【最新推荐】应急法律外文文献翻译原文+译文

应急措施的英语作文及翻译【篇一：英语作文-急救方法-first aid】英语作文-急救方法-first aidfirst aidit is important for you to learn some knowledge about first aidin your daily life. if a person has an accident, he needs medical care before a doctor can be found. when you give first aid, you must pay attention to three things. first, when a person stops breathing, open his/her mouth and see if there is food at the bulk of his/her mouth. second, if a person cannot breathe, do you best to start his/her breathing at once, using a mouth to mouth way. third, if a person is hurt badly, try at once to stop the bleeding. then take him/her to a doctor. if a person losesone third of his/her blood, he/she may die.many accidents may happen at home. all parents should know first aid in order to deal with common injuries which may happen to their children. when a person is bitten by an animai, wash the wound with cold running water before he/she is taken to see a doctor. when a person is burnt, wash and cool thearea of the skin under the cold tap for a while. then put a pieceof dry clean cloth over the burn. if the person is badly burnt, take him/her to the doctor. if a person cuts his/her finger, clean it and put a piece of paper round the cut. every bodyrshould know some first aid in order to save othe people＇s lives.[点评]急救是每个人都有可能遇到的情况。

P21第一段的“procedure”：this is a proceeding upon writ of a death benefit award by the Industrial Accident Commission in favor of the widow and three minor children of Karl Lund, deceased. petitioner State Employees' Retirement System seeks an annulment of the award, on the grounds that respondent Commission had acted without and in excess of its power and that the evidence was insufficient to justify the fingdings of fact.这是一个死亡令状效益赔偿，有关工业事故委员会赞同对寡妇和已故的卡尔隆德的三个未成年的孩子进行赔偿。

申请人，国家雇员退休系统，旨在废除该赔偿为由，答辩委员会擅自行动，且超过其权力行使权力，其证明的事实证据不足。

P22 倒数第一段：on the contrary, we are required to indulge all reasonable inferences which may be drawn legitimately from the facts in order to support the findings of the Commission ,and in doing so all that is required is reasonable probability; not absolute certainty.反之，我们需要放纵所有合理的推断，可能是合法的事实来支持委员会的调查结果，如此一来，这样做所需的一切就是合理的可能性，而非绝对的确定性。

合装置-MDA & UATSite Safety Practice现场安全规定forEmergency Response Plan 紧急事件响应计划INDEX目录1 PURPOSE目的2SCOPE范围3LEVELS OF RESPONSE响应等级4ACTIONS / REQUIREMENTS行动4.1GENERAL通则4.2RESPONSE TO EMERGENCIES对紧急（事件）的响应5 EMERGENCIES紧急事件5.1FIRE火灾5.2VEHICLE ACCIDENTS交通事故5.3WEATHER EMERGENCIES气候方面的紧急事件5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE/RESPONSE ACTIONS环境性释放5.5 SECURITY INCIDENTS安保事故6 SITE EVACUATIONS现场疏散7 TRAINING / RESPONSE DRILLS培训/应急演习8 TELEPHONE NUMBERS应急电话号码APPENDICES附录Appendix 1 EMERGENCY RESPONSE CHECKLIST附录1 应急响应审核单1.PURPOSE目的The purpose of this procedure is to provide a safe system of work by the implementation of emergency response measures and to identify the responsibilities and legal requirements at worksites where Project has the prevailing influence.本程序的目的是通过执行应急反应措施为工作提供一个安全体系，明确在项目工地的责任和法律要求。

2.SCOPE范围2.1This procedure describes the actions to be taken by key personnel in the event of an emergency situation arising on Project Site and offsiteconstruction activities associated with this project.本程序说明在项目现场及与项目有关的场外施工活动中出现紧急状况时，关键人员可以采取的措施（行动）。

