Материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления пользователям Интернета и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав.
© 2018 - 2024
Одним из самых угрожающих последствий глобального потепления принято считать подъем уровня Мирового океана на десятки метров, который произойдет при полном таянии ледников Гренландии и Антарктиды. Алармисты обычно забывают уточнить, что при самых неблагоприятных обстоятельствах на это потребуется более 1000 лет! Реальное же повышение уровня океана за прошедшее столетие составило 10–20 см при значительно большей амплитуде трансгрессии и регрессии береговой линии в результате тектонических процессов. В ближайшие сто лет ожидается подъем уровня океана не более чем на 88 см, что вряд ли способно дезорганизовать мировую экономику. Подобное повышение уровня моря может вызвать лишь постепенную миграцию небольшой части населения планеты – явление куда менее трагичное, чем ежегодная гибель от голода десятков миллионов людей. А о том, как через тысячу лет справятся с потопом наши далекие потомки, нам вряд ли стоит беспокоиться. Кто возьмется предсказать, как изменится к тому времени наша цивилизация, и будет ли эта проблема в числе актуальных? Пока что ожидаемый к 2050 году ежегодный ущерб мировой экономике из-за прогнозируемого повышения температуры оценивается всего в 300 млрд. дол.
Активисты «зеленых» движений часто не отдают себе отчета в том, что абсолютно все природоохранные мероприятия требуют расхода ресурсов и энергии и, как любой вид производственной деятельности, вызывают нежелательные экологические последствия. С точки зрения глобальной экологии безвредной производственной деятельности не бывает. Та же «альтернативная» энергетика при полном учете всех выбросов в окружающую среду в процессе производства в большинстве случаев оказывается более опасной, чем угольная энергетика. Поэтому в глобальной экологии стратегия превентивных мер неприменима. Необходимо произвести количественный расчет оптимального баланса между желаемым результатом и затратами на снижение ущерба для окружающей среды.
19. Translate the following questions and give the answers in English.
1. Что принято считать одним из самых угрожающих последствий глобального потепления?
2. Когда может произойти подъем уровня мирового океана на десятки метров?
3. Что забывают уточнить алармисты?
4. Что произошло в результате тектонических процессов?
5. Стоит ли беспокоиться о том, что произойдет через тысячу лет?
6. Как изменится наша цивилизация к тому времени?
7. Как оценивается ожидаемый ежегодный ущерб мировой экономики из-за прогнозируемого повышения температуры?
8. Так называемая «альтернативная» энергетика оказывается более опасной чем угольная энергетика, не так ли?
9. применима или не применима стратегия превентивных мер в глобальной экологии?
10. Какой расчет оптимального баланса необходимо произвести?
20. Give the summary of the text in English.
Unit 13
Legal market
1. Before you read answer the following questions.
1. Do you think the profession of a lawyer is the most important one nowadays? Give your reasons.
2. Is it possible for lawyers trained in one country to practice law in foreign countries?
3. Would you like legal work to be global? Why?
2. Read and translate the text.
Lawyers Go Global
The world's leading law firms, based in New York and London, disagree about the best way to respond to globalization.
They used to be the bag-carriers of the business world, a breed of quibblers who tidied up the paperwork after the real work of wheeling and dealing was done. But today few bosses would do any kind of deal, from a takeover to a product launch, without involving their lawyers early on. As regulations and lawsuits have proliferated, so have lawyers, and law firms have acquired a new status. In the biggest deals, top lawyers now help formulate much of the strategy.
The "suits" are now facing similar strategic dilemmas to their clients. Should they expand abroad or stay at home? Should they merge or grow organically? Should they diversify, or stick to their knitting? Confronted with the same globalisation that is reshaping so many industries, law firms are having to think about their long-term future. In the past, lawyers have not had to be very good businessmen. Now law firms have to be managed and led like any other company.
Lawyers are a disputatious bunch by inclination. So it is not surprising that the world's top firms disagree fiercely about the best way to thrive in an expanding international marketplace. A recent spate of cross-border mergers and alliances in Europe was greeted with indifference by most New York firms, who view such moves as too risky and, in any case, unnecessary.
