华东政法大学2011年翻译大赛.doc

第二届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛通知主办单位：华东政法大学承办单位：华东政法大学外语学院协办单位：华东政法大学法律翻译研究中心一、大赛目的在全球化迅速发展、国际交流不断增多的背景下，为了提高全国高校青年学生的法律英语及法律翻译能力，分享高校法律英语及法律翻译教学和研究的经验，华东政法大学特筹办第二届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛。首届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛因其科学的竞赛设计和系统的组织工作而受到参赛选手和评委老师的好评。在吸取首届大赛经验的基础上，组委会将秉承“提高法律英语能力，展现青年学子风采”的宗旨，将此次比赛举办地更加圆满。二、参赛对象欢迎全国各高校对法律或英语感兴趣的在校本科生、硕士生及博士生踊跃参赛，比赛不限专业和年级，不分组别。三、比赛方式比赛分为初赛和决赛两轮。赛题形式为英译汉，内容涉及公司法、合同法、国际法、财产法、法学理论、法律史、刑法等内容。（一）初赛初赛采取开卷方式。初赛试题公布于“通知公告”栏。参赛人员根据试题要求进行答题，并于2011年11月20日前将答卷及初赛选手信息表发送到以下地址或邮箱：邮寄地址：地址：上海松江区龙源路555号华东政法大学外语学院邮编：201620收件人：王 文 老师或，投稿邮箱：联系方式：联系人：王 文 老师 联系电话赛信息表及答题纸详见页底附件（请在信封右下角或电子邮件标题中注明“法律翻译大赛答卷”及选手姓名、学校名”，组委会将对收到的电子邮件进行编号后回复，没有收到回复的选手请再次发送答案。电子邮件以接收到的时间为准，信件以到达时的邮戳日期为准，过期以无效答卷处理。）（二）决赛初赛成绩排名前30名的参赛选手可进入决赛，组委会将向进入决赛的选手发出通知。决赛为闭卷考试，时间为2小时。决赛在华东政法大学松江校区举行。入围考生的往返车票及住宿费均自理。参赛选手凭身份证和学生证入场，统一参加笔试。所有选手均可以使用纸质词典和电子词典各一部，但不得使用电脑。比赛结束后，试卷由评委匿名评审后，确定比赛结果，并举行颁奖仪式。四、赛程安排1、2011年9月20日 11月20日 公布初赛试题。2、接收初赛答卷截止日为2011年11月20日。3、2011年11月25日 公布入围决赛学生名单(请见华东政法大学外语学院网站 “通知公告”栏目）。4、2011年12月9日 19:0021:00决赛。5、2011年12月10日公布获奖名单，并举行颁奖仪式。五、奖项设置本次比赛将设一等奖3名，二等奖5名，三等奖7名，优胜奖15名，分别予以奖励。一等奖设奖金1200元，二等奖设奖金1000元，三等奖设奖金800元，优胜奖设奖金500元，并颁发获奖证书。六、颁奖仪式颁奖仪式于2011年12月10日于华东政法大学举行，届时将邀请法律翻译界专家出席。 华东政法大学2011年9月19日第二届“华政杯”全国法律英语翻译大赛初赛试题试题一：（合同法与侵权法）Contracts also generate general duties of care in dealing with the rights, objects of legal protection and legally protected interests of the contractual partners. Such “collateral” obligations do not normally have any relation to the content of the respective “primary” performance obligation and can therefore in principle become significant in every type of contract. The more ambitious a legal system is in the development of such contractual collateral obligations for the protection of interests already existing independent from the direct performance expectations formed by the contract, the more practical weight is given to the respective concurrence of actions rules, which give details of the relationship of contractual liability with parallel tortuous liability. The narrower the scope of contractual duties is, the narrower the overlaps with the area of application of tort law turn out to be. The consequence is in turn, that the area of application of the respective legal principles governing concurrence of actions becomes narrower. A concurrence of actions rule which grants in principle contractual liability priority of application over tortuous liability, has to keep the area of contractual liability narrow in the interest of protecting the victim, if tort law is more favorable to an injured party in an individual case than contract law.试题二：（财产法）Subject to the provisions of the Declaration and other provisions of law, a unit owner:(1) may make any improvements or alterations to his unit that do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the common interest community;(2) may not change the appearance of the common elements, or the exterior appearance of a unit or any other portion of the common interest community, without permission of the Unit Owners Association (hereinafter called “Association”);(3) after acquiring an adjoining unit or an adjoining part of an adjoining unit, may remove or alter any intervening partition or create apertures therein, even if the partition in whole or in part is a common element, if those acts do not impair the structural integrity or mechanical systems or lessen the support of any portion of the common interest community. Removal of partitions or creation of apertures under this paragraph is not an alteration of boundaries;(4) may subdivide a unit into two or more units. Subject to the provisions of law, upon application of a unit owner to subdivide a unit, the Association shall prepare, execute, and record an amendment to the Declaration;(5) The amendment to the Declaration must be executed by the owner of the unit to be subdivided, assign an identifying number to each unit created, and reallocate the allocated interests formerly allocated to the subdivided unit to the new units in any reasonable manner prescribed by the owner of the subdivided unit.试题三：（法律史）For much of our history, the United States was not a lender but a borrower of law. The United States is a common-law system; and the common law was, in its origins, essentially English. In the first part of the nineteenth century, American courts looked to English law for inspiration, to English jurists and treatise writers. Case law was peppered with citations of English cases. Notable scholar-judges, like James Kent and Joseph Story, also read, absorbed, and tried to import into American law key aspects and insights of European legal thought. The British influence declined throughout the nineteenth century; and in the twentieth century it was all but dead. American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite a British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone; but current British law almost never gets any mention. In the twentieth century German philosophy had some residual influence; and Karl Lewellyn, for one, absorbed a good deal of German legal culture. It is fair to say, however, that American lawyers and jurists have been, on the whole, extremely parochial. At some crucial points, scholars and states people did look abroad. English law influenced the shape of the workers compensation statutes; key phrases were lifted almost verbatim from the English act. The English act, in turn owed something to legislation adopted earlier in Bismarcks Germany. The English Companies Law of 1929 and a Securities Act of 1933 were real influences on the text of the Securities and Exchange Act. Commercial statutes similarly were indebted to British models.试题四：（公司法与国际经济法）(i) In general. The Department of Commerce (hereinafter called “Department”) normally will attribute a subsidy to the products produced by the corporation that received the subsidy.(ii) Corporations producing the same product. If two (or more) corporations with cross-ownership produce the subject merchandise, the Department will attribute the subsidies received by either or both corporations to the products produced by both corporations.(iii) Holding or parent companies. If the firm that received a subsidy is a holding company, including a parent company with its own operations, the Department will attribute the subsidy to the consolidated sales of the holding company and its subsidiaries. However, if the Department finds that the holding company merely served as a conduit for the transfer of the subsidy from the government to a subsidiary of the holding company, the Secretary will attribute the subsidy to products sold by the subsidiary.(iv) Input suppliers. If there is cross-ownership between an input supplier and a downstream producer, and production of the input product is primarily dedicated to production of the downstream product, the Department will attribute subsidies received by the input producer to the combined sales of the input and downstream products produced by both corporations (excluding the sales between the two corporations).(v) Transfer of subsidy