罗 骆家辉(1950.01-)，美籍华裔政治家。民主党党员。于1950年1月21日出生于美国华盛顿州西雅图市，祖籍中国广东台山二区明塘乡湾头吉龙村(现广东省台山市水步镇长塘吉龙村);是这个移民家庭的第三代。以下是小编整理了骆家辉在人民大学演讲稿中英文全文，供你参考。

骆家辉在人民大学演讲稿中文全文如下：

骆大使：非常感谢你，朱所长。施大使，赵大使，雷公使衔参赞，程主席，韩院长，以及所有参加模拟法庭申诉的法学家们和我们所有法律专业的学生们。

我还要感谢程主席和韩院长在这所享有盛名的大学里招待我们，以及你们为了教育这些优秀的年轻学生而做的所有出色工作。

我与你们一样有对法治的热情和奉献以及你们对这项享有盛名的比赛的支持，这次比赛使全中国法律专业的学生面对当今世界面临最具挑战性、最激动人心的一些法律问题。

我赞赏聚集在这里的来自全中国的学生，他们为了服务于他们的国家而磨练自己的技巧。我也很感激如此多来自世界各地的经验丰富的律师和法学家们，他们帮助培养这些有天分的年轻学生。

我常常被问，是什么使美国成为这样一个成功、创新、充满活力、稳定的社会，吸引并且持续吸引来自世界各地的人们。其实是中国学者和商界人士首先给了我答案，他们回答说，美利坚合众国最有决定性的特点是强有力的法治。

因此，今天早上我想详述一下法治对一个进步和稳定的社会来说有多么关键。

首先，我想让你们知道，像你们很多人一样，我是作为一名律师开始的，在我的家乡，华盛顿的西雅图，作为一名刑事公诉官工作了四年，我起诉过被指控入室盗窃，抢劫，贩运毒品，和谋杀的人。

在法官面前争论复杂的法律案件时，即使我输掉了裁定，即使法官的裁定否决了我或者政府的立场，在我离开法院时，通常还是相信，正义正在被伸张，因为法官审阅了各方提交的法律文件。法官研究了判例法并慎重地考虑了法律问题。最后，法官给出了合理的，基于法律的判决。

我自己对法律的热情在我的职业生涯中持续着。我曾短暂地担任过兼职法官，而在担任华盛顿州州长的两届任期中，我的工作经常涉及法律问题。

我作为州长最骄傲的成就之一就是，通过关注将送首次犯案或者犯轻罪的年轻罪犯去参加社区服务和其他康复计划作为坐牢的替代方式，改革我们的青少年司法系统。在中国对自己的青少年司法系统进行类似改变时，我曾饶有兴趣地观察过。

作为州长，我有任命超过50名法官的机会和特权。事实上，我任命的大部分法官今天仍在审理案件。我任命的法官中有近25%是少数族裔，近50%是女性。

因为我相信，如果我们社会的各部分都尊重司法系统，并接受法院的裁定，那么在他们面前，我们的法官必须反映社会的人口构成。

作为州长，我也有执行法院所施加的死刑的重大责任。我作为州长时最困难和孤独的一些时刻是决定是否授予缓期执行，中止执行，或者允许执行继续进行。

在美国的刑事司法系统中，从小型的非法闯入到生死攸关的起诉，在被政府证明有罪之前，每个人都被假定为无罪。而且，此外，每个人 - 大人物，小人物，富人或者穷人，有名气或没名气的人 – 都有公平的机会并且被平等地对待。这不仅是美国的法律制度，也是我们整个政治制度的一个基本原则 – 每个人都有公平且平等的机会。

今天，一些最有名的法律案件的名称中就有那些同政府较量，同有权有势的人或者大公司较量的小人物的名字。

以1966年判决的米兰达诉埃里索纳案(Miranda v. Arizona)为例。埃内斯托·米兰达是一名被指控强奸的劳工，他认罪了，但他从未被告知他有避免自我归罪的权利和得到律师(辩护)的权利。结果，美国最高法院裁定，他享受正当程序的权利受到了侵犯;他的认罪不可靠;因此，推翻了对他的定罪。

