预防功能 meaning in Chinese
prophylactic function
Examples
- Chapter 2 treats of functions of the stock cheating . the civil lialility of securites law in china has its three function . it can meet up the investor ' s damages , prevent the irregularity
证券民事责任的功能有填补损害的补偿功能、阻止违法的威慑和预防功能、协助监管市场之功能。 - Chapter 6 : on the responsibilities of notarization in substantive law , the institutional functions of the responsibilities of notarization are divided into the prevention function , the compensation function and the economic function
公证责任的制度功能，在实体法上可分为预防功能、补偿功能及经济功能，而在程序法上则具有促进交易安全和诉讼的功能。 - Secondly , the author points out four functions of false statement ' s civil liability : 1 ) compensation function making up for damage . 2 ) deterrence and precautionary function to prevent law - violation 3 ) function assisting law execution and managing market benefits . 4 ) function of perfecting supervision system .
其次，虚假陈述的民事责任功能有四：一是填补损害的补偿功能，二是阻止违法的威慑和预防功能，三是协助执行法律和管理市场的效益功能，四是完善监管体系的功能。 - First , this paper illustrates that punitive damages has strong prevention function , at the same time it accords with the inspirit of civil law of modern times , it does n ' t conflict with basic theories of civil law , such as the partition of public law and private law , the separation of civil law and criminal law and unjust benefit , it is also the necessary supplement of compensatory civil liability , therefore it has the rationality of being
惩罚性赔偿制度是英美法特有的一种民事责任形式，近些年该制度在大陆法国家及我国引起很大争论。本文首先从理论上阐明了该制度具有很强的预防功能，符合现代民法的精神，与公法与私法的划分、民刑分离、不当得利这些民法基本理论并不矛盾，是补偿性民事责任的必要补充，因此具有存在的合理性。 - Thus there are two areas of concern : firstly , although criminal prosecutions or administrative means have already been carried out , the infringement has occurred and the interests of the obligee has been violated . without setting definite areas of indemnification due to the infringement , the interests of the obligee cannot be assured and on the other hand , it can not prevent further torts . secondly , in evaluating the indemnification of the torts , there is no standard or scope which can cause difficulty in judicial judgment , especially in the evaluation of the intangible injury or the injury which cannot be enumerated , and in the evaluation of the evidence that causes injury
在过去多年的司法实践表明，单凭刑事和行政手段，未必能完全保护知识产权权利人之利益，这里有两个方面思考：第一，即使作出了刑事和行政手段，有关的侵害行为可能已经作出，并导致权利人利益受损，在没有规范侵权人需要为侵权行为所承担的赔偿范围，一方面未能保障权利人之利益，另一方面也未能产生阻吓作用，提升预防功能；第二，对侵权行为进行损害赔偿计算时，并没有统一标准和范围，对于司法审判造成一定难度，尤其是对于非财产损害之计算、造成损失之举证和无法列明之损失各个方面，也使法官在确定损害赔偿金额时，需要考虑和注意的问题。