英文文献全文翻译全文共四篇示例，供读者参考第一篇示例：LeGuin, Ursula K. (December 18, 2002). "Dancing at the Edge of the World: Thoughts on Words, Women, Places".《世界边缘的舞蹈：关于语言、女性和地方的思考》Introduction:In "Dancing at the Edge of the World," Ursula K. LeGuin explores the intersection of language, women, and places. She writes about the power of words, the role of women in society, and the importance of our connection to the places we inhabit. Through a series of essays, LeGuin invites readers to think critically about these topics and consider how they shape our understanding of the world.Chapter 1: LanguageConclusion:第二篇示例：IntroductionEnglish literature translation is an important field in the study of language and culture. The translation of English literature involves not only the linguistic translation of words or sentences but also the transfer of cultural meaning and emotional resonance. This article will discuss the challenges and techniques of translating English literature, as well as the importance of preserving the original author's voice and style in the translated text.Challenges in translating English literature第三篇示例：Title: The Importance of Translation of Full English TextsTranslation plays a crucial role in bringing different languages and cultures together. More specifically, translating full English texts into different languages allows for access to valuable information and insights that may otherwise be inaccessible to those who do not speak English. In this article, we will explore the importance of translating full English texts and the benefits it brings.第四篇示例：Abstract: This article discusses the importance of translating English literature and the challenges translators face when putting together a full-text translation. It highlights the skills and knowledge needed to accurately convey the meaning and tone of the original text while preserving its cultural and literary nuances. Through a detailed analysis of the translation process, this article emphasizes the crucial role translators play in bridging the gap between languages and making English literature accessible to a global audience.IntroductionEnglish literature is a rich and diverse field encompassing a wide range of genres, styles, and themes. From classic works by Shakespeare and Dickens to contemporary novels by authors like J.K. Rowling and Philip Pullman, English literature offers something for everyone. However, for non-English speakers, accessing and understanding these works can be a challenge. This is where translation comes in.Translation is the process of rendering a text from one language into another, while striving to preserve the original meaning, tone, and style of the original work. Translating afull-length English text requires a deep understanding of both languages, as well as a keen awareness of the cultural andhistorical context in which the work was written. Additionally, translators must possess strong writing skills in order to convey the beauty and complexity of the original text in a new language.Challenges of Full-text TranslationTranslating a full-length English text poses several challenges for translators. One of the most significant challenges is capturing the nuances and subtleties of the original work. English literature is known for its rich and layered language, with intricate wordplay, metaphors, and symbolism that can be difficult to convey in another language. Translators must carefully consider each word and phrase in order to accurately convey the author's intended meaning.Another challenge of full-text translation is maintaining the author's unique voice and style. Each writer has a distinct way of expressing themselves, and a good translator must be able to replicate this voice in the translated text. This requires a deep understanding of the author's writing style, as well as the ability to adapt it to the conventions of the target language.Additionally, translators must be mindful of the cultural and historical context of the original work. English literature is deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the English-speaking world, and translators must be aware of these influences in orderto accurately convey the author's intended message. This requires thorough research and a nuanced understanding of the social, political, and economic factors that shaped the work.Skills and Knowledge RequiredTo successfully translate a full-length English text, translators must possess a wide range of skills and knowledge. First and foremost, translators must be fluent in both the source language (English) and the target language. This includes a strong grasp of grammar, syntax, and vocabulary in both languages, as well as an understanding of the cultural and historical context of the works being translated.Translators must also have a keen eye for detail and a meticulous approach to their work. Every word, sentence, and paragraph must be carefully considered and translated with precision in order to accurately convey the meaning of the original text. This requires strong analytical skills and a deep understanding of the nuances and complexities of language.Furthermore, translators must possess strong writing skills in order to craft a compelling and engaging translation. Translating a full-length English text is not simply a matter of substituting one word for another; it requires creativity, imagination, and a deep appreciation for the beauty of language. Translators mustbe able to capture the rhythm, cadence, and tone of the original work in their translation, while also adapting it to the conventions of the target language.ConclusionIn conclusion, translating a full-length English text is a complex and challenging task that requires a high level of skill, knowledge, and creativity. Translators must possess a deep understanding of both the source and target languages, as well as the cultural and historical context of the work being translated. Through their careful and meticulous work, translators play a crucial role in making English literature accessible to a global audience, bridging the gap between languages and cultures. By preserving the beauty and complexity of the original text in their translations, translators enrich our understanding of literature and bring the works of English authors to readers around the world.。

常用法律条文英文版本|法律英语1.Divine’s punishments, though slow, are always sure. 天网恢恢，疏而不漏。

2.An act is not a crime unless the law says it is one. 法无明文规定者不为罪。

3.This contract is made of one original and two duplicate origi nals, all of which are of the same effect. 本合同一式三份，具有同等效力。

