译者特别声明：本译文正在等待《耶鲁法律杂志袖珍本》编辑部的最终授权，请勿转载。

Translator’s declaration: this translation is waiting for the final authorization of the The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part. It is only for temporary online publication. Please don’t post this translation on any other web pages.

http://www.fyfz.cn/blog/lawandlife/2007112012234.jpg";>

(photo copyright by Yale Law Journal Pocket Part)

Legal scholars’ work has moved beyond law journals’ printed pages. 法律学者的著作已经移到了法律杂志的印刷页面之外。This month, The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part features essays that discuss, celebrate, and critique the ways in which legal scholarship is changing. 本月，《耶鲁法律杂志袖珍版》组文讨论、颂扬并批判法律学术正在演变的方式。Professor Paul Caron describes how professors download articles from the Internet long before they appear in the law journals. 保罗·卡隆教授描述了教授们如何从网络中下载许久之后才出现在法律杂志上的文章。Legal weblogs critique slip opinions months before students’ case notes reach the printer, as Professor Stephen Vladeck observes. 法律博客先于学生的案例评论交付印刷数月之前批判偏颇的观点，正如斯蒂芬・弗拉得克教授观察的那样。A quicker publication process and a freer medium permit a jazzier style of writing, as Professor Christopher Bracey shows. 更快的发表过程和更自由的媒介造就了爵士乐式的写作风格，正如克里斯托弗·布雷斯教授指出。And changes of pace and style permit – indeed, encourage – changes of substance as well, as Professor Jack Balkin describes in an account of how his blog, Balkinization, helped scuttle Senator Arlen Specter’s recent bill on domestic spying. 步调与风格的变化引发－确切地说，激励着－实质性的变化，正如杰克·巴尔金教授详细叙说的那样，他的博客“巴尔金化”把参议员阿伦·斯佩克特最近的有关国内间谍的议案搬倒了。Professor Ann Althouse celebrates scholars’ online work but warns student editors not to “tart up” our websites, while Professor Eugene Volokh proposes three innovative ways to do just that. 安·阿儿特豪斯教授赞扬学者们的在线作品，但是警告那些学生编辑不要把我们的网页弄得“花里胡梢”，反之，欧根·沃罗克教授则建议采用三种新方式去作那样的事儿（指把网页弄得“花里胡梢”）。Professor Rosa Brooks and Brian Leiter have added their thoughts – Brooks discusses what the Internet will mean for female professors, and Leiter cautions against the dangers that unmediated public blogs can pose to scholarly debate. 罗莎·布鲁克斯教授和布赖恩·莱特教授则发表了自己的见解。布鲁克斯探讨论了网络将会对女教授意味着什么，莱特教授则对未加调和的公共博客对学术争论的危害深表忧虑。We thank these authors for their contributions and offer a few words in response. 我们感谢这些作者的贡献并以片言只语回应。

By publishing the Pocket Part we hope to introduce new readers to the discussions begun in the journal. 我们希望通过出版《袖珍本》吸引新的读者加入本杂志中的讨论中来。 We place special value on responses that relate the Journal’s work to the concerns of members of the bench and the bar who rarely read law review articles. 我们特别注重反馈的价值，这种反馈将本杂志的工作与那些几乎不阅读法律评论文章的法院成员与律师们的关注联系起来。We particularly hope that Pocket Part essays will be of use to legal decision-makers beyond the academy’s walls, be they federal appellate judges reviewing sentencing decisions or U.S. Senators framing questions for a Supreme Court nominee. 我们特别期望《袖珍本》文章有助于学院高墙之外的法律决策者们，无论他们是审阅判决的联邦上诉法官还是准备对最高法院的候选人提出询问的美国参议员们。

We see great value in Professors’ online work. 我们看到了教授们的在线作品的巨大价值。Blogs insightfully critique scholarship, comment usefully on problems of legal doctrine, and speak to decision-makers in straightforward language. 博客对学术进行有洞见的批判，对法律信条的问题进行有益的评价，并且用直白的语言对决策者说话。The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part is our effort to join these strengths of online debate to the traditions of the student-edited journal. 《耶鲁法律杂志袖珍本》系我们努力将在线争鸣的力量纳入传统的学生编辑的杂志之中（的见证）。The blogs have flaws that student editors can help to mend. 博客有裂纹，而学生则可以修复。Many online postings are incomplete or of only passing interest; students can help to select the most significant. 很多的在线帖子不完整或者其意义转瞬即逝。Every online posting is subject to change or deletion at its creator’s whim; Students can help to preserve and archive them. 每一篇帖子都可能因为其撰写人的心血来潮而修订或删除；学生可以帮助保存或者存档它们。Many postings lack proper citations to the relevant authorities; students can carefully check the necessary sources. 很多帖子缺乏对相关出处的引用；学生可以谨慎地检验那些必要的文献。This Journal’s editors have long performed these tasks, and readers may rely on the permanence and the accuracy of these web pages as the have for so long relied on our printed pages. 本杂志的的编辑长期履行这些职责，并且读者会信任本网络页面的永久性和准确性，正如他们长期信任我们的印刷页面一样。

We welcome new writers to the Pocket Part as well. 我们也欢迎新作者给《袖珍本》投稿。These pages are meant to bring other scholars into the Journal’s theoretical discussions and to correct and update older works, as Professor Volokh proposes. 本网页旨在引导其他学者加入到本杂志的学术讨论，以及纠正和更新较早的作品，正如沃罗克教授建议的那样。We publish student commentaries on recent legal events, including an eye-witness account of the Federal Rules Committee’s hearings on e-discovery amendments and a critique of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s recent expansion of the State assembly’s impeachment power. 我们出版学生对最近事件的评论，包括一篇对联邦规则委员会就电子证据开示修正案的听证会的亲历文章和一篇批判康涅狄格州最高法院最近扩大州议会的弹劾权的批判文章。These students’ works might help to address Professor Vladeck’s concern that legal blogs have usurped students’ traditional role in reporting current developments in the law. 这些学生的作品可能有助于见证弗拉得克教授的关注：法律博客窜改了学生报道法律的最新进展的传统角色。

And we welcome contributions from practicing lawyers and judges on subjects as diverse as the discoverablility of Instant Messenger “chats”, the reasonableness of federal sentencing decisions, and the constitutional status of tort law. 我们欢迎来自执业律师和法官的探讨诸如及时通讯的“聊天”的可取证性，联邦判决的合理性以及侵权法的宪法地位等多样性话题的文章。

We invite all our authors and readers to with us to combine the Journal’s traditions of accuracy and thoroughness with the clarity, brevity and responsiveness of online legal scholarship. 我们邀请我们所有的作者和读者与我们一道将本杂志的准确性与详尽性传统与在线法律学术的清晰性、简洁性与回应性结合起来。

注：本文中所提及的各位教授的博客文章均可在该网络杂志的网页上浏览。

http://lawandlife.fyfz.cn/blog/lawandlife/index.aspx?blogid=278973";> 

译者系西南财经大学法学院07级硕士研究生