民间借贷风险中英文对照外文翻译文献

民间借贷风险中英文对照外文翻译文献TheStudyofPrivateLendingRisks1ThetypicalreflectionoffolklendingrisktypingmethodRiskduality,uncertaintyandexposure,suggeststhattheriskisthecontradictionbetweenobjectiverealityandsubjectiveexpecteddeviatingrelationship,whichinducedbytheuncertaintyofobjectiveexistenceiscontrarytoexpectationofopportunitiesandpossibilities.Inviewofthesubjectiveunderstandingontheincompletenessofboundedrationalityandobjectiveinformation,riskregulation(riskregulationwillrequirethe"subject"shouldbetoseekthebreakthroughofmethodologytomakeupforcongenitaldeficiencyofsubjectiveandobjective,typedresearchmethodistheoptimalchoice.Thereasonhasthisfunction,because"'typedmethodintroducedbrokethe"abstract"and"specific"onthemethodologyoflawofbinaryopposition,andquicklybecameamediation"thatconnectsthetwo.Tobespecific,typedhasthefunctionofabstractconcrete,concreteabstractioncangetthroughthesubjectiveandobjective"andthesecondpulse",toreducetheobjectiveandsubjective,thuseffectivelyregulationrisk.Again,folklendingthetypeisvarious,characterization,itshiddenrisksalsorevealstheuniqueness,therefore,thelegalregulatingoftheprivatelendingriskneedtorisktypesintoacornerstone,toensurethattherisksystem,completenessandeffectivenessofregulation.Fromthepointofthepresentstudy,manyscholarshaveusedthetypedmethodswascarriedoutontheprivatelendingrisks.,forexample,manyscholarsbelievethattheformalfinanceisthedeepeningdevelopmentoffolklendingandtheresultofregulation,investigateitsroot,inmonetaryfinancingways,therewerelittledifference.Therefore,typedontheprivatelendingrisksintheprocessofdivision,candrawlessonsfromtheregulationofBasel2,dividetherisksofprivatelendingforcreditrisk,operationalrisk,marketriskandstrategicrisktypes;Alsohavesomescholarsbasedonlegalissuesexistingintheprivatelending,privatelendingriskscanbedividedintoriskofinterestraterisk,identityandUSESrisk;Andscholarsfromtheprivatelawandpubliclawleveltypeddivides,itsriskisdividedintopubliclawandprivatelawrisk;Fromthefinancialsystem,financialregulationandfinancialregulationtostudythethreeaspectsandsoon.Inalargerextent,theaboveallkindsofriskclassificationmethodismorebasedonthecharacteristicsofthefinancialindustry.Itisimportanttonote,however,differentsectors,disciplineshavedifferentwaysofthinking,focusandvaluechoice,toacertainextent,theriskofthefinancialindustryclassificationstandard,managementstandardisnotcompletelyaccordwiththerequirementofriskbeenregulatedinlaw.Typicalfolklendingtypedpartitionmethod,mostofthemfromtheAngleoffinanceorthefinancialsectorrisk,morefocusedonthespecificrisks,althoughhavetypedinthenameof,butnorealityofthetyping,whichisdifficulttorealizeeffectiveregulationofprivatelendingrisks.Inviewofthefinancialsectorrisktypesofclassificationmethod,thisarticleonlyinBaselonthedivisionofrisktypes,forexample,toprovetheriskclassificationfromtheviewpointofillegallearningbringriskregulationofthetroublesandproblems.Fromtheperspectiveofriskregulation,theBaselagreement"willbedividedintocreditrisk,marketrisk,operationalrisk,legalrisk,reputationriskandliquidityrisksixtypes.Bymanyscholars,however,thiskindofclassificationhasalargerquestion,theythinkthatoperationalrisksincludelegalrisks,andtosomeextent,liquidityrisk,marketrisk,includingfurther,manypeoplethinkofsensitivityofreputationrisk.Therefore,weshouldputriskisdividedintocreditrisk,marketriskandoperationriskthreetypes.Firstofall,fromthepointofviewoflaw,thelawemphasizesmoreonnon-marketriskregulation.Therefore,themarketriskcanberuledoutinthispaper.Followedbyquestionsaboutoperationriskdefinition.InthenewBaselcapitalaccord,theoriginaldefinitionofoperationalriskistheriskotherthansomeofthemarketriskandcreditrisk,thisdefinitionmethodisfuzzy,lackofpertinence.Sincetheoperationriskistheriskofmarketriskandcreditrisk,theinevitablerequirementofmarketriskandcreditriskdefinitionmustbeclear.Differentinstitutionstocreditriskandmarketrisk,however,therearelargedifferencebetweentherangeofdesignated,itwillfurtherincreasetheuncertaintyofoperatingrisk.Takeastepback,evenifthedefinitionofoperationalriskwithinthefinancialinstitutionsiscertain,however"thebank'sowndefinitionofoperationalriskmaybedifferentintheregulatorydefinitionofoperatingrisks(regulatorydefinitionmightbemorewidely)".Inasense,inreallifeforbreachofpromiseisthesymbolizationofcreditriskcharacterization,atthesametime,theoperationriskisalsoamanifestationoftheperson'sbehavior,bothcanbereflectedinthebehavior,andbothcanbecalledbehavioralrisk.So,canwillbetherealizationrisk,operationriskandcreditrisk--,underthegeneralofbehavioralrisktypes,thusrealizetheeffectiveregulationofrisk.ItisobviousthattheBaselagreementtypedyeswillbedividedintotheriskregulationinstitutionsforriskregulationandtheintroductionofthelegislativebranchofriskregulation.Ofcourse,IdonotdenythattheBaselagreementtypedontheriskclassificationoffinance,perhapsfortheinternalcontroltherisksoffinancialinstitutions,meaningisveryprofound.However,fromtheperspectiveoflaw,financeorthefinancialsectortotypedtherisksofprivatelendingdivisionstandardormethodforriskregulationisslightlyinferior.Becauseofthis,theauthorwilluselegalthinkingmethodsofprivatelendingrisksaretyped,andregulation,thefirstuseoflawonthetheoryofsubjectiveandobjectiverelationshiptoprivatelendingriskisdividedintomainriskandriskbehavioroftwotypes,andthenbuildthefolklendingsubjectclassificationdifferenceregistrationandclassificationguidanceregulationcouplingdoublenestedriskregulationmechanism,toeffectivelyregulatethefolklendingsubjectriskandtherisk.2ThestandardoflawundertheviewoffolklendingrisktypedandtypeanalysisAsmentionedabove,sincethelegalregulatingoftheprivatelendingriskfromleveltypedanalysisoflaw,thenitisnecessarytostudyhowtomaketyping?Shouldbetypedasthestandardwithwhat?Typicalofthelaw"therelationshipbetweensubjectandobject"analysismethodisthebestchoice.Fromthelawof"therelationshipbetweensubjectandobject"thinkingmethodtoobtaintheprivatelendingriskdeconstructionasthemainbodyandobjectrisk,thencombinedthesubjectandobjectriskconsiderations,itsspecificperformanceasfollows:first,thelawisclearrightandobligationisthemostfundamental,mostthecoreelementsofthelawandtherightsandobligationsaretobesubjecttoornottotaketoimplementtheaction,andbasedon"theadjustmentobjectoflawisbehavior"aswellasthemainbodyisequaltoitsstatementsandexpressionsofaseriesofbehavior,andbehaviorisindispensabletotheriskanalysisblindlyelements,furthermore,istheinnermeaningofexternalexpressionandimplementation,losethebehaviorofthesubjectmustbepale,orevennon-existent,realitysubjectcannotlittle.Second,thelegalrelationshipincludingthesubject,object,content,behaviorandintellectualproperty,etc.)andthreeaspectsofcontent,hasbeenholdingthelegalthinkingofthe"relationshipbetweensubjectandobject"method,andthesubjectandobject,whichisthecoreofthelegalresearch,stressedwithoutthereisnosuchthingasthesubjectandobjectoflegalnorms;Willtherelationshipbetweenthelegalrelationshipasthepluralsubjectandbehavior.Basedonthetwopoints,theauthordividedtheprivatelendingriskasthemainbodyofriskandriskbehavioroftwotypes,andwithintheframeworkofprivatelendingrisktypedeliberativecontentsandthecausesofprivatelendingrisks,andthenrealizestheprivatelendingrisktypedlegalregulation.Folklendingrisks.”Identityisvitalforthejudgmentoftherisk,theriskofidentitydifferentmayleadtothenatureoftherisk,theriskliabilityisdifferent,evendecidedtoriskexistence"inprivatelendingactivities,behaviorsubjectsincludenaturalpersons,legalpersonsandotherorganizations,andinthedifferentlendingactivities,differentmainbodyplaysadifferentrole,canbeeitherborrowersandlenders,yeskeyisanintermediary,andriskBearwillalsovary.Intermsofourcountryfolklending,folklendingsubjectriskmainlyreferstothefolklendinglegalrelationship,becausethepeopleborrowingbetweenmainbodyandleadtotheriskofinadequate,thefolklendingsubjectbecauseofthelackoflegalbusinesslicensesisengagedinthebusinessoflendinganddeposit-takingbusiness,withalegalqualificationbutbeyondthescopeofbusiness,etc.,andthepossibilityofadverselegalconsequence.Itsmainperformanceforprivatelendingintermediarywindrisksandlendingbetweennon-financialcompaniessubjecttwotypesofrisk.PrivatelendingintermediarymainriskFirstly,thenaturaltypebodydiscomfort,theriskofprivatelendingthemiddlemen.Doesnotinvolvethethirdpersonofthecivillendingbetweennaturalpersonisallowedbylaw,butnowmostfolklendingbythefamiliarpeopleborrowing,lendingevolvedintobetweenstrangerswhotypenaturalfolklendingagentgenerates,andinformallendingnaturalintermediarytowardspecialization.Amongthem,alotofnaturalpersonnointermediariestolimititsbusinessonthegeneralintroductionoflendingorborrowingforrange,butintheabsenceoffixedinaccordancewiththeprocedurestoapplyforlegallicense,illegalengagedinabsorbdepositsandissueloansandotherfinancialbusiness,easytocausetheinadequatesubjectriskproblems.Second,thetypeoflegalpersonprivatelendingintermediarybodyrisk.Inrealpractice,folklendingmiddlemanpresentinstitutions,thetrendof,however,thecurrentlawsandregulationshavenotbeentoeffectivelyconfirmthelegalstatusofprivatelendingagencies,therightsandobligationsisalsoalackofproperregulations,irregularitiesisveryserious,leadtoprivatelendingrisksoccur.Riskofnon-financialcorporatelendingbetweenthemainbodyfirst,generalborrowingmainbodybetweentheindustryandcommerceenterpriserisk.Nationalbanonborrowingbetweenenterprisesandenterprises,ifeachothertoborrowmoneyandcontractinterest,thecourtvisualsituationtoconfiscationofinterestinaccordancewiththelaw,totheotherpartyshouldbefinedequivalentofbankinterest,therefore,easylendingbetweenenterprisesduetoalackoflendingintheenterprisequalificationandfolklendingrisk.Second,folklendinginstitutions,thetrendof"thefolklendingsubjectincludingundergroundBanks,pawnshops,auctionhouses,smallandmedium-sizedenterprisefinancingcompanies,smallandmedium-sizedenterpriseloancompanies,assetappraisal,somebasicbankwillalsobecomeoneofthemainbodyoffolklending".Therefore,thefolklendingsubjecthaslimitedqualifications,notallofthecivilsubjectcanbecomemainbodyoftherightsanddutiesoftheprivatelending.So,inthefolklendinglegalrelationship,theprincipalmaybearthecorrespondingrisksduetoitsowninadequate.Folklendingriskregardlessofthefactsorlegalactionsarelikelytocause,changeandeliminatethelegalrelationship,andhavecertainlegalconsequences.Aredissimilar,innerconcepts,ideas,withoutlegalconsequences,"becauseIjustduetoexpressthemselves,juststepintoreality,Ididnotentertherangeswayedbylawmakers?Forthelaw,inadditiontomybehavior,Iamnotsavingin”.Hegelsaid,shallbearlegalconsequencescanbetopeople'sbehavior.Anybehaviorinevitablyleadtoconsequences,butnotanybehaviorleadstolegalconsequences.Privatelendingriskistopointtointheimplementationofprivatelending,riskcausedbyactofmisconductorbiased.Itisimportanttonotethatbecauseofthefolklendingpracticesofmisconductorbiasedandtherisk,notreferringtothefolklendingriskallthebehaviormainbody,buttoproducepotentialriskscausedbyborrowingrisk,beartheunfavorablelegalconsequencesthatmayleadtorisksubjectbehaviorcausedbytherisk.Privatelendingtypicalbehaviorriskisdividedintoprivatelendinginterestrateagreedovertheprovisionsofthestatestandardofrisk,riskposedbyillegalengagedinfinancialbusinessandmaliciousborrowingtherisk,etc.ContractbeyondthestandardsofthestateinterestratescausedbyriskaccordingtotheviewsofMarxism,"usuryinessenceitisakindofeconomicphenomenon,itsownhasitsinherentlawofdevelopment”.Illegalengagedinfinancialbusinessriskcausedbyillegalengagedinfinancialbusinessriskistopointtobytheoffenderisnotinaccordancewiththestatutoryproceduresapprovedbytherelevantdepartments,tothesocietyisnotinthenameofanyparticularobjectofillegalfund-raising,illegalabsorbingpublicdepositsorabsorbpublicdepositsindisguisedforms,illegalloansandotherillegalbehaviorandshouldbeartheriskoffinancialbusiness.民间借贷风险研究1典型民间借贷风险类型化划分方法的反思风险二象性———不确定性与暴露，表明风险是客观实在与主观预期相背离的矛盾性关系，亦即因客观存在的不确定性而诱致实在与预期相悖的机会和可能性。鉴于主观认识上的有限理性与客观信息获取的不完全性，风险规制(riskregulation的意旨要求“主体”须寻求方法论上的突破来弥补主观与客观的先天不足，类型化研究方法不失为最优选择。之所以有此功能，是因为“‘类型化’方法的引进打破了‘抽象’与‘具体’在法学方法论上的二元对立，并迅速成为连接两者的中介”。具体而言，类型化具有抽象具体化、具体抽象化的功能，可打通主观与客观的“任督二脉”，缩减客观与主观的背离，进而有效地规制风险。又，民间借贷样式繁多、表征多样，其背后隐藏的风险亦尽显独特性，因此，民间借贷风险的法律规制需要以风险的类型化为基石，以保证风险规制的体系性、完备性及有效性。从目前的研究来看，许多学者已经采用类型化研究方法对民间借贷风险进行研究。譬如，诸多学者认为，正规金融是民间借贷不断深化发展，并对其进行规制的结果，究其根源，在货币资金融通方面来讲，两者几无差异。因此，在对民间借贷风险进行类型化划分的过程中，可借鉴《新巴塞尔协议》的规定，将民间借贷的风险划分为信用风险、操作风险、市场风险以及战略风险等类型;亦有部分学者以民间借贷中存在的法律问题为依据，将民间借贷风险分为利率风险、身份风险以及用途风险;还有学者从私法与公法层面进行类型化划分，将其分为公法风险与私法风险;从金融体制、金融调控与金融规制三个方面进行研究等等。在更大程度上说，上述诸种风险类型划分方法更多是建立在金融行业内部特点的基础之上。但重要的是要注意不同行业、学科有不同的思维方式、重点和价值选择。在一定程度上，金融行业分类标准、管理标准与风险监管的要求并不完全符合法律规定。典型的民间借贷类型划分方法，大多是从金融或金融部门的角度出发，更侧重于具体的风险，虽然已经打上了名称，但没有实际的打字，这是难以实现有效监管的民间借贷风险。针对金融行业风险类型的分类方法，本文仅针对巴塞尔市的风险类型进行了划分，以证明风险分类的观点对非法学习带来的风险监管的问题和问题。从风险监管的角度看，巴塞尔协议“将信用风险分为信用风险、市场风险、操作风险、法律风险、声誉风险和流动性风险六种类型。然而，许多学者认为，这种分类有一个更大的问题，他们认为，经营风险包括法律风险，并在一定程度上，流动性风险，市场风险，包括进一步，许多人认为风险的声誉风险。因此，我们要把风险分为信用风险、市场风险和操作风险三种类型。首先，从法律的角度看，法律更强调了非市场风险监管。因此，市场风险可以排除在本文。其次是操作风险定义的问题。在新巴塞尔资本协议中，操作风险的原始定义是一种风险，而不是一些市场风险和信用风险，这种定义方法是模糊的，缺乏针对性。操作风险是市场风险和信用风险的风险，市场风险和信用风险定义的必然要求必须明确。不同机构对信用风险和市场风险的不同，但是，在指定范围内有较大的差异，它会进一步加大经营风险的不确定性。退后一步，即使在金融机构的操作风险的定义是一定的，但是“操作风险的银行的定义可以在操作风险监管的定义不同（监管的定义可能更广泛）”。从某种意义上说，在现实生活中对于违约的信用风险表征的象征，同时，操作风险也是人的行为的一种表现，既可以体现在行为，都可以称之为行为风险。因此，可以将实现风险、操作风险和信用风险，在一般的行为风险类型，从而实现风险的有效监管。很显然，巴塞尔协议类型化的是将分为风险监管机构和风险监管立法部门的引入。当然，我不否认，巴塞尔协议类型化的金融风险分类，或许对内部控制金融机构的风险，意义是非常深刻的。然而，从法律、金融或金融业的角度看，民间借贷的风险划分标准或风险监管方法稍差。正因为如此，笔者将运用法律思维方法对民间借贷的风险进行类型化、规范化，首先运用法律对民间借贷风险的主观和客观的关系分为2类主要风险和风险行为，然后构建民间借贷主体分类差异登记和分类指导监管耦合双重嵌套风险规制机制，有效规范民间借贷主体的风险和风险。2民间借贷风险类型与类型分析的法律规范如上所述，由于法律规范的民间借贷风险从层次分析法，那么有必要研究如何进行打字？应该以什么样的标准打字？典