这个案件确立了所谓的”米兰达权利”。我认为看过警察剧的任何人都非常熟悉。米兰达权利要求警察告知被羁押的嫌疑人他们有保持沉默的权利，他们所说的任何事情都会在法庭上被用于针对他们，他们有得到律师(辩护)的权利，和如果他们负担不起律师的费用，会为他们指定一名律师。

还有非常有名的在1954年判决的布朗诉教育委员会案(Brown v. Board of Education)，它结束了美国学校中的种族隔离。这一案件名称中有一名叫林达·布朗的三年级学生的名字，她必须步行穿过危险的铁路调车场才能到达位于很远处的全是非洲裔美国人的学校，而不是去一所离她家近得多的学校就读，因为这所更近的学校只为白人学生保留。

美国最高法院裁定推翻之前法院允许提供平等服务的不同设施存在的裁定。那些不同但平等的法律允许各州为黑人学生设立不同学校，为白人学生设立不同学校。美国最高法院最终裁定不同学校其实是内在不平等的。

你们将在这次比赛中辩论的案件，阿尔佛纳共和国是这些小人物之一在法院系统中寻求补救的另一个例子。

经过几个世代，我们美国的法院已经确立，没有人能凌驾于法律之上，即使是美国总统。在1974年的美国诉尼克森案(United States v. Nixon)中，最高法院下令白宫公开记录总统的椭圆形办公室内谈话的录音带。所有这一切越过了尼克森总统坚决、极力的反对。后来，华盛顿邮报两名鲜为人知的记者发现了白宫中掩盖的非法活动，而这些故事最终导致尼克森总统辞职。

我们的法律和政治制度再次证明，任何人，即使是美国最有权的人，都不能凌驾于法律之上。

法律案件经常给好莱坞电影以灵感，比如由朱利亚·罗伯茨主演的《艾琳·卜罗克维赤》(Erin Brockovich)。卜罗克维赤是前选美比赛胜者，在20世纪90年代初，她帮助揭露在卡利佛尼亚一个美国小镇里的化学污染，尽管没有正式的法律培训，她与拥有很大权力的州电力公司及其律师大军较量 - 就污染导致的严重健康影响帮助镇上的居民赢得了数百万美元的赔偿。

小人物的权利是美国制度的真正基础。早在18世纪，很少有人会预测到，在大西洋的另一边，一个由13个殖民地组成的乌合之众联盟能以某种方式脱离大不列颠获得独立。但是这些殖民地获胜了，并且作为一个年轻的美国从事构成一个新国家的辛苦工作，我们的开国元勋们确保了我们的宪法保护小人物的权利。

在那份著名的文件中，他们庄严地载入了权力分立规则，创造了政府三个平等的分支：立法、司法和行政分支。通过这样做，他们创立了一个制约与平衡的制度，以防范三个分支中的任何一个滥用权力。

当然，与我们的相比，中国自己的法律传统和历史能回顾到早得多的时间，并在许多方面与美国的有所不同。但早在公元前四世纪的秦国，一位中国著名政治家和改革家，商鞅，就在《商君书》中阐述了他的法律哲学。他所确立的最重要的理论之一体现在他的一句名言中：“王子犯法与庶民同罪”。因此，在2,300多年前的中国， “在法律面前人人平等” 原则就已经被提出并被公认了。

此外，在《论语》中，孔子谈到统治者的责任以及其个人行为的重要性。他说：“其身正，不令而行;其身不正，虽令不从。”

今天，在我们的现代社会，孔子主要说的是，有效的政府是一个官员遵守社会法律的政府，在本质上是法治。

在这方面，我很高兴地注意到，在中国这里的法律研究和实践已经看到显著增长。30年前，在中国有大约6所法学院以及约2000名律师。今天，全国有超过600所法学院和超过230,000名律师。中国需要聪明的律师. 在美国我们也许有太多了。 (笑)

