right of angary

简明释义

征用权

英英释义

例句

1.In maritime law, the right of angary 愤怒权 allows a state to detain foreign ships in its ports under certain conditions.

在海事法中，愤怒权允许一个国家在特定条件下扣留外籍船只。

2.The right of angary 愤怒权 is an important tool for nations to protect their interests at sea.

对于国家来说，愤怒权是保护其海洋利益的重要工具。

3.The concept of right of angary 愤怒权 was invoked when discussing the seizure of enemy vessels during wartime.

在讨论战争期间敌方船只被扣押时，提到了愤怒权的概念。

4.Historically, the right of angary 愤怒权 was used by kings to assert control over trade routes.

历史上，国王使用愤怒权来主张对贸易路线的控制。

5.During the negotiation, the ambassador reminded the other party of the right of angary 愤怒权 they held over the ships docked in their harbor.

在谈判中，大使提醒对方他们对停靠在港口的船只拥有的愤怒权。

作文

The concept of the right of angary refers to a historical legal principle that allowed a sovereign or state to seize private property or goods during times of war or emergency. This right was primarily exercised by naval powers, granting them the authority to commandeer vessels and their cargoes for military purposes. Although the right of angary is not commonly invoked in modern law, understanding its implications provides valuable insights into the evolution of property rights and state authority.Historically, the right of angary was justified under the premise that during wartime, the needs of the state supersede individual property rights. The rationale was that the survival of the nation often depended on the ability to mobilize resources quickly and efficiently. For instance, if a ship carrying essential supplies was in the vicinity of a conflict, the navy could legally seize it to ensure that troops had the necessary provisions to sustain their operations. This practice, while beneficial for military efforts, raised ethical questions about the balance between national interest and individual rights.In the context of maritime law, the right of angary was often codified in treaties and conventions, which outlined the conditions under which such seizures could occur. These legal frameworks aimed to prevent abuse of power by ensuring that any confiscation of property was conducted with due process and compensation. However, the implementation of these laws varied significantly across different nations and periods, leading to disputes and conflicts over what constituted justifiable seizure.As we move into the modern era, the right of angary has largely fallen out of favor, replaced by more comprehensive legal protections for private property. The development of international law, particularly after World War II, emphasized the importance of human rights and the protection of individual property from arbitrary seizure. Today, countries are bound by various international agreements that aim to safeguard against unlawful expropriation, ensuring that any taking of property must be accompanied by fair compensation.Nonetheless, the legacy of the right of angary persists in discussions about state powers during emergencies. Current debates surrounding national security, terrorism, and public health crises often evoke similar themes of balancing individual rights with collective safety. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world enacted measures that restricted personal freedoms in the name of public health. These actions, though legally justified, sparked significant debate about the extent to which states can infringe upon individual rights in times of crisis.In conclusion, while the right of angary may no longer be a prevalent legal doctrine, its historical significance serves as a reminder of the ongoing tension between state authority and individual rights. As societies evolve and face new challenges, the principles underlying this right continue to inform contemporary legal and ethical discussions. Understanding the right of angary not only enriches our knowledge of legal history but also encourages us to critically evaluate how we navigate the complex interplay between government power and personal liberties in our modern world.

“愤怒权”这一概念指的是一种历史法律原则，允许主权国家或国家在战争或紧急情况下征用私人财产或货物。这一权利主要由海军强国行使，赋予它们在军事目的下征用船只及其货物的权力。尽管“愤怒权”在现代法律中不常被援引，但理解其含义为我们提供了对财产权和国家权力演变的宝贵见解。历史上，“愤怒权”的合理性基于这样一个前提：在战争时期，国家的需求优先于个人财产权。其理由是，国家的生存往往依赖于快速有效地动员资源的能力。例如，如果一艘载有重要补给的船只在冲突附近，海军可以合法地征用它，以确保部队拥有维持作战所需的物资。这种做法虽然对军事行动有利，但也引发了关于国家利益与个人权利之间平衡的伦理问题。在海事法的背景下，“愤怒权”通常在条约和公约中被法典化，这些法律框架概述了可以发生此类征用的条件。这些法律框架旨在防止滥用权力，确保任何财产的没收都经过适当程序并给予赔偿。然而，这些法律的实施在不同国家和时期之间差异显著，导致了关于什么构成合理征用的争议和冲突。随着我们进入现代，“愤怒权”在很大程度上已不再流行，取而代之的是对私人财产更全面的法律保护。特别是在第二次世界大战后，国际法的发展强调了人权的重要性以及保护个人财产不受任意征用的必要性。如今，各国受到各种国际协议的约束，这些协议旨在保护免受非法征用，确保任何财产的征用都必须伴随公平的赔偿。尽管如此，“愤怒权”的遗产在关于紧急状态下国家权力的讨论中仍然存在。当前围绕国家安全、恐怖主义和公共卫生危机的辩论经常唤起类似的主题，即在集体安全与个人权利之间的平衡。例如，在COVID-19疫情期间，世界各国政府采取了限制个人自由的措施，以维护公共健康。这些行动虽然在法律上是正当的，但引发了关于国家在危机时期可以多大程度侵犯个人权利的重大辩论。总之，尽管“愤怒权”可能不再是一项普遍的法律原则，但其历史意义提醒我们国家权力与个人权利之间持续存在的紧张关系。随着社会的发展和面临新挑战，构成这一权利的原则仍在影响当代法律和伦理讨论。理解“愤怒权”不仅丰富了我们对法律历史的认识，还鼓励我们批判性地评估在现代世界中如何应对政府权力与个人自由之间复杂的相互作用。