駱家輝在人民大學(xué)演講稿中英文

　　羅　駱家輝(1950.01-)，美籍華裔政治家。民主黨黨員。于1950年1月21日出生于美國(guó)華盛頓州西雅圖市，祖籍中國(guó)廣東臺(tái)山二區(qū)明塘鄉(xiāng)灣頭吉龍村(現(xiàn)廣東省臺(tái)山市水步鎮(zhèn)長(zhǎng)塘吉龍村);是這個(gè)移民家庭的第三代。以下是學(xué)習(xí)啦小編整理了駱家輝在人民大學(xué)演講稿中英文全文，供你參考。

　　駱家輝在人民大學(xué)演講稿中文全文如下：

　　駱大使：非常感謝你，朱所長(zhǎng)。施大使，趙大使，雷公使銜參贊，程主席，韓院長(zhǎng)，以及所有參加模擬法庭申訴的法學(xué)家們和我們所有法律專(zhuān)業(yè)的學(xué)生們。

　　我還要感謝程主席和韓院長(zhǎng)在這所享有盛名的大學(xué)里招待我們，以及你們?yōu)榱私逃@些優(yōu)秀的年輕學(xué)生而做的所有出色工作。

　　我與你們一樣有對(duì)法治的熱情和奉獻(xiàn)以及你們對(duì)這項(xiàng)享有盛名的比賽的支持，這次比賽使全中國(guó)法律專(zhuān)業(yè)的學(xué)生面對(duì)當(dāng)今世界面臨最具挑戰(zhàn)性、最激動(dòng)人心的一些法律問(wèn)題。

　　我贊賞聚集在這里的來(lái)自全中國(guó)的學(xué)生，他們?yōu)榱朔?wù)于他們的國(guó)家而磨練自己的技巧。我也很感激如此多來(lái)自世界各地的經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的律師和法學(xué)家們，他們幫助培養(yǎng)這些有天分的年輕學(xué)生。

　　我常常被問(wèn)，是什么使美國(guó)成為這樣一個(gè)成功、創(chuàng)新、充滿(mǎn)活力、穩(wěn)定的社會(huì)，吸引并且持續(xù)吸引來(lái)自世界各地的人們。其實(shí)是中國(guó)學(xué)者和商界人士首先給了我答案，他們回答說(shuō)，美利堅(jiān)合眾國(guó)最有決定性的特點(diǎn)是強(qiáng)有力的法治。

　　因此，今天早上我想詳述一下法治對(duì)一個(gè)進(jìn)步和穩(wěn)定的社會(huì)來(lái)說(shuō)有多么關(guān)鍵。

　　首先，我想讓你們知道，像你們很多人一樣，我是作為一名律師開(kāi)始的，在我的家鄉(xiāng)，華盛頓的西雅圖，作為一名刑事公訴官工作了四年，我起訴過(guò)被指控入室盜竊，搶劫，販運(yùn)毒品，和謀殺的人。

　　在法官面前爭(zhēng)論復(fù)雜的法律案件時(shí)，即使我輸?shù)袅瞬枚ǎ词狗ü俚牟枚ǚ駴Q了我或者政府的立場(chǎng)，在我離開(kāi)法院時(shí)，通常還是相信，正義正在被伸張，因?yàn)榉ü賹忛喠烁鞣教峤坏姆晌募?。法官研究了判例法并慎重地考慮了法律問(wèn)題。最后，法官給出了合理的，基于法律的判決。

　　我自己對(duì)法律的熱情在我的職業(yè)生涯中持續(xù)著。我曾短暫地?fù)?dān)任過(guò)兼職法官，而在擔(dān)任華盛頓州州長(zhǎng)的兩屆任期中，我的工作經(jīng)常涉及法律問(wèn)題。

　　我作為州長(zhǎng)最驕傲的成就之一就是，通過(guò)關(guān)注將送首次犯案或者犯輕罪的年輕罪犯去參加社區(qū)服務(wù)和其他康復(fù)計(jì)劃作為坐牢的替代方式，改革我們的青少年司法系統(tǒng)。在中國(guó)對(duì)自己的青少年司法系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行類(lèi)似改變時(shí)，我曾饒有興趣地觀察過(guò)。

　　作為州長(zhǎng)，我有任命超過(guò)50名法官的機(jī)會(huì)和特權(quán)。事實(shí)上，我任命的大部分法官今天仍在審理案件。我任命的法官中有近25%是少數(shù)族裔，近50%是女性。

　　因?yàn)槲蚁嘈?，如果我們社?huì)的各部分都尊重司法系統(tǒng)，并接受法院的裁定，那么在他們面前，我們的法官必須反映社會(huì)的人口構(gòu)成。