对于我自己的国家而言，美国宪法是一块法律基石，而且已经被证明它的价值是无可估量的，部分是因为它适应历史带来的社会变革。在这个意义上，它是自我纠正的。

例如，我们不时地对我们的宪法进行修改以便更准确地反映我们国家的价值观，并使更多的人置于其保护之下 - 以前被排除在外的人。直到建国近100年后，三个美国宪法修正案通过后，非洲裔美国人才被看作是完全和自由的美国公民。同样，直到1920年的第19修正案获得批准，妇女才被允许投票。作为我们已经取得的成就的进一步证据，在2008年，巴拉克•欧巴马当选为美国第一位非洲裔美国总统。一年前南西·佩洛西成为美国众议院第一位女议长，我们政府立法部门最高层的成员。

当上个月欧巴马总统宣誓就职他作为总统的第二个任期时，他是在马丁·卢瑟·金纪念日宣誓就职的。马丁·卢瑟·金不知疲倦地倡导法治下平等的权利，特别是结束对于非洲裔美国人的歧视。

美国人知道我们的社会并不完美。问题依然存在，但我们在不断取得进展。由于我们的法律制度的自我纠正的性质，我有信心我们将继续看到公平和正义上的改善。

拥有一个公平、透明的法律架构是建立一个以规则为基础的社会的一个关键组成部分。但是这还不够。更为关键的是，当这些法律受到检验，当这些法律受到挑战的时候政府如何应对。人们需要知道规则将适用于所有公民，不管你是谁或者你拥有多大的权力。法治不一定确保特定的人获得有利的结果，但是必须保证法律下平等的待遇和寻求法律补救的机会。

我们的美国内战结束后，许多南方的州撰写限制非洲裔美国人权利的法律，直接违抗我们的宪法。这些州使用这些规定施加种族隔离和限制黑人 - 非洲裔美国人 - 的公民权利。过了半个多世纪，勇敢的民权律师们才开始大力展开恢复这些权利的诉讼，这些诉讼对他们自己有相当大的危险。

其中一件诉讼导致了我前面提到的布朗诉教育委员会案(Brown v. Board of Education)，它结束了学校里的种族隔离。然而，即使在布朗诉教育委员会案(Brown v. Board of Education)后，美国最高法院说不允许隔离学校后，许多州仍然没有听从美国最高法院的命令，并没有结束隔离。

例如我们的一个州，阿肯索州的州长继续违抗法院甚至派出阿肯索州国民警卫队，即州警察，阻止九名黑人学生报名就读该州一个镇上的高中。

艾森豪总统反对这一行为，派出美国陆军护送那九名非洲裔美国儿童到学校，明确表示必须遵守美国最高法院宣布的国家法律。

就我自己国家的经验来说，法治赋予政府更大的正当性，因为人们有信心他们有公平和透明的方式可以消除他们的担忧。但是判决不是武断的，每个人，即使是小人物们，都受到法律保护。

对手之间可能不总是赞同法律案件的结果，但他们对法律过程的基本完善性有信心。正如一项体育赛事。你可能不总是同意裁判的决定，但是如果每个人都遵守规则并且每个人都认为裁判公正，即使他们那一方输了球员和球迷们也可以接受比赛的结果。然而，他们不能接受的是裁判无视规则或迫使他们屈服以偏袒一方或一个比赛者。

一个证明对我们法律制度的信心和信念的最近的例子发生在2000年的美国总统大选。在美国历史上的第一次，总统选举的结果归结到仅仅9票 —— ​​9名美国最高法院法官的投票。他们不得不决定在夫洛里达州谁获得了最多的票数。他们不得不决定如何计算一些非常混乱不清的选票。因此在布什诉戈尔案(Bush v. Gore)中，美国最高法院的法官们以他们对美国宪法的理解为依据做出裁决。他们的裁决有利于焦治·W·布什，尽管后来媒体和其他团体确定实际上副总统戈尔在佛罗里达州获得更多的选票。虽然法院的裁决非常有争议，布什的对手，当时的副总统戈尔，接受了法院的裁定。并且副总统戈尔的支持者们也接受了法院裁决，因为他们相信我们法律制度和我们法律过程的完善性。

在其他许多国家，如此激烈角逐的总统选举将导致街头出现愤怒的暴民，革命，甚至军队在政变中夺权。美国人民接受法院在决定谁将成为美国下一任总统的裁决，是对强有力法治的价值和稳定权力的明确的证明。