As they watch each other warily and debate what to do next, law firms are being stalked by challengers who are already global businesses. Attracted by the high fees lawyers earn and the growth in cross-border business, the big firms have expanded their legal arms rapidly in recent years.
The peculiar characteristics of the legal profession make this battle for dominance more complicated than most. In every country, laws are different. Lawyers are also heavily regulated, with various statutory and professional restrictions on who can practise law where, again differing from country to country. Despite a wave of domestic mergers in many countries, the legal market remains highly fragmented, ranging from one-man operations to businesses employing thousands of people. Top-earning commercial lawyers in New York take home a few million dollars apiece each year, but most lawyers earn far less.
Almost all law firms are run as partnerships, with partners usually taking decisions together, either by voting or through consensus. Heads of law firms cannot indulge in the daring tactics their clients so enjoy. Instead, they have always to carry their partners with them. If they don't, even the best firms can quickly disintegrate, with partners jumping ship or setting up in business on their own.
For all these reasons, most law firms still do most of their business within their own domestic market. But for the biggest and richest law firms the growth of world capital markets, and the globalisation in most other industries, means that advising on cross-border deals is becoming the fastest-growing and most lucrative aspect of their business. Being big at home is no longer good enough.
If global law giants are ever to emerge, they are likely to grow out of the top-tier New York and London firms. These are the firms that already advise the world's biggest companies and banks. They cream off the best business in two of the world's three biggest capital markets, which generate the most lucrative legal work. They work in English, the language of international business. More significantly, for historical reasons and because companies everywhere want to tap the London and New York capital markets, a growing proportion of international business is conducted under English or American law, even when the firms involved are continental European or Asian.
But there are also big differences between the New York and London firms. New York firms are in the world's biggest legal market, which has been booming in recent years and they have close ties to the largest investment banks. This gives them a prime advantage in winning an advisory role in big deals, even when they do not employ many, or sometimes any, lawyers locally. London firms, by contrast, have a far smaller domestic market and looser ties to the investment banks – and thus feel a greater need to expand abroad.
3. Answer the questions.
1. Has the status of lawyers changed lately? If so, in what way?
2. Why are lawyers having to think about their long-term future now?
3. What do the world’s top firms disagree about?
4. Why were New York firms indifferent to a recent spate of cross-border mergers and alliances in Europe?
5. What are the peculiar characteristics of the legal profession?
6. Why is the battle for dominance very complicated?
7. What is meant by the words that the legal market remains highly fragmented?
8. How are law firms run?
9. Why isn’t it good enough for the law firms to be big at home?
10. What is the difference between the New-York and London firms?
4. Match the words on the left with their definition on the right.
1. takeover a) person’s legal social or professional position in
relation to others
2. lawyer b) joint business
3. lawsuit c) assumption of control of a firm or company
4. to acquire d) to cause (thing) to lose identity, join, combine
5. status e) person pursuing law as a profession
6. to merge f) to prosper, succeed
7. to thrive g) prosecution of a claim in a law court
8. despite h) in spite of
9. to run i) to gain by skill or ability, by one’s own efforts or
behaviour
10. partnership j) to organize, manage, cause to be in operation
5. Find antonyms of the following words and word combinations in the text.
1. different 6. simple
2. illegal 7. integrate
3. agree 8. foreign market
4. the worst way 9. national business
5. necessary 10.disadvantage in losing the role
6. Translate the following sentences from Russian into English.
1. Маловероятно, что ведущие юридические фирмы придут к согласию по поводу того, как лучше всего реагировать на процесс глобализации.
2. Поэтому не удивительно, что, сталкиваясь с проблемами, вызванными глобализацией, фирмы делают все от них зависящее, чтобы выработать соответствующую стратегию своих действий.
3. В каждой стране, как известно, законы разные.
4. Что касается юристов, их деятельность, несомненно, строго регулируется различными профессиональными ограничениями.