　　作為州長(zhǎng)，我也有執(zhí)行法院所施加的死刑的重大責(zé)任。我作為州長(zhǎng)時(shí)最困難和孤獨(dú)的一些時(shí)刻是決定是否授予緩期執(zhí)行，中止執(zhí)行，或者允許執(zhí)行繼續(xù)進(jìn)行。

　　在美國(guó)的刑事司法系統(tǒng)中，從小型的非法闖入到生死攸關(guān)的起訴，在被政府證明有罪之前，每個(gè)人都被假定為無(wú)罪。而且，此外，每個(gè)人 - 大人物，小人物，富人或者窮人，有名氣或沒(méi)名氣的人 – 都有公平的機(jī)會(huì)并且被平等地對(duì)待。這不僅是美國(guó)的法律制度，也是我們整個(gè)政治制度的一個(gè)基本原則 – 每個(gè)人都有公平且平等的機(jī)會(huì)。

　　今天，一些最有名的法律案件的名稱(chēng)中就有那些同政府較量，同有權(quán)有勢(shì)的人或者大公司較量的小人物的名字。

　　以1966年判決的米蘭達(dá)訴埃里索納案(Miranda v. Arizona)為例。埃內(nèi)斯托·米蘭達(dá)是一名被指控強(qiáng)奸的勞工，他認(rèn)罪了，但他從未被告知他有避免自我歸罪的權(quán)利和得到律師(辯護(hù))的權(quán)利。結(jié)果，美國(guó)最高法院裁定，他享受正當(dāng)程序的權(quán)利受到了侵犯;他的認(rèn)罪不可靠;因此，推翻了對(duì)他的定罪。

　　這個(gè)案件確立了所謂的”米蘭達(dá)權(quán)利”。我認(rèn)為看過(guò)警察劇的任何人都非常熟悉。米蘭達(dá)權(quán)利要求警察告知被羈押的嫌疑人他們有保持沉默的權(quán)利，他們所說(shuō)的任何事情都會(huì)在法庭上被用于針對(duì)他們，他們有得到律師(辯護(hù))的權(quán)利，和如果他們負(fù)擔(dān)不起律師的費(fèi)用，會(huì)為他們指定一名律師。

　　還有非常有名的在1954年判決的布朗訴教育委員會(huì)案(Brown v. Board of Education)，它結(jié)束了美國(guó)學(xué)校中的種族隔離。這一案件名稱(chēng)中有一名叫林達(dá)·布朗的三年級(jí)學(xué)生的名字，她必須步行穿過(guò)危險(xiǎn)的鐵路調(diào)車(chē)場(chǎng)才能到達(dá)位于很遠(yuǎn)處的全是非洲裔美國(guó)人的學(xué)校，而不是去一所離她家近得多的學(xué)校就讀，因?yàn)檫@所更近的學(xué)校只為白人學(xué)生保留。

　　美國(guó)最高法院裁定推翻之前法院允許提供平等服務(wù)的不同設(shè)施存在的裁定。那些不同但平等的法律允許各州為黑人學(xué)生設(shè)立不同學(xué)校，為白人學(xué)生設(shè)立不同學(xué)校。美國(guó)最高法院最終裁定不同學(xué)校其實(shí)是內(nèi)在不平等的。

　　你們將在這次比賽中辯論的案件，阿爾佛納共和國(guó)是這些小人物之一在法院系統(tǒng)中尋求補(bǔ)救的另一個(gè)例子。

　　經(jīng)過(guò)幾個(gè)世代，我們美國(guó)的法院已經(jīng)確立，沒(méi)有人能凌駕于法律之上，即使是美國(guó)總統(tǒng)。在1974年的美國(guó)訴尼克森案(United States v. Nixon)中，最高法院下令白宮公開(kāi)記錄總統(tǒng)的橢圓形辦公室內(nèi)談話(huà)的錄音帶。所有這一切越過(guò)了尼克森總統(tǒng)堅(jiān)決、極力的反對(duì)。后來(lái)，華盛頓郵報(bào)兩名鮮為人知的記者發(fā)現(xiàn)了白宮中掩蓋的非法活動(dòng)，而這些故事最終導(dǎo)致尼克森總統(tǒng)辭職。

　　我們的法律和政治制度再次證明，任何人，即使是美國(guó)最有權(quán)的人，都不能凌駕于法律之上。

　　法律案件經(jīng)常給好萊塢電影以靈感，比如由朱利亞·羅伯茨主演的《艾琳·卜羅克維赤》(Erin Brockovich)。卜羅克維赤是前選美比賽勝者，在20世紀(jì)90年代初，她幫助揭露在卡利佛尼亞一個(gè)美國(guó)小鎮(zhèn)里的化學(xué)污染，盡管沒(méi)有正式的法律培訓(xùn)，她與擁有很大權(quán)力的州電力公司及其律師大軍較量 - 就污染導(dǎo)致的嚴(yán)重健康影響幫助鎮(zhèn)上的居民贏得了數(shù)百萬(wàn)美元的賠償。