一个强有力的，以规则为基础的社会，不仅有利于社会的稳定，同时也有利于经济发展。任何生意和投资都存在风险。做生意的人接受他们要服从他们做生意的城市、省或国家的法律。投资者不能忍受的是任意应用法律，这样做危及他们赚取利润或寻求补救办法的能力。

对国内的企业家来说，如果一个公司的创新者认为他们的想法和辛苦工作得不到保护，那么这个国家将有失去企业家才能和商业潜力的风险。外国投资者将“用脚投票”，把他们的资源带到他们觉得更安全，更可预知并且更加公平的其他市场。

在知识产权保护领域，这听起来尤其正确，因为知识财产盗窃是腐蚀创造和创新动机的犯罪行为。简单地说，如果没有强有力的知识财产保护，企业—中国企业和外国企业--将再三考虑开发新业务，技术和创新。

最后, 我们需要问个问题，一个社会如何建立对其法律制度完善性的信心?答案很简单：稳步推进。这需要数年时间，耐心和大量的试错。坦率地说，在美国我们仍然在努力着。没有一种“一刀切”的体系或解决方案。中国有着悠久和丰富的法律历史，可以为其未来提供教训。

然而，有些超越文化差异的共同原则，包括独立和被尊重的司法审判和法律下的平等保护。

向着一个以规则为基础的社会前进的路上需要奉献和长期的努力。但，让我为作为一个美国人感到自豪的许多事情之一是，我们的历史上一代又一代的美国人怎样努力使美国更接近理想的形式，如我国宪法的序言所述，“一个更完美的联盟”。法治是这一理想的关键，它有助于建立起一个团结一致，对他们的权利有信心，并致力于国家未来的人民。

作为未来的律师， 你们在推动和提升中国的法治上有特殊的作用和责任。 在前方，中国有一个美好的未来， 但它依赖于一个积极、中立、被尊重的司法审判、法治和律师。 中国人民就依靠你们了。

祝你们好运。 非常感谢你们。

骆家辉在人民大学演讲稿英文：

Rule of Law: The Key to Peace and Prosperity

AMBASSADOR LOCKE: Thank you very much, Administrator Zhu, Ambassador Schaeffer, Ambassador Saint-Jacques, Minister Counselor Lentz, Chairman Cheng and Dean Han and all of our distinguished jurists who are participating in the Moot Court petition as well as all of our law students.

I also want to thank Chairman Cheng and Dean Han for hosting all of us at this prestigious university and for all the great work that you do to educate these great young students.

I share your passion and commitment to the rule of law as well as your support for this prestigious competition that brings law students from all across China to face some of the most challenging and exciting legal issues facing our world today.

I applaud the students that are gathered here from all across China who are sharpening their skills for service to their nation. I’m also grateful that so many experienced attorneys and jurists from around the world are helping train these talented law students.

I’ve often been asked, what has made America such a successful, innovative, dynamic and stable society that has attracted, and continues to attract, people from all around the world. In fact, the answer was first given to me by Chinese scholars and business people and they answered, the defining characteristic of the United States of America is the strong rule of law.

So this morning I’d like to expand on how critical the rule of law is to a progressive and stable society.

First of all, I want you to know that like many of you I got my start as a lawyer working for four years as a criminal prosecutor in my home town of Seattle, Washington, and I prosecuted people charged with burglary, robbery, drug trafficking, and murder.

In arguing complicated legal cases before the judge, even if I lost the ruling, even if the judge ruled against me or the position of the government, I often left the courtroom believing that justice was being served because the judge had read the legal papers submitted by all sides. The judge had studied the case law and carefully considered the legal issues. Finally, the judge gave a decision that was reasonable and based on the law.

My own passion for the law continued throughout my career. I briefly served as a part-time judge and in two terms as governor of the State of Washington, my work often involved matters of the law.

One of my proudest achievements as governor was reforming our juvenile justice system by focusing on sending young first-time or minor offenders to community service and other rehabilitation programs as an alternative to prison time. I’ve watched with great interest as China pursues similar changes to its own juvenile justice system.