4. The law does not concern itself about family trifles. 法律难断家务事。

5.This document is legally binding. 该文件具有法律约束力。

6. This law is in abeyance. 此法暂缓执行。

7. This law has become a dead letter. 此法已成为一纸空文。

8. This law will go into effect on the day of its promulgation. 本法自公布之日起施行。

9 The court dismissed the action. 法院驳回诉讼。

10. The court ordered the case to be retried. 法院命令重审此案。

. 11.Giving the killer what he deserves. 予杀人者以应得之罪。

12. Hate the sin but not the sinner. 可恨的是罪行而非罪人。

13.Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. 每个人都享有言论自由。

14. Everyone is equal before the law. 法律面前人人平等。

举证通知书(English V ersion)-法律英语翻译-法律文书翻译The People’s Republic of ChinaHefei Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui ProvinceNotice to Produce EvidenceNo. XXXTo: AAAAccording to the Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Severa l Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidences for Civil Actions, you are responsible for producing evidences to prove the facts on which your claims are based or the facts on which the claims of the other party are rebutted.1. Y ou shall, as required by the Instructions for Producing Evidences of this Court submit evidence materials to this Court within thirty (30) days after the day of the receiving this notice.2. Evidences submitted by the parties to the people’s court shall be the origina ls, or copies or replicas checked and found in conformity with the originals by the people’s court. The submitted evidence materials shall be classified and numbered one by one. It is required to briefly describe the sources, facts to be proved and contents of the evidence materials. Copies shall be provided according to the number of the parties of the opposing side.3. Where it is really difficult for you to submit evidence materials within the evidence producing term, you may apply with this Court for extension before its expiration.4. Y our failure to submit evidence materials within the evidence producing term shall be deemed as waiver of the right to produce evidences. For the evidence materials not submitted on time, the people’s court won’t arra nge cross examination during trial, unless the other party agrees to cross examination.5. Where you intend to apply for authentication, increase or variation of the claims or file a counterclaim, you shall do the same prior to the expiration of the evidence producing term.6. Where you apply for appearance of a witness to testify, you shall file an application with this Court ten (10) days before expiration of the evidence producing term.7. Where an evidence provided by you has come into being outsi de the territory of the People’s Republic of China, such evidence shall be certified by a notarial authority of the country in which such evidence has come into being and certified by an embassy or consulate of the People’s Republic of China in that country, or it is required to perform the certifying procedures prescribed by related treaties between the People’s Republic of China and that country.Where an evidence provided by you has come into being in the region of Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan, related certifying procedures shall be performed.Hefei Intermediate People’s Court of Anhui Province (seal)Date:举证通知书(中文版)×××人民法院举证通知书（××××）×××字第××号×××：根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》和最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》，现将有关举证事项通知如下：一、当事人应当对自己提出的诉讼请求所依据的事实或者反驳对方诉讼请求所依?据的事实承担举证责任。

Emergency Solutions and Rapid Response Mechanism 应急预案和快速反映机制*本预案中的详细信息将在项目实施前进一步完善并呈报相关部门（1）、Exigency Gather Point 紧急集合点Exigency Gather Point 紧急集合点While the emergency happen and the gather is necessary, all persons need go beinformed to gather at the Exigency Gather Point by safety Dept or guard Dept.在出现应急状态必需召集进行集合时，由安全数门或捍卫部门通知所有人员在集合点集合。

The location of the Exigency Gather Point need to be informed the person while they entering the site.集合点的位置应在进场时告知所有员工及外来人员。

The obvious sign should be at the location of the point, legend as the following:紧急集合点处应有明显标志，标志如下：（2）、Description 说明Emergency preparedness is the state of mind an occupier has to minimize the consequence of loss after an accident has takenplace. The objective of this element is to ensurethat the Company has developed andcommunicated plans that will allow for the effectivemanagement of emergencies.紧急情形预备状态是利用者在事故发生后必需把损失降低到最低程度的预备状态。

《欧洲国际法期刊》第16卷第1期。

文章名：Targeted Killing of Suspected Terrorists ExtraJudicial Executions or Legitimate Means of Defence?杀害被怀疑的恐怖分子：司法外执行还是正当防卫？摘要：一个受到跨国恐怖主义集团攻击的国家是否可能以该集团不在其管辖范围内的活跃成员为目标引起了争议。