　　小人物的權(quán)利是美國(guó)制度的真正基礎(chǔ)。早在18世紀(jì)，很少有人會(huì)預(yù)測(cè)到，在大西洋的另一邊，一個(gè)由13個(gè)殖民地組成的烏合之眾聯(lián)盟能以某種方式脫離大不列顛獲得獨(dú)立。但是這些殖民地獲勝了，并且作為一個(gè)年輕的美國(guó)從事構(gòu)成一個(gè)新國(guó)家的辛苦工作，我們的開(kāi)國(guó)元?jiǎng)讉兇_保了我們的憲法保護(hù)小人物的權(quán)利。

　　在那份著名的文件中，他們莊嚴(yán)地載入了權(quán)力分立規(guī)則，創(chuàng)造了政府三個(gè)平等的分支：立法、司法和行政分支。通過(guò)這樣做，他們創(chuàng)立了一個(gè)制約與平衡的制度，以防范三個(gè)分支中的任何一個(gè)濫用權(quán)力。

　　當(dāng)然，與我們的相比，中國(guó)自己的法律傳統(tǒng)和歷史能回顧到早得多的時(shí)間，并在許多方面與美國(guó)的有所不同。但早在公元前四世紀(jì)的秦國(guó)，一位中國(guó)著名政治家和改革家，商鞅，就在《商君書(shū)》中闡述了他的法律哲學(xué)。他所確立的最重要的理論之一體現(xiàn)在他的一句名言中：“王子犯法與庶民同罪”。因此，在2,300多年前的中國(guó)， “在法律面前人人平等” 原則就已經(jīng)被提出并被公認(rèn)了。

　　此外，在《論語(yǔ)》中，孔子談到統(tǒng)治者的責(zé)任以及其個(gè)人行為的重要性。他說(shuō)：“其身正，不令而行;其身不正，雖令不從。”

　　今天，在我們的現(xiàn)代社會(huì)，孔子主要說(shuō)的是，有效的政府是一個(gè)官員遵守社會(huì)法律的政府，在本質(zhì)上是法治。

　　在這方面，我很高興地注意到，在中國(guó)這里的法律研究和實(shí)踐已經(jīng)看到顯著增長(zhǎng)。30年前，在中國(guó)有大約6所法學(xué)院以及約2000名律師。今天，全國(guó)有超過(guò)600所法學(xué)院和超過(guò)230,000名律師。中國(guó)需要聰明的律師. 在美國(guó)我們也許有太多了。 (笑)

　　對(duì)于我自己的國(guó)家而言，美國(guó)憲法是一塊法律基石，而且已經(jīng)被證明它的價(jià)值是無(wú)可估量的，部分是因?yàn)樗m應(yīng)歷史帶來(lái)的社會(huì)變革。在這個(gè)意義上，它是自我糾正的。

　　例如，我們不時(shí)地對(duì)我們的憲法進(jìn)行修改以便更準(zhǔn)確地反映我們國(guó)家的價(jià)值觀，并使更多的人置于其保護(hù)之下 - 以前被排除在外的人。直到建國(guó)近100年后，三個(gè)美國(guó)憲法修正案通過(guò)后，非洲裔美國(guó)人才被看作是完全和自由的美國(guó)公民。同樣，直到1920年的第19修正案獲得批準(zhǔn)，婦女才被允許投票。作為我們已經(jīng)取得的成就的進(jìn)一步證據(jù)，在2008年，巴拉克•歐巴馬當(dāng)選為美國(guó)第一位非洲裔美國(guó)總統(tǒng)。一年前南西·佩洛西成為美國(guó)眾議院第一位女議長(zhǎng)，我們政府立法部門(mén)最高層的成員。

　　當(dāng)上個(gè)月歐巴馬總統(tǒng)宣誓就職他作為總統(tǒng)的第二個(gè)任期時(shí)，他是在馬丁·盧瑟·金紀(jì)念日宣誓就職的。馬丁·盧瑟·金不知疲倦地倡導(dǎo)法治下平等的權(quán)利，特別是結(jié)束對(duì)于非洲裔美國(guó)人的歧視。

　　美國(guó)人知道我們的社會(huì)并不完美。問(wèn)題依然存在，但我們?cè)诓粩嗳〉眠M(jìn)展。由于我們的法律制度的自我糾正的性質(zhì)，我有信心我們將繼續(xù)看到公平和正義上的改善。