As governor, I had the opportunity and the privilege to appoint more than 50 judges. In fact, most of the judges I appointed are still hearing cases today. Almost 25 percent of the judges I appointed were ethnic minorities, and almost 50 percent were women.

Because it’s my belief that if all segments of our society are to respect the judicial system and to accept the rulings of the courts, then our judges must reflect the demographic profile of the society appearing before them.

As governor, I also had the grave responsibility to carry out the death penalty imposed by the courts. Some of my most difficult and lonely moments as governor were deciding whether to grant a stay of execution, to halt an execution, or to allow the execution to proceed.

In America’s criminal justice system, whether a minor break-in or a life-and-death prosecution, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the government. And moreover, everyone -- big guys and little guys, rich or poor, famous or unknown -- has a fair shot and is treated equally. This is a bedrock principle of not just our legal system, but indeed our political system as a whole -- that everyone has a fair and equal chance.

Today some of the most famous legal cases bear the names of the little guys who took on the government, took on powerful people and big companies.

Take Miranda v. Arizona which was decided in 1966. Ernesto Miranda was a laborer, who was accused of rape, and he confessed but he was never informed of his right to avoid self-incrimination and his right to an attorney. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that his right to due process had been violated; that his confession was unreliable; and therefore, overturned his conviction.

The case established the so-called Miranda Rights that I think anyone who has watched a police drama knows very very well. But These Miranda Rights require the police to inform suspects in custody of their rights to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law, that they have a right to an attorney, and if they cannot afford an attorney, an attorney will be appointed for them.

There’s also the very famous case of Brown v. Board of Education, which was decided in 1954 that ended segregation in American schools. The case bears the name of a third grader, a child named Linda Brown who had to walk through a dangerous railroad yard to get to her all African American school located very far away, instead of attending a school much closer to her home because that closer school was reserved only for white students.

The United States Supreme Court ruling reversed previous court rulings that had allowed separate facilities that provided equal services. Those “separate but equal” laws had allowed states to establish different schools for black students and different schools for white students. The United States Supreme Court finally ruled that separate schools were in fact inherently unequal.

And the case that you’re going to be arguing during this competition, the Republic of Alfurna, is another example of one of those little guys seeking redress through the court system.

Through the generations, our courts in America have established that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States. In 1974 in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ordered the White House to release audiotapes of recorded conversations taken inside the President’s Oval Office, all this over President Nixon’s firm, strenuous objections. Later, two little-known journalists at the Washington Post discovered a cover-up of illegal activities in the White House and these stories eventually led to the resignation of President Nixon.

Once more, our legal and political system proved that no one, not even the most powerful person in America, is above the law.

Legal cases oftentimes inspire Hollywood movies such as “Erin Brokovich” starring Julia Roberts. Brokovich was a former beauty pageant winner who had helped uncover chemical pollution in a tiny American town in California in the early 1990s and, despite no formal legal training, she took on the powerful state power company and its army of lawyers, and she helped win the town’s residents millions of dollars in compensation for the severe health effects caused by the pollution.

The rights of the little guy are the very foundation of the American system. Back in the 1700s, few people would have predicted that a rag-tag coalition of 13 colonies on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean could somehow gain their independence from Great Britain. But those colonies prevailed, and as a young America went on about the hard work of forming a new nation, our founding fathers insured that our constitution protected the rights of the little guy.

In that famous document, they enshrined the doctrine of separation of powers, creating three equal branches of government -- the legislative, judicial and executive branches. By doing so, they instituted a system of checks and balances as a safeguard against any one of the three branches from abusing its authority.

Of course China’s own legal tradition and history go much farther than ours and differ in many ways from America’s. But as far back as the 4th Century BC in the state of Qin, a famous Chinese statesman and reformer named Shang Yang elaborated on his legal philosophy in the Book of Lord Shang. One of the most important doctrines he established was reflected in his well-known saying, “When the prince violates the law, the crime he commits is the same as that of the common people.” More than 2,300 years ago in China, the principle that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law was already put forth and well recognized.

Also in the Analects, Confucius spoke about the responsibility of the ruler and the importance of his personal conduct. He said, “When a prince’s personal conduct is correct, his government is effective without issuing any orders. If his personal conduct is not correct he may issue orders but they will not be followed.”