一些人把有针对性地杀害恐怖分子嫌疑人称为法外处决，其他人则声称这是合法的战争行为（正当防御行为）。

发件人根据国际人权法和国际人道主义法的准则审查了这种屠杀的合法性。

在前一种制度下，只有在为防止无法用其他手段制止的迫在眉睫的攻击而进行的杀戮才能合法。

在后一种制度下，如果将恐怖主义嫌疑犯视为战斗人员，这种杀害可能是合法的。

笔者认为，虽然在国际武装冲突中，恐怖主义嫌疑分子通常不是战斗人员，但在非国际武装冲突中，他们很可能是战斗人员。

在这种冲突中，国际人道主义法的准则不能独立存在；适用的制度必须是一种混合的模式，它结合了国际人权法的特点。

在最后一节中，作者讨论了以色列的定点杀戮政策和美国对也门基地组织嫌疑成员的攻击，并将混合模型应用于这些案例。

1介绍2002年11月，一辆行驶在也门偏远地区的汽车被一架无人驾驶“捕食者”无人机发射的导弹摧毁。

车内6人全部被怀疑是基地组织成员，从而被杀。

尽管美国没有公开承认对此次袭击负责，但官员们表示，此次袭击是美国中央情报局所为。

被击毙的其中一人名叫卡伊德·萨利姆，据说是前本拉登的一名保安，他被怀疑在2000年10月美国“科尔”号驱逐舰遇袭事件中扮演了重要角色。

两年前，以色列采取了一项“有针对性地害”巴勒斯坦人的政策，据称这些巴勒斯坦人是参与组织、促进或执行在以色列和被占领领土上的恐怖主义袭击的恐怖主义组织的积极成员。

这一政策始于对侯赛因的阿巴亚特的袭击，随后发生了一系列袭击，最近最严重的是对哈马斯领导人艾哈迈德·亚辛和阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹·兰蒂西的袭击。

论文外文文献翻译以下是一篇700字左右的论文外文文献翻译：原文题目：The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Diagnostics: A Review原文摘要：In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of medical diagnostics. AI has the potential to improve the accuracy and efficiency of medical diagnoses, and can assist clinicians in making treatment decisions. This review aims to examine the current state of AI in medical diagnostics, and discuss its advantages and limitations. Several AI techniques, including machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing, are discussed. The review also examines the ethical and legal considerations associated with the use of AI in medical diagnostics. Overall, AI has shown great promise in improving medical diagnostics, but further research is needed to fully understand its potential benefits and limitations.AI在医学诊断中发挥的作用：一项综述近年来，人工智能（AI）在医学诊断领域的应用引起了越来越多的关注。

