I  Legal Translation Practice

从一个实例看法律法规条文的英译    （作者：佚名）

上海曾受中央有关部门的委托，翻译一种法律条文。笔者应邀参加其第二稿的审稿会议。兹选其中一个条文的汉语原文和译文（第二稿），以说明法律条文英译中应该注意的若干事项，供今后同类翻译工作之参考。

第一部分  原文

第三十七条，违反本法规定，有下列行为之一的，环境保护部门或者交通部门的航政机关可以根据不同情节，给予警告或者处以罚款：

（一）拒报或者谎报国务院环境保护部门规定的有关污染物排放申报登记事项的；

（二）建设项目的水污染防治设施没有建成或者没有达到国家有关建设项目环境保护管理的规定的要求，投入生产或者使用的；

（三）拒绝环境保护部门或者有关监督管理部门现场检查，或者弄虚作假的；

（四）违反本法第四章、第五章有关规定，贮存、堆放、弃置、倾倒、排放污染物、废弃物的；

（五）不按国家规定缴纳排污费或者超标准排污费的罚款的办法和数额由本法实施细则规定。

第二部分  译文（二稿）

Article 37 Persons found guilty of violation of the regulations of this law by any of the following acts, shall be warned or fined by the environmental departments or navigation organs of the communication department according to the degree of seriousness of the offense:

(1) Refusal to report or untruthfulness in reporting matters required for registration by regulations concerning the discharge of effluent pollutants;

(2) Putting into operation or utilizing water pollution control facilities the construction of which has not yet been completed or does not meet the requirements of the state environment protection specified for the said construction project;

(3) Refusal to accept field examination by environmental departments or other supervisory authorities concerned therewith, or resorting to falsification;

(4) Violation of the relevant clauses in chapter IV and chapter V of this law concerning storage, piling, abandonment, dumping and releasing pollutants and wastes;

(5) Non-payment of charges levied in accordance with the regulations set by the State for pollutant effluent or for exceeding the pollutant limits;

The levying methods and the amounts of the fines shall be specified in the procedural rules of this law.

第三部分  问题讨论

一、上列译文第一段，从总体看，不够精确简练，兹分述如下：

（一）序言以“found guilty of violation of the regulations of this law”译“违反本法规定”，看来很忠实，实际上过于拖沓：

（甲）“found guilty of violation”，可以“violating”代替；

（乙）“the regulations of this law”，可简化为“this law”。“regulations”不仅是衍文，而且就其含义而论，亦属用词不切。因为在层次上，“regulations”是次于“law”且不同于“law”的行为规范。“law”是“law”，“regulations”是“regulations”；“law”中没有“regulations”。“law”是由“provisions”(即“规定”)所组成，因此即使一定要把“本法规定”逐字译出，亦宜译作“the provisions of this law”，但看来似无此必要。

（二）再说，“Persons found guilty of violation of…”其含义不就是“Violators of…”吗？

（三）还有，“any of the following acts”中的“acts”亦可删去。既然“以下”（原文一至五项）所列举的都是“行为”即“acts”，那么只要说“any of the following”就足够了。

（四）关于同段译文“according to the degree of seriousness of the offense”，似同原文“根据不同情节”有所不同。因严重程度如何仅是情节的一个方面，故宜改用“(up) on the merits of the case”（这是法律英语中的常用语）。

二、译文之（1）在语法上把“refusal to report”与“untruthfulness in reporting”并列，但“refusal”虽可表示行为而“untruthfulness in reporting”却不是行为，而且“谎报”可简单地译作“false report”。为求精确简洁，译文在结构上宜把“拒报”和“谎报”的“报”字统一起来用同一个词语表达，如“submitting no or false report”。

三、译文之（2），与原意不合，按原文，“投入生产或者使用”的，是“建设项目”；而按译文，则“投入生产或者使用”的，却是“水污染防治设施”了。

应该说，原文也有毛病（如把第一个“的”字改为“其”字，也许会好一些），但译者应通过原文文字确切理解其精神实质。因此，译文（2）中“water pollution control facilities”应改作“a (construction) project”（虽仅用“project”在上下文中亦无歧义）。

即使就译文（2）论译文（2），“which”从句，至少也可简化为“which is either incomplete or below the requirements…”。该从句内“requirements…for the said construction project”中的“the said”不仅是赘文，而且同原文之泛指各种同类的“建设项目”有所不同，故宜改作“… for such projects”。

译文把“生产”译作“operation”，而把“使用”译作“utilizing”，似亦有未当。“operation”亦是一种“utilizing”，故宜改作“operating or otherwise utilizing”。

此外，原文“国家……规定”，但在译文中被误解为“国家环境保护”而译作“State environmental protection”了。

四、译文（3）中：“Refusal to accept…examination”可简化为“Refusal to be…examined”。

五、译文（4）的主要问题在于一系列“―ing forms”无所依傍，故全文须改变结构。

六、译文（5）中，“levied”系衍文且为原意所无。

七、译文最后一段的首部“The levying methods”宜改用法律文字中更为习用的“The procedure”。

第四部分  建议译文

综上所述，并根据全文的上下文，建议改译为：

Article 37 Any violator of this law shall, upon the merits of the case, be warned or fined by the competent environmental protection department or the navigation administration of the competent communications departments for any of the following:

(1) Submitting no or false report on such registration items as required by the environmental protection department of the State Council for the discharge of pollutants;

(2) Putting into operation or otherwise using a project whose water pollution control facilities are either incomplete or below the requirements specified in the national regulations on environmental specified management for such projects;

(3) Refusing to be inspected on the spot by the competent environmental protection department or supervisory authority, or resorting to intentional misrepresentation;

(4) Storing, piling, abandoning, dumping or discharging any pollutant or waste in violation of chapters IV and V of this law;

(5) Failing to pay the fee for pollutant discharge or for its exceedance according to national regulations.

The procedure for and the amount of the fine to be imposed hereunder shall be stipulated in the detailed rules for enforcement of this law.

第五部分  几点体会

由于经济立法涉及所调整的经济关系、法律技术和语言技能等三个方面，因此，在从事这类翻译时适当吸收有关专家参与译事，对保证译文质量是不可缺少的先决条件。

英语法律文字要求简洁明确，含义不得模糊，行文不能拖沓。因此译文必须运用 最合理的词语、结构和文体手段，来达到这一要求。可是很多从事汉译英的同志都有这样的体会：有时，通过翻译，译者会发现原文有词不达意或不合文理之处。这 在文艺翻译，也许要以含糊还含糊才算得了是等值。但是，在法律翻译中遇有类似情况，译者却不能纯客观地以含糊或不通的文字，探究其实质含义，从而根据其实质含义而不是只根据其含糊或不通的文字进行翻译。

由于法律翻译工作的需要日益增加，一定会有更多的同志参加法律文字翻译。为集思广益互相交流，希望有关刊物，特别是希望其中影响最大的《中国翻译》和《法学研究》等杂志，多加关心，以资促进。

Ⅱ Legal Information

美国财产法(2)    （作者：佚名）   <注：本期刊登第二部分，余下部分请继续关注>

第三章  占有
3.1 Possession
在英美的财产法上，占有一词有两种不同的表述:"Seisin"和"Possession"。
"Seisin"是指对不动产的占有，"Possession"是对动产的占有，"Seisin"并非指单纯的占有，它是和权利相关联的概念，主要是指通过占有获得收益的权利；而"Possession"则不同，它不表明通过占有而获得收益的权利。占有（Possession）是指在事实上占据或控制财产的一种权利。占有权主要包括以下基本内容：（1）原始占有，A.野生动物的占有（Wild animals），B.优先占有（First possession），C.政府优先占有；（2）发现者占有权（Finder of lost articles）；（3）时效占有（Adverse possession）；（4）委托占有（Bailment）。

美国财产上法的占有还可以根据不同的属性划分为不同的种类：

实际占有（Actual possession）和推定占有（Constructive possession）

独自占有（Sole possession）和共同占有（Joint possession）

善意占有（Possession Bona Fide）和恶意占有（Possession Mala Fide）

英文注释：

A. Possession is difficult to define. A person is in possession of object he physically controls （such as an apple held in his hand）. But he may be in possession of objects not in his presence, such as the chair in his backyard when he left for work. A person may even be in possession of objects in his house, or under the soil of his house（i.e. minerals or oil）, of which he is unaware. Thus, like property, possession is an elastic word；its meaning varies with the context involved and the purposes in view.

B. Different than ownership: Possession is not the same as ownership. Ownership is "title," and is usually proved by showing documents signed by the previous owner of first possessor transferring title to the present titleholder. Possession is proved by showing physical control and the intent to exclude others.

NOTE: Possession is easier to prove than ownership.

EX: A buys a watch from a jeweler, who bought it from the manufacturer. B steals the watch from A. To recover the watch, A must prove ownership or prior possession of the watch. To prove ownership, one must produce the sales slip from the jeweler or other proof of title, which A has probably lost. To prove prior possession, though, A has only to prove that the watch was in A's physical possession before theft.

C. Constructive possession: A person is in "constructive possession" when the law treats him as if he is in possession although, in fact, he is unaware of it. Constructive means "in the eyes of the law." A court can still find the find has better claim than the private property owner.

EX: In South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman, P allowed D to enter his property to clean the pool. D found some rings, and claimed he should own them. Ct. ruled that D was allowed on premises for the limited purpose of cleaning, under the direction of P, and that P is entitled to objects found, even if he is unaware they exist, since he is the owner of the property.

3.2 Wild animals

翻开美国原版的财产法著作，在谈到“占有”问题时，最先谈到的总是野生动物（Wild animals）的占有问题，根据罗马法的观点（Roman law view），野生动物属于共有财产，不属于任何人（Belong to no one），因此，对野生动物的占有属于财产的原始取得。根据优先占有原则，野生动物属于最先占有和控制的人。那么什么是占有和控制呢？先来看看美国财产法 教材经常引用的三个景点案例（Leading cases）：

案例一：Pierson v. Post

FACTS（案情）: P（plaintiff，指原告，下同） was hunting a fox on wild, uninhabited land. He and his dogs were hunting and pursuing the fox. Knowing that the fox was being hunted by P and within his view, D（defendent,指被告,下同）killed the fox and carried it off.