　　擁有一個(gè)公平、透明的法律架構(gòu)是建立一個(gè)以規(guī)則為基礎(chǔ)的社會(huì)的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵組成部分。但是這還不夠。更為關(guān)鍵的是，當(dāng)這些法律受到檢驗(yàn)，當(dāng)這些法律受到挑戰(zhàn)的時(shí)候政府如何應(yīng)對(duì)。人們需要知道規(guī)則將適用于所有公民，不管你是誰(shuí)或者你擁有多大的權(quán)力。法治不一定確保特定的人獲得有利的結(jié)果，但是必須保證法律下平等的待遇和尋求法律補(bǔ)救的機(jī)會(huì)。

　　我們的美國(guó)內(nèi)戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后，許多南方的州撰寫(xiě)限制非洲裔美國(guó)人權(quán)利的法律，直接違抗我們的憲法。這些州使用這些規(guī)定施加種族隔離和限制黑人 - 非洲裔美國(guó)人 - 的公民權(quán)利。過(guò)了半個(gè)多世紀(jì)，勇敢的民權(quán)律師們才開(kāi)始大力展開(kāi)恢復(fù)這些權(quán)利的訴訟，這些訴訟對(duì)他們自己有相當(dāng)大的危險(xiǎn)。

　　其中一件訴訟導(dǎo)致了我前面提到的布朗訴教育委員會(huì)案(Brown v. Board of Education)，它結(jié)束了學(xué)校里的種族隔離。然而，即使在布朗訴教育委員會(huì)案(Brown v. Board of Education)后，美國(guó)最高法院說(shuō)不允許隔離學(xué)校后，許多州仍然沒(méi)有聽(tīng)從美國(guó)最高法院的命令，并沒(méi)有結(jié)束隔離。

　　例如我們的一個(gè)州，阿肯索州的州長(zhǎng)繼續(xù)違抗法院甚至派出阿肯索州國(guó)民警衛(wèi)隊(duì)，即州警察，阻止九名黑人學(xué)生報(bào)名就讀該州一個(gè)鎮(zhèn)上的高中。

　　艾森豪總統(tǒng)反對(duì)這一行為，派出美國(guó)陸軍護(hù)送那九名非洲裔美國(guó)兒童到學(xué)校，明確表示必須遵守美國(guó)最高法院宣布的國(guó)家法律。

　　就我自己國(guó)家的經(jīng)驗(yàn)來(lái)說(shuō)，法治賦予政府更大的正當(dāng)性，因?yàn)槿藗冇行判乃麄冇泄胶屯该鞯姆绞娇梢韵麄兊膿?dān)憂(yōu)。但是判決不是武斷的，每個(gè)人，即使是小人物們，都受到法律保護(hù)。

　　對(duì)手之間可能不總是贊同法律案件的結(jié)果，但他們對(duì)法律過(guò)程的基本完善性有信心。正如一項(xiàng)體育賽事。你可能不總是同意裁判的決定，但是如果每個(gè)人都遵守規(guī)則并且每個(gè)人都認(rèn)為裁判公正，即使他們那一方輸了球員和球迷們也可以接受比賽的結(jié)果。然而，他們不能接受的是裁判無(wú)視規(guī)則或迫使他們屈服以偏袒一方或一個(gè)比賽者。

　　一個(gè)證明對(duì)我們法律制度的信心和信念的最近的例子發(fā)生在2000年的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)大選。在美國(guó)歷史上的第一次，總統(tǒng)選舉的結(jié)果歸結(jié)到僅僅9票 —— ​​9名美國(guó)最高法院法官的投票。他們不得不決定在夫洛里達(dá)州誰(shuí)獲得了最多的票數(shù)。他們不得不決定如何計(jì)算一些非常混亂不清的選票。因此在布什訴戈?duì)柊?Bush v. Gore)中，美國(guó)最高法院的法官們以他們對(duì)美國(guó)憲法的理解為依據(jù)做出裁決。他們的裁決有利于焦治·W·布什，盡管后來(lái)媒體和其他團(tuán)體確定實(shí)際上副總統(tǒng)戈?duì)栐诜鹆_里達(dá)州獲得更多的選票。雖然法院的裁決非常有爭(zhēng)議，布什的對(duì)手，當(dāng)時(shí)的副總統(tǒng)戈?duì)枺邮芰朔ㄔ旱牟枚?。并且副總統(tǒng)戈?duì)柕闹С终邆円步邮芰朔ㄔ翰脹Q，因?yàn)樗麄兿嘈盼覀兎芍贫群臀覀兎蛇^(guò)程的完善性。

　　在其他許多國(guó)家，如此激烈角逐的總統(tǒng)選舉將導(dǎo)致街頭出現(xiàn)憤怒的暴民，革命，甚至軍隊(duì)在政變中奪權(quán)。美國(guó)人民接受法院在決定誰(shuí)將成為美國(guó)下一任總統(tǒng)的裁決，是對(duì)強(qiáng)有力法治的價(jià)值和穩(wěn)定權(quán)力的明確的證明。