附件一：英文文献INTRODUCTIONOffences of strict liability are those crimes which do not require mens rea with regard to at least one or more elements of the actus reus. The defendant need not have intended or known about that circumstance or consequence. Liability is said to be strict with regard to that element. For a good example see:R v Prince[1875]：The defendant ran off with an under-age girl. He was charged with an offence of taking a girl under the age of 16 out of the possession of her parents contrary to s55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The defendant knew that the girl was in the custody her father but he believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18. It was held that knowledge that the girl was under the age of 16 was not required in order to establish the offence. It was sufficient to show that the defendant intended to take the girl out of the possession of her father.It is only in extreme and rare cases where no mens rea is required for liability, thereby making the particular offence "absolute".GENERAL PRINCIPLESThe vast majority of strict liability crimes are statutory offences. However, statutes do not state explicitly that a particular offence is one of strict liability. Where a statute uses terms such as "knowingly" or "recklessly" then the offence being created is one that requires mens rea. Alternatively, it may make it clear that an offence of strict liability is being created. In many cases it will be a matter for the courts to interpret the statute and decide whether mens rea is required or not. What factors are taken into account by the courts when assessing whether or not an offence falls into the category of strict liability offences?THE MODERN CRITERIAIn Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong [1984], the Privy Council considered the scope and role of strict liability offences in the modern criminal law and their effect upon the "presumption of mens rea". Lord Scarman laid down the criteria upon which a court should decide whether or not it is appropriate to impose strict liability: "In their Lordships' opinion, the law … may be stated in the following propositions … : (1) there is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence; (2) the presumption is particularly strong where the offence is "truly criminal" in character; (3) the presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute; (4) the only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern, and public safety is such an issue; (5) even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act."(1) PRESUMPTION OF MENS REACourts usually begin with the presumption in favor of mens rea, seeing the well-known statement by Wright J in Sherras v De Rutzen：There is a presumption that mens rea, or evil intention, or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered(2) GRAVITY OF PUNISHMENTAs a general rule, the more serious the criminal offence created by statute, the less likely the courts is to view it as an offence of strict liability. See:Sweet v Parsley [1970]：The defendant was a landlady of a house let to tenants. She retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and letters. While she was absent the police searched the house and found cannabis. The defendant was convicted under s5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, of "being concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of cannabis". She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such knowledge.The House of Lords,quashing her conviction, held that it had to be proved that the defendant had intended the house to be used for drug-taking, since the statute in question created a serious, or "truly criminal" offence, conviction for which would have grave consequences for the defendant. Lord Reid stated that "a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence, and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma". And equally important, "the press in this country are vigilant to expose injustice, and every manifestly unjust conviction made known to the public tends to injure the body politic [people of a nation] by undermining public confidence in the justice of the law and of its administration."Lord Reid went on to point out that in any event it was impractical to impose absolute liability for an offence of this nature, as those who were responsible for letting properties could not possibly be expected to know everything that their tenants were doing.(3) WORDING OF THE STATUTEIn determining whether the presumption in favor of mens rea is to be displaced, the courts are required to have reference to the whole statute in which the offence appears. See:Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) ：The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person, contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act 1872. On appeal, the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customer's drunkenness and thus should be acquitted. The Divisional Court interpreted s13 as creating an offence of strict liability since it was itself silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant. It was held that it was not necessary to consider whether the defendant knew, or had means of knowing, or could with ordinary care have detected that the person served was drunk. If he served a drink to a person who was in fact drunk, he was guilty. Stephen J stated: Here, as I have already pointed out, the object of this part of the Act is to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor to drunken persons, and it is perfectly natural to carry that out by throwing on the publican the responsibility of determining whether the person supplied comes within that category.(4) ISSUES OF SOCIAL CONCERNSee :R v Blake (1996) :Investigation officers heard an unlicensed radio station broadcast and traced it to a flat where the defendant was discovered alone standing in front of the record decks, still playing music and wearing a set of headphones. Though the defendant admitted that he knewhe was using the equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and did not know he was transmitting. The defendant was convicted of using wireless telegraphy equipment without a license, contrary to s1 (1) Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens rea.The Court of Appeal held that the offence was an absolute (actually a strict) liability offence. The Court applied Lord Scarman's principles in Gammon and found that, though the presumption in favor of mens rea was strong because the offence carried a sentence of imprisonment and was, therefore, "truly criminal", yet the offence dealt with issues of serious social concern in the interests of public safety (namely, frequent unlicensed broadcasts on frequencies used by emergency services) and the imposition of strict liability encouraged greater vigilance in setting up careful checks to avoid committing the offence.