ⅳ立法滞后于社会发展是一种必然现象，特别是当一个国家处于社会转型和重大变革的时期。因为立法者立法时的预见力和表达力是有限的，所以制定法中存在一些漏洞或空白也是不可避免的。 It is inevitable that legislation appears delayed behind the social development, especially in the period of social transformation and critical reformation for a country. Since the legislator is limited in the capabilities of prediction and expression, flaws and blanks are unavoidable in enacted law.五、 Ⅴ造法的实质在于发现法的规律和精神，衡量法律好坏的标准不应该看它是谁造的，而应该看其是否符合法的基本精神和客观规律。 Since the essence of creating law depends on the discovery of principles and spirits accumulated in law, it is not who makes the law but whether the law answers for the fundamental spirits and objective principles that decides the quality of law.综上所述不难看出，在发挥法的作用，维护社会正义和实现司法公正的总体过程中，我们不能片面地断定孰优孰劣。我认为，采取以制定法为主以法官造法为辅才是一种比较合理造法模式。As mentioned above, it is obvious that we are not supposed to be single-faceted in determining which is better in the long run of taking law into effect to protect social justice and achieve judicial fairness. I believe it a more rational mode of law-making to give priority to enacted law with judge-made law as supplement. --------------------------------whole passageComparison between "Judge Made" Law and "Enacted" LawIn general, judge-made law is also called judiciary-made law, case law and unwritten law, which means judicial functionaries formulate laws applied to individual cases by adjudicating specific lawsuits.Enacted law is usually considered as legislator-made law and written law, which indicates the legislative body of the nation institutes laws universally applied in society according to certain procedures.Both judge-made law and enacted law have advantages and disadvantages respectively, and comparisons are simply put forward as follows:ⅠEnacted law helps to maintain the universal applicability and relative stability of law, the respect of which is the general conditions of the whole society, while judge-made law takes more advantages in particular and flexible applicability of law, focusing on specific situations of individual cases.ⅡJudge-made law is individualistic which is more likely to be influenced by personal elements such as prejudice, likes and dislikes, emotions and capabilities of the judges. On the contrary, enacted law can express the will of the people, as the legislative body, establishing laws in terms of democratic methods and procedures, is usually composed of delegates who are broadly representative in society. Hence enacted law is more authoritative and more integrative than judge-made law.However, the complicated proceedings needed in enacted law also lead to lower efficiency compared with judge-made law.ⅢEnacted law is usually of excessive principle and abstraction, and thus over-discretion is endowed to judges, which results in great arbitrariness of court judgment; whereas regulations in judge-made law are more specific and detailed, which prevents judges taking personal prejudices and emotions as the basis of adjudication by effectively restricting discretion of judges, thereby protecting social justice and achieving judicial fairness.Indeed, judges’ making law at random means denial of the functions of legislation. If judges can create laws at will beyond or even discarding the spirits and principles of present laws, authority-exceeding as far as arbitrariness of judicature will occur, which over-magnifies the power of judges with civil rights open to the threats of new judge-made law all the time.ⅣIt is inevitable that legislation appears delayed behind the social development, especially in the period of social transformation and critical reformation for a country. Since the legislator is limited in the capabilities of prediction and expression, flaws and blanks are unavoidable in enacted law.ⅤSince the essence of creating law depends on the discovery of principles and spirits accumulated in law, it is not who makes the law but whether the law answers for the fundamental spirits and objective principles that decides the quality of law.As mentioned above, it is obvious that we are not supposed to be single-faceted in determining which is better in the long run of taking law into effect to protect social justice and achieve judicial fairness. I believe it a more rational mode of law-making to give priority to enacted law with judge-made law as supplement.

do poorly done work over again

一个词： redo , rework,词组： work over (已补充！）根据实际情况，翻译有所不同 请参考以下句子 1. Very often a large margin of safety is used in textile mill operations to eliminate the need for reprocessing. 为防止返工，在纺织厂的操作中，往往使用大的安全系数。 2. Let's do this work over again. It's very poor 我们返工吧，做得太差了。 3. rejection and waste 返工和浪费 4. This jacket needs to be remade. 这件上衣需要返工。

法官造法和制定法的比较 法官造法通常也称为“司法者造法”、 “判例法”或“不成文法”，是指由司法人员通过审判具体案件而制定出适用于个案的法律。 制定法通常也称为“立法者造法”或“成文法”，是指由国家的立法机关按照一定程序制定出在社会中普遍适用的法律。 法官造法和制定法各有长短，现将这两者简单比较如下： 一、 制定法的着眼点是全社会的普遍情况，因此有利于保障法律的普遍适用性和相对稳定性；而法官造法的着眼点是个案的具体情况，因此可以更好地保障法律的个别适用性和灵活适用性。 二、 法官造法属于个人造法，它比较容易受到法官的成见、好恶、情感、能力等个人因素的影响；而对于制定法，由于立法机关一般都是由民选代表组成的，在社会中具有广泛的代表性，而且立法者要按照民主的方式和程序集体造法，所以能更好地反映人民的意志。因此，制定法比法官造法更具有权威性和统一性。 但是，也正因为立法者造法需要通过复杂的程序来集思广益，所以效率比较低；而司法者造法的效率则比较高。 三、 制定法往往过于原则化、抽象化，法官手中掌有太大的自由裁量权，法院判决的随意性太大；而法官造法的规定则往往比制定法的规定更为具体详细，它可以更有效地限制法官个人的自由裁量权，防止法官在审判中把个人的成见、情感等因素作为判决的依据，从而更好地维护社会正义和实现司法公正。 当然，若法官随意造法，就等于否定了立法的作用。如果法官可以超越甚至抛弃现行法律的精神和原则，随心所欲地创造法律，那就会导致司法越权甚至司法专横，这将会使法官的权力过大而使公民的权利随时面临着法官新造之法的威胁。 四、 立法滞后于社会发展是一种必然现象，特别是当一个国家处于社会转型和重大变革的时期。因为立法者立法时的预见力和表达力是有限的，所以制定法中存在一些漏洞或空白也是不可避免的。 五、 造法的实质在于发现法的规律和精神，衡量法律好坏的标准不应该看它是谁造的，而应该看其是否符合法的基本精神和客观规律。 综上所述不难看出，在发挥法的作用，维护社会正义和实现司法公正的总体过程中，我们不能片面地断定孰优孰劣。我认为，采取以制定法为主以法官造法为辅才是一种比较合理造法模式。 （注：Comparison Between "Judge Made" Law and "Enacted" Law——这是题目的翻译）问题补充：再回第三位朋友“山谷幽士 - 高级经理 六级 ”之答： 呵呵：）谢谢你的好意！ 我也有想过按你说的那样做，但是我觉得自己翻出来后别人再改的话就不会超出我已经固有的那个版本，而我知道的英语写作水平实在有限，所以还是让高手给我翻个好的版本更好些。 再次感谢你的关心！翻译英语是Judges make law usually referred to as "judicial law-making people" and "case law" or "unwritten law" is a member of the Judiciary specific cases through trial and developed to be applied in the case of the law. Enacted laws generally referred to as "legislators make law" or "statutory" referred to the legislature in accordance with the procedures that must be worked out in society generally applicable law. Judges make law and the development of law have both, I have two simple comparison are as follows : 1. enactment is the focus of the entire society in general, it helps protect the universal applicability of the law and the relative stability; and the judges make law is the focus of the specific case, So will better safeguard the legal applicability of the individual and flexible application. 2, the judges make law is man-made law, it is relatively easy to be judge prejudices, likes and dislikes, feelings, ability and other personal factors; and for the development of law, the legislature are generally made up of elected representatives, in a society with a broad representation, and in accordance with democratic legislators to the modalities and procedures of collective law-making, they are able to better reflect the will of the people. Therefore, making a law than law-making judges more authority and unity. However, precisely because legislators make law through complex procedures to brainstorming, so efficiency is relatively low; and the judicial officers of the law-making efficiency is relatively high. Third, in formulating principles of law too often, abstract, the judge is holding the hands of too much discretion, When the court decision much; The judge said the law is often more than required by the development of more specific and detailed, It can be more effective in limiting the freedom of individual judges discretion to prevent the trial judge in the personal prejudices, Emotional factors as a basis for their decisions, in order to better maintain social justice and the achievement of justice. Of course, if the judge arbitrary law-making, it amounts to a rejection of the legislative role. If judges can transcend even discard the spirit of the existing law and principles, and to engage in creating laws, it will lead to justice ultra vires or arbitrary justice, This will enable judges too much power so the rights of citizens are subject to the judge's law new threats. 4 legislation lagging behind in social development is a natural phenomenon, especially when a country undergoing social restructuring, and major changes in the period. Legislative because the legislators anticipate and expression is limited. So enacted law there are some loopholes or gaps is also inevitable. 5, the real law-making method is found to the laws and spirit of measuring the quality of legal standards should not look at it to those who built, should see if it meets the basic spirit and the objective law. In summary it is not difficult to see the role played by law to maintain social justice and the realization of justice in the whole process, We can not unilaterally determine which is better. I believe that the adoption of a law enacted mainly to supplement judges make law is a more reasonable law-making mode