　　一個(gè)強(qiáng)有力的，以規(guī)則為基礎(chǔ)的社會(huì)，不僅有利于社會(huì)的穩(wěn)定，同時(shí)也有利于經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展。任何生意和投資都存在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。做生意的人接受他們要服從他們做生意的城市、省或國(guó)家的法律。投資者不能忍受的是任意應(yīng)用法律，這樣做危及他們賺取利潤(rùn)或?qū)で笱a(bǔ)救辦法的能力。

　　對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)的企業(yè)家來(lái)說(shuō)，如果一個(gè)公司的創(chuàng)新者認(rèn)為他們的想法和辛苦工作得不到保護(hù)，那么這個(gè)國(guó)家將有失去企業(yè)家才能和商業(yè)潛力的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。外國(guó)投資者將“用腳投票”，把他們的資源帶到他們覺(jué)得更安全，更可預(yù)知并且更加公平的其他市場(chǎng)。

　　在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)領(lǐng)域，這聽(tīng)起來(lái)尤其正確，因?yàn)橹R(shí)財(cái)產(chǎn)盜竊是腐蝕創(chuàng)造和創(chuàng)新動(dòng)機(jī)的犯罪行為。簡(jiǎn)單地說(shuō)，如果沒(méi)有強(qiáng)有力的知識(shí)財(cái)產(chǎn)保護(hù)，企業(yè)—中國(guó)企業(yè)和外國(guó)企業(yè)--將再三考慮開(kāi)發(fā)新業(yè)務(wù)，技術(shù)和創(chuàng)新。

　　最后, 我們需要問(wèn)個(gè)問(wèn)題，一個(gè)社會(huì)如何建立對(duì)其法律制度完善性的信心?答案很簡(jiǎn)單：穩(wěn)步推進(jìn)。這需要數(shù)年時(shí)間，耐心和大量的試錯(cuò)。坦率地說(shuō)，在美國(guó)我們?nèi)匀辉谂χ?。沒(méi)有一種“一刀切”的體系或解決方案。中國(guó)有著悠久和豐富的法律歷史，可以為其未來(lái)提供教訓(xùn)。

　　然而，有些超越文化差異的共同原則，包括獨(dú)立和被尊重的司法審判和法律下的平等保護(hù)。

　　向著一個(gè)以規(guī)則為基礎(chǔ)的社會(huì)前進(jìn)的路上需要奉獻(xiàn)和長(zhǎng)期的努力。但，讓我為作為一個(gè)美國(guó)人感到自豪的許多事情之一是，我們的歷史上一代又一代的美國(guó)人怎樣努力使美國(guó)更接近理想的形式，如我國(guó)憲法的序言所述，“一個(gè)更完美的聯(lián)盟”。法治是這一理想的關(guān)鍵，它有助于建立起一個(gè)團(tuán)結(jié)一致，對(duì)他們的權(quán)利有信心，并致力于國(guó)家未來(lái)的人民。

　　作為未來(lái)的律師， 你們?cè)谕苿?dòng)和提升中國(guó)的法治上有特殊的作用和責(zé)任。 在前方，中國(guó)有一個(gè)美好的未來(lái)， 但它依賴(lài)于一個(gè)積極、中立、被尊重的司法審判、法治和律師。 中國(guó)人民就依靠你們了。

　　祝你們好運(yùn)。 非常感謝你們。

　　駱家輝在人民大學(xué)演講稿英文：

　　Rule of Law: The Key to Peace and Prosperity

　　AMBASSADOR LOCKE: Thank you very much, Administrator Zhu, Ambassador Schaeffer, Ambassador Saint-Jacques, Minister Counselor Lentz, Chairman Cheng and Dean Han and all of our distinguished jurists who are participating in the Moot Court petition as well as all of our law students.

　　I also want to thank Chairman Cheng and Dean Han for hosting all of us at this prestigious university and for all the great work that you do to educate these great young students.

　　I share your passion and commitment to the rule of law as well as your support for this prestigious competition that brings law students from all across China to face some of the most challenging and exciting legal issues facing our world today.

　　I applaud the students that are gathered here from all across China who are sharpening their skills for service to their nation. I’m also grateful that so many experienced attorneys and jurists from around the world are helping train these talented law students.

　　I’ve often been asked, what has made America such a successful, innovative, dynamic and stable society that has attracted, and continues to attract, people from all around the world. In fact, the answer was first given to me by Chinese scholars and business people and they answered, the defining characteristic of the United States of America is the strong rule of law.

　　So this morning I’d like to expand on how critical the rule of law is to a progressive and stable society.

　　First of all, I want you to know that like many of you I got my start as a lawyer working for four years as a criminal prosecutor in my home town of Seattle, Washington, and I prosecuted people charged with burglary, robbery, drug trafficking, and murder.