5. Полагают, что фирмы, имеющие небольшие внутренние рынки, чувствуют большую необходимость выхода на внешние рынки.
7. Look through the text and suggest a headline.
In the last ever episode of Seinfeld – in case you somehow missed this year's big media event – the show's four stars are tried for failing to help a mugging victim, under a freshly introduced "good Samaritan" law. Naturally, the four self-absorbed New Yorkers are jailed, despite their lawyer's plea that there is "no such thing as a guilty bystander". The idea of such a law was regarded as laughable – although in some European countries bystanders can indeed be tried for failing to offer aid to someone in need. This may be useful information for New Yorkers travelling abroad. But should it concern economists? According to “The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law” the answer is yes.
Early economists such as Adam Smith often wrote about the economic impact of legal matters. But economics subsequently focused more narrowly on things monetary and commercial. It was only in the 1940s and 1950s, that serious thought was again given to the economic consequences of legal systems – and the discipline "law and economics" was born. Not until the late 1960s did the discipline's ideas begin to influence mainstream economics. A vast range of legal issues, from adoption to vicarious liability and wildlife law, has undergone economic scrutiny. But has all this admirably stimulating academic activity led to better law-making?
Some successes are claimed in the entry on "Law and economics in action" by L.Herzel and A Braendel. All over the world there is now much more economics taught in law schools, more lawyers and judges are familiar with economics, and more economists are concentrating on law-related work. Many economists supplement their academic earnings by appearing in court as expert witnesses, and consultancies earn a fortune by advising governments on economically efficient law-making.
It should be noted, though, that the "economics" of the law-and-economics movement is a specific sort of economics, with an orthodox free-market flavour. Law-and-economics thinkers tend to assume that competitive forces in free markets will lead to efficient outcomes and that regulation often harms rather than helps consumers. This orientation may explain why the movement has caught on more in America than elsewhere.
The union of law and economics may have had its greatest impact in the antitrust field. The contention that the goal of competition policy should be to maximise consumer welfare (rather than, say, to protect small companies or to inhibit excessive size), put forth by scholars, is now mainstream thinking. Trust-busters are no longer predisposed to reject mergers between big firms; instead, they seek to analyse rigorously whether the outcome would be less competition and higher prices. As a result, mergers that once would not have been allowed are now routinely approved.
Yet the limits of such thinking are not always recognised by its proponents. The law-and-economics framework for analysing mergers, for example, does not obviate the need for trust-busters to make educated guesses about how competition might develop in future. There is still substantial room for differences of opinion.
The biggest failure of law-and-economics to influence policy, according to "Law and economics in action” concerns insider-trading law. In most countries, the law restricts trading in a firm's shares by people who have confidential information about the firm's prospects. “Law and economics” teaches that insider trading causes no important harm and, by transmitting the inside information to the market, brings an important benefit: more accurate share prices. This argument has, however, failed to persuade most legislators or market practitioners, who object to insider trading on the ground that it might deter outside investors.
What "Law and economics in action" omits is more telling than what it includes. It does not mention a vast literature on the economic causes of criminality and how to structure legal incentives to reduce crime, a subject that has largely been ignored by politicians. Nor does it discuss differences among countries' legal systems. Another entry shows that because of the importance of history and culture, simply looking at the letter of the law may not be enough to understand its economic impact. For instance, the transfer to Europe during the 1980s of an American legal approach to product liability produced far less litigation than in America. For some reason, Europeans find it less necessary to sue when a faulty product causes harm.
As for advising governments of emerging economies how best to structure their legal systems, various essays stress the importance of clear property rights, and of ensuring that these are marketable. Corruption, it is noted, is harmful to economic growth. There are several policies that might reduce corruption, such as encouraging legitimate business by reducing marginal tax rates. However, the real issue is whether they are politically feasible.
8. Find the key-words in each paragraph of the text and translate them into Russian.
9. Find the English equivalents of the following word-combinations in the text and translate the sentences with them into Russian in writing.