(5) IS THERE ANY PURPOSE IN IMPOSING STRICT LIABILITY?The courts will be reluctant to construe a statute as imposing strict liability upon a defendant, where there is evidence to suggest that despite his having taken all reasonable steps, he cannot avoid the commission of an offence. See:Sherras v De Rutzen [1895]: The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty, contrary to s16(2) of the Licensing Act 1872. He had reasonably believed the constable to be off duty as he had removed his arm-band, which was the acknowledged method of signifying off duty. The Divisional Court held that the conviction should be quashed, despite the absence from s16 (2) of any words requiring proof of mens rea as an element of the offence. Wright J expressed the view that the presumption in favor of mens rea would only be displaced by the wording of the statute itself, or its subject matter. In this case the latter factor was significant, in that no amount of reasonable care by the defendant would have prevented the offence from being committed. Wright J stated: "It is plain that if guilty knowledge is not necessary, no care on the part of the publican could save him from a conviction under section 16, subsection (2), since it would be as easy for the constable to deny that he was on duty when asked, or to produce a forged permission from his superior officer, as to remove his armlet before entering the public house. I am, therefore, of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed."MODERN EXAMPLESThe following case is a modern example of the imposition of strict liability: Alphacell v Woodward [1972] The defendants were charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river contrary to s2 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The river had in fact been polluted because a pipe connected to the defendant's factory had been blocked, and the defendants had not been negligent. The House of Lords nevertheless held that the defendants were liable. Lord Salmon stated: If this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction be obtained under the 1951 Act unless the prosecution could discharge the often impossible onus of proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred to the relief of many riparian factory owners. As a result, many rivers which are now filthy would become filthier still and many rivers which are now clean would lose their cleanliness. The legislature no doubt recognized that as a matter of public policy this would be most unfortunate. Hence s2(1)(a) which encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it.ARGUMENTS FOR STRICT LIABILITY1. The primary function of the courts is the prevention of forbidden acts. What acts should be regarded as forbidden? Surely only such acts as we can assert ought not to have been done. Some of the judges who upheld the conviction of Prince did so on the ground that men should be deterred from taking girls out of the possession of their parents, whatever the girl's age. This reasoning can hardly be applied to many modern offences of strict liability. We do not wish to deter people from driving cars, being concerned in the management of premises, financing hire purchase transactions or canning peas. These acts, if done with all proper care, are not such acts as the law should seek to prevent.2. Another argument that is frequently advanced in favor of strict liability is that, without it, many guilty people would escape - that there is neither time nor personnel available to litigate the culpability of each particular infraction. T his argument assumes that it is possible to deal with these cases without deciding whether D had mens rea or not, whether he was negligent or not. Certainly D may be convicted without deciding these questions, but how can he be sentenced? Suppose that a butcher sells some meat which is unfit for human consumption. Clearly the court will deal differently with (i) the butcher who knew that the meat was tainted; (ii) the butcher who did not know, but ought to have known; and (iii) the butcher who did not know and had no means of finding out. Sentence can hardly be imposed without deciding into which category the convicted person falls.3. The argument which is probably most frequently advanced by the courts for imposing strict liability is that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the public. Now it may be conceded that in many of the instances where strict liability has been imposed, the public does need protection against negligence and, assuming that the threat of punishment can make the potential harm doer more careful, there may be a valid ground for imposing liability for negligence as well as where there is mens rea. This is a plausible argument in favor of strict liability if there were no middle way between mens rea and strict liability - that is liability for negligence - and the judges have generally proceeded on the basis that there is no such middle way. Liability for negligence has rarely been spelled out of a statute except where, as in driving without due care, it is explicitly required. Lord Devlin has said: "It is not easy to find a way of construing a statute apparently expressed in terms of absolute liability so as to produce the requirement of negligence."ARGUMENTS AGAINST STRICT LIABILITY1. The case against strict liability, then, is, first, that it is unnecessary. It results in the conviction of persons who have behaved impeccably and who should not be required to alter their conduct in any way.2. Secondly, that it is unjust. Even if an absolute discharge can be given D may feel rightly aggrieved at having been formally convicted of an offence for which he bore no responsibility. Moreover, a conviction may have far-reaching consequences outside the courts, so that it is no answer to say that only a nominal penalty is imposed.3. The imposition of liability for negligence would in fact meet the arguments of most of those who favor strict liability. Such statutes are not meant to punish the vicious will but to put pressure upon the thoughtless and inefficient to do their whole duty in the interest of public health or safety or morals." The "thoughtless and inefficient" are, of course, the negligent. The objection tooffences of strict liability is not that these persons are penalized, but that others who are completely innocent are also liable to conviction. Though Lord Devlin was skeptical about the possibility of introducing the criterion of negligence (above), in Reynolds v Austin (1951) he stated that strict liability should only apply when there is something that the defendant can do to promote the observance of the law - which comes close to requiring negligence. If there were something which D could do to prevent the commission of the crime and which he failed to do, he might generally be said to have failed to comply with a duty - perhaps a high duty - of care; and so have been negligent.4. In Alphacell v Woodward (1972) Lord Salmon thought the relevant statutory section, "encourages riparian factory owners not only to take reasonable steps to prevent pollution but to do everything possible to ensure that they do not cause it." This suggests that, however vast the expenditure involved, and however unreasonable it may be in relation to the risk, D is under a duty to take all possible steps. Yet it may be doubted whether factory owners will in fact do more than is reasonable; and it is questionable whether they ought to be required to do so, at the risk - even though it be unlikely - of imprisonment. The contrary argument is that the existence of strict liability does induce organizations to aim at higher and higher standards.POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTSThere are several possible compromises between mens rea and strict liability in regulatory offences. A "halfway house" has developed in Australia. The effect of Australian cases is: D might be convicted without proof of any mens rea by the Crown; but acquitted if he proved on a balance of probabilities that he lacked mens rea and was not negligent; ie, that he had an honest and reasonable belief in a state of facts which, would have made his act innocent. The onus of proving reasonable mistake is on D.STATUTORY DEFENCESIt is common for the drastic effect of a statute imposing strict liability to be mitigated by the provision of a statutory defense. It is instructive to consider one example. Various offences relating to the treatment and sale of food are enacted by the first twenty sections of the Food Safety Act 1990. Many, if not all, of these are strict liability offences. Section 21(1), however, provides that it shall be a defense for the person charged with any of the offences to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by himself or by a person under his control. Statutory defenses usually impose on the defendant a burden of proving that he had no mens rea and that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of an offence. The effect of such provisions is that the prosecution need do no more than prove that the accused did the prohibited act and it is then for him to establish, if he can, that he did it innocently. Such provisions are a distinct advance on unmitigated strict liability.附件二：英文文献翻译介绍严格责任犯罪是关于客观方面的一个或多个因素不要求犯罪意图的那些犯罪。