　　In arguing complicated legal cases before the judge, even if I lost the ruling, even if the judge ruled against me or the position of the government, I often left the courtroom believing that justice was being served because the judge had read the legal papers submitted by all sides. The judge had studied the case law and carefully considered the legal issues. Finally, the judge gave a decision that was reasonable and based on the law.

　　My own passion for the law continued throughout my career. I briefly served as a part-time judge and in two terms as governor of the State of Washington, my work often involved matters of the law.

　　One of my proudest achievements as governor was reforming our juvenile justice system by focusing on sending young first-time or minor offenders to community service and other rehabilitation programs as an alternative to prison time. I’ve watched with great interest as China pursues similar changes to its own juvenile justice system.

　　As governor, I had the opportunity and the privilege to appoint more than 50 judges. In fact, most of the judges I appointed are still hearing cases today. Almost 25 percent of the judges I appointed were ethnic minorities, and almost 50 percent were women.

　　Because it’s my belief that if all segments of our society are to respect the judicial system and to accept the rulings of the courts, then our judges must reflect the demographic profile of the society appearing before them.

　　As governor, I also had the grave responsibility to carry out the death penalty imposed by the courts. Some of my most difficult and lonely moments as governor were deciding whether to grant a stay of execution, to halt an execution, or to allow the execution to proceed.

　　In America’s criminal justice system, whether a minor break-in or a life-and-death prosecution, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government. And moreover, everyone -- big guys and little guys, rich or poor, famous or unknown -- has a fair shot and is treated equally. This is a bedrock principle of not just our legal system, but indeed our political system as a whole -- that everyone has a fair and equal chance.

　　Today some of the most famous legal cases bear the names of the little guys who took on the government, took on powerful people and big companies.

　　Take Miranda v. Arizona which was decided in 1966. Ernesto Miranda was a laborer, who was accused of rape, and he confessed but he was never informed of his right to avoid self-incrimination and his right to an attorney. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that his right to due process had been violated; that his confession was unreliable; and therefore, overturned his conviction.

　　The case established the so-called Miranda Rights that I think anyone who has watched a police drama knows very very well. But These Miranda Rights require the police to inform suspects in custody of their rights to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they have a right to an attorney, and if they cannot afford an attorney, an attorney will be appointed for them.

　　There’s also the very famous case of Brown v. Board of Education, which was decided in 1954 that ended segregation in American schools. The case bears the name of a third grader, a child named Linda Brown who had to walk through a dangerous railroad yard to get to her all African American school located very far away, instead of attending a school much closer to her home because that closer school was reserved only for white students.

　　The United States Supreme Court ruling reversed previous court rulings that had allowed separate facilities that provided equal services. Those “separate but equal” laws had allowed states to establish different schools for black students and different schools for white students. The United States Supreme Court finally ruled that separate schools were in fact inherently unequal.

　　And the case that you’re going to be arguing during this competition, the Republic of Alfurna, is another example of one of those little guys seeking redress through the court system.

　　Through the generations, our courts in America have established that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. In 1974 in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ordered the White House to release audiotapes of recorded conversations taken inside the President’s Oval Office, all this over President Nixon’s firm, strenuous objections. Later, two little-known journalists at the Washington Post discovered a cover-up of illegal activities in the White House and these stories eventually led to the resignation of President Nixon.

　　Once more, our legal and political system proved that no one, not even the most powerful person in America, is above the law.

　　Legal cases oftentimes inspire Hollywood movies such as “Erin Brokovich” starring Julia Roberts. Brokovich was a former beauty pageant winner who had helped uncover chemical pollution in a tiny American town in California in the early 1990s and, despite no formal legal training, she took on the powerful state power company and its army of lawyers, and she helped win the town’s residents millions of dollars in compensation for the severe health effects caused by the pollution.

　　The rights of the little guy are the very foundation of the American system. Back in the 1700s, few people would have predicted that a rag-tag coalition of 13 colonies on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean could somehow gain their independence from Great Britain. But those colonies prevailed, and as a young America went on about the hard work of forming a new nation, our founding fathers insured that our constitution protected the rights of the little guy.

　　In that famous document, they enshrined the doctrine of separation of powers, creating three equal branches of government -- the legislative, judicial and executive branches. By doing so, they instituted a system of checks and balances as a safeguard against any one of the three branches from abusing its authority.

　　Of course China’s own legal tradition and history go much farther than ours and differ in many ways from America’s. But as far back as the 4th Century BC in the state of Qin, a famous Chinese statesman and reformer named Shang Yang elaborated on his legal philosophy in the Book of Lord Shang. One of the most important doctrines he established was reflected in his well-known saying, “When the prince violates the law, the crime he commits is the same as that of the common people.” More than 2,300 years ago in China, the principle that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law was already put forth and well recognized.