1. виновный сторонний наблюдатель
2. экономические последствия
3. ответственность за действия других лиц, субститутивная ответственность
4. однако, следует отметить, что
5. причинять вред потребителям
6. отвергать слияние больших фирм
7. устранять необходимость
8. закон о торговле конфиденциальной информацией
9. экономические причины преступности
10. предельная налоговая ставка
10. Give the summary of the text in Russian using the key-words and word-combinations from exercises 8 and 9.
11. Read the following text.
The theory of sampling
1. Briefly, the theory of sampling holds that a sample of individuals selected by chance from any population is "representative" of that population. This means that the traits of individuals in the sample – their attitudes, beliefs, sociological characteristics and physical features – reflect the traits of the whole population. Sampling theory does not say that a sample exactly matches the population, only that it reflects the population with some predictable degree of accuracy.
2. Three factors determine the accuracy of a sample. The most important is the way the sample is selected. For maximum accuracy, the individuals in the sample must be chosen randomly. Randomly does not mean "at whim"; it means that every individual in the population has the same chance of being selected. For a population as large and widespread as that of the United States, direct random sampling of individuals by name is practically impossible. Instead, pollsters first divide the country into geographic regions. Then they randomly choose areas and sample individuals who live within those areas. This departure from strict random sampling does decrease the accuracy of polls, but only by a relatively small amount. Today, most polls conducted by the mass media are done by telephone, with computers randomly dialing numbers within predetermined telephone areas. (Random dialing ensures that even people with unlisted numbers are called.)
3. The second factor that affects the accuracy of sampling is the size of the sample. The larger the sample, the more accurately it represents the population.
4. The final factor that affects the accuracy of sampling is the amount of variation in the population. If there were no variation in a population, every sample would reflect the population's characteristics with perfect accuracy. But the greater the variation within the population, the greater the chance that one random sample will be different from another.
12. Combine the following sentences to make one complete statement. Make every change you think necessary, but do not change the sense of the original. Refer to the passage when you have finished the exercise.
Today most polls are conducted by the mass media. They are done by telephone. Computers randomly dial numbers within predetermined telephone areas. (paragraph 2)
13. Find sentences with a) the emphatic function of the verb “to do”; b) the comparative degree of adjectives; c) the conditional clause. Analyse them and suggest different ways of their translation.
14. Translate the text in writing.
15. Before reading the text translate the following words into Russian.
1. busy; business; busily; businesslike; businessman
2. publication; publicist; publicity; publicize; publish; publishable; publisher
3. representative; represent; representation
4. conclusion; conclude; conclusive; conclusively
5. to employ; employment; employer; employee
6. requirement; require
7. trial; try
8. safety; safe; safeguard; safely
9. revise; revision; revisional; revisionist
10. accusation; accuse; accusatory; accuser
16. Match the word-combinations on the left with their English equivalents on the right.
1. проводить исследование a) to observe the rules
2. принимать участие в b) lack of flexibility
3. приходить к выводу c) to conduct research
4. соблюдать правила d) to take factors into account
5. на основании религиозных убеждений e) to meet the requirements
6. отсутствие гибкости f) to take part in
7. служить составляющей частью g) to give cause for
8. учитывать факторы h) to serve as an integral part
9. отвечать требованиям i) to come to conclusion
10. послужить поводом к j) on the ground of the religious
beliefs
17. Translate the following sentences into English.
1. В настоящее время все больше работодателей включают правила дресс-кода в трудовые соглашения, принимая на работу новых сотрудников.
2. Хотя понятию «деловой стиль» становится все труднее дать определение, большинство работодателей диктует своим сотрудникам правила, требующие соблюдения стиля их профессиональной одежды.
3. По сравнению с результатами предыдущего опроса на ту же тему, проведенного год назад, количество трудовых контрактов, включающих правила дресс-кода, возросло.
4. В тех организациях, где правила одежды не были закреплены документально, предполагается, что сотрудники сами станут придерживаться соответствующего стиля.
5. Более 60% опрошенных сообщили о том, что время от времени в их организациях проводятся дни свободного стиля в одежде.
18. Translate the text into English.
Дата: 2019-04-23, просмотров: 212.