Today in our modern society, what Confucius is essentially saying is that an effective government is one where its officials abide by the laws of that society, which in essence, is the rule of law.

In this regard, I’m happy to note that the study and practice of law has seen remarkable growth here in China. Thirty years ago there were only about six law schools an estimated 2,000 lawyers throughout all of China. Today there are 600 law schools and more than 230,000 lawyers nationwide. China has a need for smart lawyers. We in America perhaps have too many. [Laughter].

For my own country, the United States Constitution is a bedrock of law and it has proven so invaluable in part because it is adaptable to the social changes that history has brought. In that sense, it is self-correcting.

For example, from time to time we have amended our Constitution to more accurately reflect our country’s values and to bring more people under its protection - people who have been previously excluded. African-Americans were not considered full and free citizens of the United States until the passage of three constitutional amendments almost 100 years after the founding of our nation. Similarly, women were not allowed to vote until the approval of the 19th Amendment in 1920. And as further evidence of how far we have come, in 2008 Barack Obama was elected as the first African-American president of the United States. The year before, Nancy Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the most senior member of the legislative branch of our government.

Last month, when President Obama was sworn in for his second term as president, he was sworn in on Martin Luther King Day. Martin Luther King was a tireless advocate for equal rights under the rule of law, especially ending discrimination against African-Americans.

America knows that our society is not perfect. Problems remain, but progress is constantly being made. Given our legal system’s self-correcting nature, I’m confident that we will continue to see improvements in fairness and justice.

Having a fair and transparent legal infrastructure is a key part of building a rules-based society. But it’s not sufficient. Even more critical is how the government responds when those laws are tested, when those laws are being challenged. People need to know that the rules will be applied equally to all citizens, regardless of who you are or how much power you have. The rule of law does not necessarily ensure a favorable outcome for any particular individual, but the rule of law must guarantee equal treatment under the law and the opportunity to seek legal relief.

Following the conclusion of our American Civil War, many southern states drafted laws limiting the rights of African-Americans in direct defiance of our Constitution. These states used such provisions to impose racial segregation and restrict the civil rights of black people, African-Americans. And it took more than a half a century before brave civil rights lawyers began to vigorously pursue lawsuits at considerable danger to themselves to have those rights restored.

One of those lawsuits resulted in the case of Brown v. Board of Education that ended legal segregation in our schools that I talked about earlier. But even after Brown v. Board of Education, when the United States Supreme Court said that segregated schools were impermissible, many states still had not ended segregation as ordered by the United States Supreme Court.

For instance, the governor of Arkansas, one of our states, continued to defy the Court and even sent the Arkansas National Guard, essentially the state police, to block nine black students from enrolling in a high school in a town of that state.

President Eisenhower countered by sending the United States Army to escort those nine African-American children into the school, making it clear that the national law as announced by the United States Supreme Court must be followed.

In my own country’s experience, the rule of law gives the government greater legitimacy because people have confidence that there are fair and transparent ways to redress their concerns. But the decisions are not arbitrary, and everyone, even the little guys, enjoys legal protection.

Opponents might not always agree with the outcome of the legal case, but they have confidence in the basic integrity of the legal process. Just as in a sporting event, you might not always agree with the decision of the referee, but players and fans can accept the outcome of the game even if their side loses if everyone plays by the rules and everyone believes that the referees have been fair. What isn’t accepted, however, is when referees ignore the rules or bend them in favor of one side or one player.

A recent example of this confidence and faith in our legal system took place during the 2000 U.S. presidential elections. For the first time in American history, the outcome of a presidential election came down to just nine votes -- the votes of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices. They had to decide who had won the most votes in the State of Florida. They had to decide how to count some very confusing ballots. So in the case of Bush v. Gore, the United States Supreme Court justices made a decision on the basis of their interpretation of our U.S. Constitution. Their decision favored George W. Bush, even though it was later determined by the press and other groups that Vice President Gore had actually received more votes in Florida. But while the Court’s decision was extremely controversial, Bush’s opponent, then Vice President Gore, accepted the Court’s ruling. And Vice President Gore’s supporters also accepted the Court’s decision because they believed in the integrity of our legal institutions and our legal process.