　　Also in the Analects, Confucius spoke about the responsibility of the ruler and the importance of his personal conduct. He said, “When a prince’s personal conduct is correct, his government is effective without issuing any orders. If his personal conduct is not correct he may issue orders but they will not be followed.”

　　Today in our modern society, what Confucius is essentially saying is that an effective government is one where its officials abide by the laws of that society, which in essence, is the rule of law.

　　In this regard, I’m happy to note that the study and practice of law has seen remarkable growth here in China. Thirty years ago there were only about six law schools an estimated 2,000 lawyers throughout all of China. Today there are 600 law schools and more than 230,000 lawyers nationwide. China has a need for smart lawyers. We in America perhaps have too many. [Laughter].

　　For my own country, the United States Constitution is a bedrock of law and it has proven so invaluable in part because it is adaptable to the social changes that history has brought. In that sense, it is self-correcting.

　　For example, from time to time we have amended our Constitution to more accurately reflect our country’s values and to bring more people under its protection - people who have been previously excluded. African-Americans were not considered full and free citizens of the United States until the passage of three constitutional amendments almost 100 years after the founding of our nation. Similarly, women were not allowed to vote until the approval of the 19th Amendment in 1920. And as further evidence of how far we have come, in 2008 Barack Obama was elected as the first African-American president of the United States. The year before, Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the most senior member of the legislative branch of our government.

　　Last month, when President Obama was sworn in for his second term as president, he was sworn in on Martin Luther King Day. Martin Luther King was a tireless advocate for equal rights under the rule of law, especially ending discrimination against African-Americans.

　　America knows that our society is not perfect. Problems remain, but progress is constantly being made. Given our legal system’s self-correcting nature, I’m confident that we will continue to see improvements in fairness and justice.

　　Having a fair and transparent legal infrastructure is a key part of building a rules-based society. But it’s not sufficient. Even more critical is how the government responds when those laws are tested, when those laws are being challenged. People need to know that the rules will be applied equally to all citizens, regardless of who you are or how much power you have. The rule of law does not necessarily ensure a favorable outcome for any particular individual, but the rule of law must guarantee equal treatment under the law and the opportunity to seek legal relief.

　　Following the conclusion of our American Civil War, many southern states drafted laws limiting the rights of African-Americans in direct defiance of our Constitution. These states used such provisions to impose racial segregation and restrict the civil rights of black people, African-Americans. And it took more than a half a century before brave civil rights lawyers began to vigorously pursue lawsuits at considerable danger to themselves to have those rights restored.

　　One of those lawsuits resulted in the case of Brown v. Board of Education that ended legal segregation in our schools that I talked about earlier. But even after Brown v. Board of Education, when the United States Supreme Court said that segregated schools were impermissible, many states still had not ended segregation as ordered by the United States Supreme Court.

　　For instance, the governor of Arkansas, one of our states, continued to defy the Court and even sent the Arkansas National Guard, essentially the state police, to block nine black students from enrolling in a high school in a town of that state.

　　President Eisenhower countered by sending the United States Army to escort those nine African-American children into the school, making it clear that the national law as announced by the United States Supreme Court must be followed.

　　In my own country’s experience, the rule of law gives the government greater legitimacy because people have confidence that there are fair and transparent ways to redress their concerns. But the decisions are not arbitrary, and everyone, even the little guys, enjoys legal protection.

　　Opponents might not always agree with the outcome of the legal case, but they have confidence in the basic integrity of the legal process. Just as in a sporting event, you might not always agree with the decision of the referee, but players and fans can accept the outcome of the game even if their side loses if everyone plays by the rules and everyone believes that the referees have been fair. What isn’t accepted, however, is when referees ignore the rules or bend them in favor of one side or one player.

　　A recent example of this confidence and faith in our legal system took place during the 2000 U.S. presidential elections. For the first time in American history, the outcome of a presidential election came down to just nine votes -- the votes of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices. They had to decide who had won the most votes in the State of Florida. They had to decide how to count some very confusing ballots. So in the case of Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court justices made a decision on the basis of their interpretation of our U.S. Constitution. Their decision favored George W. Bush, even though it was later determined by the press and other groups that Vice President Gore had actually received more votes in Florida. But while the Court’s decision was extremely controversial, Bush’s opponent, then Vice President Gore, accepted the Court’s ruling. And Vice President Gore’s supporters also accepted the Court’s decision because they believed in the integrity of our legal institutions and our legal process.

　　In many other countries, such a close and hotly contested presidential election would have resulted in angry mobs in the street, revolution, or even the military seizing power in a coup. The American people’s acceptance of the Court’s decision in deciding who was the next president of the United States of America is a clear testament to the value and stabilizing power of a strong rule of law.

　　A strong rules-based society is not only good for social stability, but also for economic development. Any business or investment carries risk. Business people accept that they’re subject to the laws of the city, province or nation in which they do business. What business people and investors are not willing to tolerate is the arbitrary application of the law which imperils their ability to seek a profit or to seek redress.

