苏州地区:哪位高手能帮我翻译下面的法律英语，谢谢！

Appeal,cassation,amparo and all that :what and why?

Introduction
Generally speaking ,the law governing recourse against judicial decisions recognises two categories of procedure,and the distinction between them is reflected by the use of two different words:appeal,cassation;appello,cassazione;apelacion,casacion(or amparo-casacion);Berufung,Revision.No such pairing exists,however,in English ,which has only ‘appeal’.

This does not mean that procedures which would be classified elsewhere as cassation rather than appeal did not and do not exist in the common law.On the contrary ,until the major reforms of the nineteenth century, an appeal properly so-called existed in England only in the courts of Equity; in the courts of ‘common law’ the only forms of recourse available had far more in common with the cassation than with the appeal of other countries.What is more ,while England itself substituted for those forms of recourse a procedure of appeal in the nineteenth century ,reserving a procedure analogous to cassation for limited class of case including , most importantly, recourse against the decisions of administrative authorities or tribunals ,in the United States of America the older English forms of recourse-including what is actually now called an ‘appeal’to a ‘Court of Appeals’-have been developed rather than replaced:for the purposes of this chapter ,therefore ,the American appeal is treated as a form of cassation rather than of appeal.
In principle, and as established in practice in the legislation of post-Revolutionary France,which provided the model for so many of the legal systems whose language contain both appeal and cassation ,the distinction of kind between the two is clear. On appeal the litigation as a whole –or so much of it as is the subject of the appeal –devolves upon the appellate jurisdiction whose function it is to consider afresh the questions at issue between the parties ,whether of fact or law or both.Its business is to decide for itself ,as a court of second instance ,and its decision replaces the first instance decision for all purposes.An appellate jurisdiction should not ,in principle ,deal with questions not dealt with at first instance ,for otherwise it would not act as an appellate court but as a court of first instance, but it is not bound to have regard only to the legal arguments and to the evidence or proofs that were available at first instance .New demands may be excluded on appeal ,but new proofs are not.