四級長篇閱讀專項練習題原文

　　C.America and Britain reap large rewards from their legal dominance.of the world’s 100 highest-grossing law firms，9 1 have their headquarters in one of the two.America’s legA. sector is bigger than the GDP of Peru;though much of that is because of Americans’litigiousness.a good chunk comes from foreign work.The New York offices of American firms earn around$1.8 billion annually from international.dispute resolution.almost two.thirds of litigants in English commerciA. courts areforeign.At 1.5%.the legA. sector’s share of British GDP is nearly double that in other big European countries.

　　D.Other bits of both countries’economies feel the ripples(余波)，t00.Foreigners visiting for legal hearings stay in hotels and eat in restaurants.Aspiring lawyers from around the world pay to attend their universities and spread goodwill when they go home.Dependence on American and British law firms makes it harder for deA.makers to move from New York and London to Hong Kong or Frankfurt.Britain’s government describes lawyers as“central to the export of other professionA. services”such as accounting，asset management and banking.

　　E.The competition is often weak：much of China’s commerciallaw was written by Communist Party officials and is fiddled with errors：and though India adopted much of English common law,its courts are notoriously slow.But the incumbents’biggest advantage is that they have common.law systems with centuries of binding precedent.That means they offer as much certainty as any jurisdiction(司法權)can.In civil-law countries such as France，Portugal and Spain，and their ex-colonies，judges have wide latitude to interpret statutes，increasing the risk of nasty legal surprises.Civil systems place more restrictions on acceptable clauses，and often consider the interests of third parties，such as workers or consumers.

　　F.Many other countries would like to break this duopoly(雙頭壟斷市場).But even those with good laws on Paper would take decades to train enough lawyers and judges to make them stick.The immediate threat to American and British law comes from a trend that dispenses with courts A.together.Parties to a cross-border deal must decide not only which country’s law governs it but how disputes should be resolved.Firms are increasingly opting for private arbitration，which promises confidentiality,

　　speed and lower costs than going to court—and here London and New York are less dominant.

　　G. More recently，new entrants have made inroads.Among the most Successful is Singapore，whose dedicated arbitration venue(仲裁地點)，SIAC，opened in 199 1.Singapore’s government exempts arbitrators from income tax and expedites entry for participants in hearings.SIAC’s caseload has quadrupled in the past decade，with Indian firms particularly keen.Last year they were parties to a third of its 259 new cases.

　　H.With 260 new cases last year,Hong Kong matches SIAC for size.Arbitration is essential for cross-border deA.s involving China，since its iudges rarely enforce foreign court decisions but are bound to uphold arbitration awards by the New York Arbitration Convention，which it signed in 1987.In the past，Chinese flrlns reluctantly accepted distant arbitration venues.But they are increasingly insisting

　　on disputes being heard locally.Exorbitant no more?

　　I.English law remains prevalent in Asian arbitration，accounting for 32%of cases at SIAC.But a recent trend in South America shows how quickly this could change.Of the big emerging economies，the one mat has most effectively promoted its own law is Brazil.Its firms still use third.party law,usually New York’s.to raise money and make acquisitions abroad.But foreign firms active in Brazil often acquiesce to local law,relying on localarbitration as an A.ternative to courts that are politicized and glacially slow.

　　J.Brazil’s govemment created a legal framework for arbitration in 1996，which became widely used after being approved by tlle supreme court in 200 1.Nothing prevents firms from using foreign arbitration—but losers may delay the application of foreign rulings for years(though not for ever)by filing objections in Brazilian courts.In contrast，domestic arbitration awards in local-law cases are deemed

　　equivA.ent to legal rulings，and implemented on the spot.“There’s nothing to fear about having an arbitration in Brazil，”says Stepheno’Sullivan，a former solicitor in England who works for Mattos Filho，a Brazilian firm.

　　K.At first sight，the lawyers of Wall Street and the City of London have the most to lose from the growing popularity of arbitration.Their goyemments are not helping.In Britain authorities often fail to provide timely visas for parties，experts or witnesses.As for America，businesses often complain about the burden of pre.trial discovery,and the threat of unsophisticated juries or elected judges awarding exorbitant damages.In a recent survey,Hogan Lovells，a law firm whose main offices are in London and Washington，DC，asked general counsels around the world which jurisdiction they found most challenging.China finished second--after America.

　　L.In the long run，developing countries may be bigger losers.Local arbitration may facilitate deals and bolster short.term growth.But if it reduces the pressure from multinationals and local finns for simpler laws，berer courts and less political corruption，it may delay attempts to establish legal systems that work not just for businesses b.ut for everyone else too.

　　四級長篇閱讀專項練習題選項

　　46.China and India would be very fragile in the competition because of their wrong commercial laws and inemcient courts.

　　47.The exorbitant privilege of issuing world’s“reserve law”make American and Britain the absolute winners in global business resorting to their laws.

　　48.On the contrary，domestic arbitration is considered as legal standards to be adopted immediately.

　　49.America and Britain mostly gain profits from their leading role in providing legal rulings.

　　50.The lawyers，middlemen of rich world，took a share of spoils in the deal.

　　5 1.Local arbitration may bring some facilities in a short time，while it delays the intention for everyone to establish legal systems in the future.

　　52.According to a recent survey,Chinese jurisdiction has been the second most challenging one after America.

　　53.It is a wise choice for foreign finns in Brazil to accept the locA. arbitration rather than politicized and inefficient courts.

　　54.It is a tough task to break this duopoly in a short time.

　　55.Strongly relying on American and Britain law firms render it difficult for parties to trust other reliable firms，such as Hong Kong and Frankfurt.

　　四級長篇閱讀專項練習題答案

　　46.China and India would be very fragile in the competition because of their wrong commercial laws and inefficient courts.由于其錯誤百出的商法和低效率的法庭，中國和印度完全沒有競爭力。

　　47.The exorbitant privilege of issuing world’s“reserve law”make American and Britain the absolute winners in global business resorting to their laws.英美可以制定世界“儲備法”的過分特權使其在國際貿易中成為絕對的贏家，他們的法律是完成國際貿易的依據。

　　48.On the contrary,domestic arbitration is considered as legal standards to be adopted immediately.相反地，國內仲裁被看作是合法的標準，應該立刻被采納。

　　49.America and Britain mostly gain profits from their leading role in providing legal rulings.英美大部分的收益源于其在提供合法裁決方面的領先地位。

　　50.The lawyers，middlemen ofrich world，took a share of spoils in the deal.作為發達國家的中間人，律師也在這次交易中分得一杯羹。

　　51.LocA. arbitration may bring some facilities in a short time，while it delays the intention for everyone to establish legal systems in the future.當地仲裁或許能帶來一時的便利，但長遠來看，它會推遲我們構建合法框架的終極目標。

　　52.According to a recent survey,Chinese jurisdiction has been the second most chA.lenging one after America.根據最近的一項調查發現，中國的司法權除美國外，最具挑戰性的。

　　53.It is a wise choice for foreign firms in Brazil to accept the local arbitration rather than politicized and inefficient courts.對于在巴西的外國公司來說，選擇地方仲裁比政治化且沒效率的法庭更加明智。

　　54.It is a tough task to break this duopoly in a short time.短期內想要打破這個雙巨頭壟斷現狀是困難重重的。

　　55.Strongly relying on American and Britain law firms render it difficult for parties to trust other reliabk firms.such as Hong Kong and Frankfurt.對英美律師事務所的強烈依賴感致使貿易雙方很難再相信翼他可靠的律師事務所，如香港和法蘭克福。