　　For domestic entrepreneurs, if a company’s innovators believe that their ideas and hard work won’t be protected, that country risks losing the talent and business potential of their entrepreneurs. Foreign businesses and investors will vote with their feet and take their resources to other markets which they feel are more secure, more predictable, and more fair.

　　This rings especially true in the area of intellectual property rights protections, because IP theft is a crime that erodes the incentive to create, to innovate. Put simply, if there are no strong protections for intellectual property, companies -- Chinese and foreign -- will think twice before developing new businesses, technologies and innovations.

　　In conclusion, we need to ask the question how does a society build confidence in the integrity of its legal system? The answer is simple: steadily. It takes years, patience and a lot of trial and error. And frankly, we’re still working on it in the United States. There is no “one-size-fits-all” system or solution. China has a long and rich legal history that can provide some lessons for its future.

　　There are, however, some common principles including an independent and respected judiciary as well as equal protection under the law that transcend cultural differences.

　　Progress down the road to a rules-based society requires dedication and long-term effort. But one of the many things that makes me proud to be an American is how all through the generations of our history Americans have worked to bring the United States closer to the ideal of forming as the preamble to our Constitution says, “a more perfect union.” The rule of law is key to this ideal and it helps build a people who are united, patriotic, confident in their rights, and committed to their own country’s future.

　　As future lawyers you have a special role and responsibility in advancing and elevating the rule of law in China. China has a great future ahead of it, but it depends on an active, neutral, respected judiciary, rule of law, and lawyers. The people of China are counting on you.

　　Good luck. Thank you very much.
　　駱家輝人物評(píng)價(jià)：

　　“我想他是我見(jiàn)過(guò)的最拘謹(jǐn)?shù)娜肆恕?我?guī)退榻B女孩約會(huì)時(shí)

　　，我會(huì)告訴他們，‘他是一個(gè)很好的人，但是非常嚴(yán)肅。如果約會(huì)結(jié)束的時(shí)候，你邀請(qǐng)他到你的家里喝一杯茶， 他真得會(huì)認(rèn)為只是喝一杯茶。’” ——1997年1月14日，西雅圖時(shí)報(bào)引述駱家輝一位好友的話(huà)。

　　“就像和波諾(U2主唱)走在一起一樣”——《商業(yè)周刊》時(shí)任時(shí)任美國(guó)駐華大使的洪博培在陪同駱家輝結(jié)束中國(guó)之行后形容駱在中國(guó)的受歡迎程度。

　　“鑒于駱家輝之前在某些關(guān)鍵全球化問(wèn)題上的極端態(tài)度，我們將會(huì)盯緊他。”——2009年，全球貿(mào)易觀察主任羅琳說(shuō)。羅琳對(duì)公司全球化持批評(píng)態(tài)度。“之前在某些國(guó)際事務(wù)上的態(tài)度”指

　　的是駱家輝支持北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)議和不愿將貿(mào)易問(wèn)題與中國(guó)的人權(quán)掛鉤。

　　1997年克林頓的國(guó)情咨文中，特別提到了駱家輝的名字?？肆诸D說(shuō)，駱家輝當(dāng)選為華盛頓州州長(zhǎng)，他是“數(shù)百萬(wàn)美國(guó)亞裔移民中的兩位所養(yǎng)育的值得驕傲的兒子。這些亞裔移民用他們的辛勤勞動(dòng)、他們的家庭價(jià)值觀和他們作為公民的良好表現(xiàn)，增強(qiáng)了美國(guó)的力量。他代表著我們大家都能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)的未來(lái)。”

　　唱名而是以口頭表決形式快速通過(guò)。法新社認(rèn)為駱家輝的新職位“富有聲望而艱難”，強(qiáng)調(diào)“駐華大使”這個(gè)新頭銜將給他帶來(lái)榮譽(yù)和挑戰(zhàn)。報(bào)道稱(chēng)，駱家輝在參院聽(tīng)證會(huì)上強(qiáng)調(diào)，他將成為美國(guó)人權(quán)理念和商業(yè)利益的“強(qiáng)有力的提倡者”。

　　美國(guó)《市場(chǎng)觀察報(bào)》評(píng)論說(shuō)，這是一次有利于美國(guó)企業(yè)派駐美國(guó)主要貿(mào)易伙伴的外交任命。駱家輝被任命駐華大使的時(shí)機(jī)正值中國(guó)超越日本成為世界第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體，而美國(guó)企業(yè)常常抱怨被中國(guó)市場(chǎng)排擠在外，或被迫以提供技術(shù)分享獲取市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入。

　　學(xué)習(xí)啦小編分享了駱家輝在人民大學(xué)演講稿中英文，你閱讀了有什么感想?