以下答案仅供参考：
一、英译汉（60分）
当然，人们可以设想存在一个没有任何形式的立法机关、法院或官员的社会。其实，许多有关原始社会的研究不仅表明这种可能性是存在的，而且还详细描述了这样一个社会的生活：在此类社会中，实现社会控制的唯一手段是团体对自己标准行为模式的一般态度，据此，我们对义务规范的特征做了界定。此类社会组织通常被称为“习俗”控制的社会，但我们不会使用这一短语，因为这通常暗示习惯规则非常古老，并且与其他规则相比，更缺少社会压力的支持。为避免产生这些歧义，我们将把此类社会组织称为具有初级义务规范的社会。如果假定有关人性和我们所生活的世界的若干最为明显的自明之理为正确，则社会要想仅依赖此类初级义务规范而存续，显然必须满足某些条件。第一个条件就是，此类初级义务规范必须以某种形式包含对任意使用暴力、偷窃和欺诈的限制，人类易于作出这样的行为，但如果人们要想亲密共存，一般而言，他们必须压制这些行为。实际上，在我们所了解的原始社会中，人们经常发现此类规范，以及其他各种向个人施加的、要求个人为集体生活提供服务或作出贡献的积极义务的规范。第二个条件是，尽管此类社会可能会凸现遵守此类规范的人和不遵守此类规范的人（除非对社会压力的恐惧迫使他们遵守此类规范）之间的紧张关系，但一个由体力大致相当的人员组成的松散社会要想存续，显然后者不能成为多数：若非如此，那些不遵守规范的人就几乎没有什么社会压力可畏惧了。这一点也被我们所了解的有关原始社会的材料所证实，在原始社会里，虽然有人不循规蹈矩，有人以身试法，但从内部角度来看，大部分人遵守这些规范。
就我们当前目的而言，更为重要的是下列分析。显然，只有由血亲关系、共同情感和信念紧密联系、且处于稳定环境中的小型社会才能依赖此类非正式规范存续。在任何其他条件下，此类简单的社会控制形式一定会被证明存在缺陷的，需要从不同方面进行补充。首先，群体赖以生存的规范不能形成一套制度，而仅是一套没有任何确定的或共同标志的分散的标准，当然，它们只是某一特定人群所接受的规范。就此而言，它们与我们的礼仪规则相似。所以，当对规范的内容或某一特定规则的精确范围产生疑问时，将不存在一套程序来解决这些疑问，无论是通过援引权威性文本，还是参考可以对这些问题做出权威性声明的官员的意见。因为，显而易见，此类程序以及对权威性文本或官员的认可，需要存在一套不同于该群体被认为所全部拥有的义务规范或责任规范的规范。这种由简单的初级义务规范所构成的社会结构的缺陷，我们可以称之为它的不确定性。
二、汉译英（40分）
According to the conventional idea, judges are merely the operator of the law machine designed by the legal scholars and built by the legislators, and indeed, one commonly finds judges referred to as "operators of law" in the common law literatures. In deciding a case, the judge extracts the relevant facts from the raw materials, characterises the legal problems that the facts present, finds the appropriate legal provision, and then applies it to the legal problem. Unless the legal scholars and legislators have failed in their function, the task of the judge is a simple one: there is only correct solution, and there is no room for the exercise of judicial discretion. If the judge has difficulty in finding the applicable provision, or interpreting and applying that provision to the fact situation, then one of the following people must be at fault: the judge, who doesn't know how to follow the clear instruction; the legislator, who failed to draft clearly stated and easily applicable provision; or the legal scholars, who has either failed to perceive or correct the defects in the legal science, or has failed to instruct the legislators and the judges properly on how to draft and apply statutes. No more explanation is necessary. If everyone did his or her job right, the judge would have no difficulty in finding, interpreting and applying the law.
The legal scholars seeks to make the law more certain by making it systematic. Certainty requires that the law must completely, coherently and clearly stated by the legislators, and only by the legislators. Judges are restricted to the interpretation and application of the law in the interest of certainty, and prior judicial decisions are not law. Judges are also denied the power to temper the rigor of a legal rule in a hard case. All non-legal considerations must excluded from the law for the interest of certainty. Considerations of justice and the other ends of law must be excluded for the same reason. Hard cases, unjust decisions, or unrealistic decisions are regrettable, but they are the price that one has to pay for certainty.
