[求助]帮帮我翻译这句话OG12上的

tq0a4bvc

Q57-Q63上的文章，此题涉及两句话，实在给我搞蒙了，求助。。。。万分感谢

This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona V. California(1963),wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the winters doctrine.

lisaluan

这是一篇法律文章,文章结构是先讲了一个法律条文W开始使用,之后讲了W适用的范围.之后它讲了个CASE-Pueblo说了一个超出W定义范围的case,最后,说法律AC在W的基础上扩大了W的使用范围,使其包括P.(原谅我不是学法的,这只是我的理解)

看这句话要看前一句,我一起打了上来.

What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the puebos have always been treated as reservation by the US. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona V. California(1963),wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the winters doctrine.

之前说，P是国家共有土地，(不是保护区）超出了W法律定义范围。（那么，应不应给它水权呢）这里就分析了：

什么组成了American Indian reservation 是一个实际的问题，没有法律的界定，然而P一直是以reservation的方式对待的。这个（既成事实），的实际处理方式得到了AC的支持。在它的SC上，indicate，不管以何种方式建立起的保护区，都不影响W条款对它的使用。（这个AC的判决，增大了W的base）

个人理解，仅供参考。

tq0a4bvc

查词典才知道reservation又当保护区讲又当土地讲，谢谢ls好心MM，你的讲解不光是仅供参考了！！！真的非常感谢。。。

musicfly

这篇真难,法律类阅读弄的人云里雾里的

akatsuki09

同感，这篇我做了之后郁闷了好一阵子。OG12TH的RC目前我发现这篇和一篇女性运动解放的题材的最难

xiwangzhx

What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California(1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the WInters doctrine.

印第安保留地的形成是一个实施的问题，而不是法律的定义，并且the pueblos一直被美国当做保留地对待。这种更为实际的处理办法得到了A .C的支持，在其中最高法院指出无论联邦保留地是以何种方式出现的，都不会影响Winters准则对其的效力。