In many other countries, such a close and hotly contested presidential election would have resulted in angry mobs in the street, revolution, or even the military seizing power in a coup. The American people’s acceptance of the Court’s decision in deciding who was the next president of the United States of America is a clear testament to the value and stabilizing power of a strong rule of law.

A strong rules-based society is not only good for social stability, but also for economic development. Any business or investment carries risk. Business people accept that they’re subject to the laws of the city, province or nation in which they do business. What business people and investors are not willing to tolerate is the arbitrary application of the law which imperils their ability to seek a profit or to seek redress.

For domestic entrepreneurs, if a company’s innovators believe that their ideas and hard work won’t be protected, that country risks losing the talent and business potential of their entrepreneurs. Foreign businesses and investors will vote with their feet and take their resources to other markets which they feel are more secure, more predictable, and more fair.

This rings especially true in the area of intellectual property rights protections, because IP theft is a crime that erodes the incentive to create, to innovate. Put simply, if there are no strong protections for intellectual property, companies -- Chinese and foreign -- will think twice before developing new businesses, technologies and innovations.

In conclusion, we need to ask the question how does a society build confidence in the integrity of its legal system? The answer is simple: steadily. It takes years, patience and a lot of trial and error. And frankly, we’re still working on it in the United States. There is no “one-size-fits-all” system or solution. China has a long and rich legal history that can provide some lessons for its future.

There are, however, some common principles including an independent and respected judiciary as well as equal protection under the law that transcend cultural differences.

Progress down the road to a rules-based society requires dedication and long-term effort. But one of the many things that makes me proud to be an American is how all through the generations of our history Americans have worked to bring the United States closer to the ideal of forming as the preamble to our Constitution says, “a more perfect union.” The rule of law is key to this ideal and it helps build a people who are united, patriotic, confident in their rights, and committed to their own country’s future.

As future lawyers you have a special role and responsibility in advancing and elevating the rule of law in China. China has a great future ahead of it, but it depends on an active, neutral, respected judiciary, rule of law, and lawyers. The people of China are counting on you.

Good luck. Thank you very much.

骆家辉人物评价：

“我想他是我见过的最拘谨的人了。 我帮他介绍女孩约会时

，我会告诉他们，‘他是一个很好的人，但是非常严肃。如果约会结束的时候，你邀请他到你的家里喝一杯茶， 他真得会认为只是喝一杯茶。’” ——1997年1月14日，西雅图时报引述骆家辉一位好友的话。

“就像和波诺(U2主唱)走在一起一样”——《商业周刊》时任时任美国驻华大使的洪博培在陪同骆家辉结束中国之行后形容骆在中国的受欢迎程度。

“鉴于骆家辉之前在某些关键全球化问题上的极端态度，我们将会盯紧他。”——2009年，全球贸易观察主任罗琳说。罗琳对公司全球化持批评态度。“之前在某些国际事务上的态度”指

的是骆家辉支持北美自由贸易协议和不愿将贸易问题与中国的人权挂钩。

1997年克林顿的国情咨文中，特别提到了骆家辉的名字。克林顿说，骆家辉当选为华盛顿州州长，他是“数百万美国亚裔移民中的两位所养育的值得骄傲的儿子。这些亚裔移民用他们的辛勤劳动、他们的家庭价值观和他们作为公民的良好表现，增强了美国的力量。他代表著我们大家都能够实现的未来。”

唱名而是以口头表决形式快速通过。法新社认为骆家辉的新职位“富有声望而艰难”，强调“驻华大使”这个新头衔将给他带来荣誉和挑战。报道称，骆家辉在参院听证会上强调，他将成为美国人权理念和商业利益的“强有力的提倡者”。

美国《市场观察报》评论说，这是一次有利于美国企业派驻美国主要贸易伙伴的外交任命。骆家辉被任命驻华大使的时机正值中国超越日本成为世界第二大经济体，而美国企业常常抱怨被中国市场排挤在外，或被迫以提供技术分享获取市场准入。

小编分享了骆家辉在人民大学演讲稿中英文，你阅读了有什么感想?