论文部分内容阅读
从辞义上说,“渊源”和“形式”是两个含义根本不同的概念。中文的“渊源”与英文的“Sources”和拉丁文的“Fons”意义相同,都是指水流的源头、源泉,通常用来比喻事物的根源、本原或事情的根由、来历。例如,我国《辞海》对“渊源”一词的释义为:“本谓水源,也泛指事物的本源、根源。”《现代汉语词典》(修订版)则解释说:“比喻事情的本原。”而对“形式”一词的解释是:指事物的形状、结构或外在的表现形态。很明显,“渊源”和“形式”各有不同的内涵,是两个不容混淆不能替代的独立概念。但为什么法学家们在谈到国际法的外在形态时不直言“表现形式”,而都习惯使用“渊源”一词呢?这有其深远的历史原由。
From a rhetorical point of view, “origin” and “form” are two concepts that are fundamentally different. The “origin” in Chinese is the same as “Sources” in English and “Fons” in Latin. Both refer to the source and source of water flow, and are usually used to describe the root cause of things and the origins and origin of primitive or things. For example, the definition of “paternity” in China’s “Cihai” is: “The source of water refers to the origin and source of things.” The Dictionary of Modern Chinese (“revised edition”) explains: “The primitive . ”And the word“ formal ”is interpreted as referring to the shape, structure, or outward appearance of things. Obviously, “origin” and “form” each have different connotations and are two independent concepts that can not be confused and can not be replaced. But why did the jurists use the term “paternity” when they talked about the external form of international law instead of speaking out “manifestations”? This is far-reaching historical reason.