ISSUE（问题）: Who has ownership of the fox？

HELD（判决）: In view of the fox is not enough. The fact that the land was wild and inhabited is important. The court looks at a bunch of treaties to decide this case because there wasn't much case law. One authority hold that actual bodily seizure is not necessary to constitute possession of wild animals. The mortal wounding of an animal or the trapping or intercepting of animals so as to deprive them of their natural liberty will constitute occupancy. However, here, P only shows pursuit. Hence there was no occupancy or legal right vested in P and the fox became D's property when he killed and carried it off.

这是由纽约州最高法院终审的经典案例，事情发生在1805年，原告带着他的狗在野外的一块土地（uninhabited land）上追逐一只狐狸，这一切，被告都看在眼里，他跑过去杀死了那只狐狸并将它取走，摆在法官面前的问题是，谁将拥有这只狐狸的所有权（who has ownership of the fox）？法院最后认为：占有野生动物需要捕获该动物而不仅仅是追逐（The most important thing to remember regarding possession of wild animals is that the law requires capture rather than pursuit.），当然，“捕获”并不一定要求从形体上控制住该动物（Actual bodily seizure）,有时候，击中其要害（mortal wounding）也可以构成对野生动物的占有（possession of wild animals）。

案例2：Ghen v. Rich

FACTS: D purchased a whale at auction from man who found it washed up on the beach. The whale had been killed at sea by the crew of P's whaling ship which left P's identifying bomb-lance in the animal. The custom was when the crew of a whaling ship killed a whale using its identifying bomb-lance, the ship's owner was considered the owner of that whale. The finder ignored custom and sold whale.

HELD: the court mentioned:

1. Marks of appropriation enough

If the whale is killed and left ashore with the marks of appropriation, it is the property of the captain.

2. Involuntary abandonment （anchor fails to hold）

After initial capture, possession was complete. Anchor failed to hold in this case. Possession here was complete because whale was killed and marked. Possession unequivocable intention of appropriating for own use.

3. Notice to world is enough for possession

Whale escaped wounded and with the iron attached to it. Held that first iron marking was enough. Goes to first captor. Ps did all that it was possible to do here to make it theirs. This particular trade usage was necessary to the survival of the whaling industry, for no one would engage in whaling if it could not be guaranteed the fruits of his labor.

RULE: When all that is practicable in order to secure a wild animal is done, it becomes the property of the securer who has thus exercised sufficient personal control over the wild animal.-Marks of Appropriation here sufficient enough to establish a property right.

这个案例发生在1881年，是说在捕鲸业，有一个行规（Custom），鲸被人擒拿并拥有后，鲸的所有人通常以鲸身上的标记（bomb- lance）将自己所属的鲸和他人的鲸相区别，如果该印有标记的鲸逃跑并回归自然，为了保护行规，法官通常的态度是，所有人并不丧失所有权，他有权实施各种努力重新占有印有标记（bomb-lance）的鲸。

由于有行规的保护，在案例1中适用的捕获原则（Capture）在这里就不适用了。当然，这种行规也有它的不足之处（Disadvantages）：

1） custom changes over time

2） what about when a new person who does not know the custom comes into the society？

案例3：Keeble v. Hickeringill

FACTS: P contended D scared ducks away from his pond resulting in damages. Here P is the owner of the land who sets decoys to trap ducks. D came and chased them all away.

ISSUE: May recovery be had for the frightening of wild game off one's property？

HELD: Yes. Damages may be recovered for intentional frightening of wild game off another's land.

Although no title to the game existed, P was using his land in a lawful manner. Court held for public policy and fact- he had "constructive possession of ducks".

这个事情发生1707年：原告有一个池塘，专门用来引诱和捕捉野鸭的，但被告却故意过来威吓和驱赶那些野鸭，于是原告就控告被告干扰了他谋取利益的权利，要求赔偿。被告认为对这些野鸭没有财产权，因为原告没"占有"它们，原告能胜诉吗？答案是肯定的。在私人土地上行走的活动的野生动物，被推定为土地所有人占有（constructive possession），所以原告诱捕野鸭和以此谋利并不为法律所禁止，任何妨害他这种生意（Business）的行为都要负损害责任。

总之，先占者（Prior possessor）原始取得野生动物所有权，此为野生动物所有权取得的原则。先占是对野生动物的最先占有。占有必须具备两个条件，一是指对野生动物的事实上，物理意义上的管理和控制；二者是占有人在主观上确有占为己有的目的。仅仅是对动物的追赶，尽管追赶者付出很大努力，只要追赶人未实际占有动物，或有他人已经先行占据了动物，追赶均不能成为追赶人取得所有权的依据，追赶者不能以其追赶行为对抗先占人。从上面的几个案例，我们可以看出这一原则也是有例外的。