2017年CATTI初級(jí)口譯譯文訓(xùn)練
2017年翻譯資格(CATTI)考試很快就要舉行了，你做好準(zhǔn)備了嗎?下面yjbys小編為大家準(zhǔn)備了關(guān)于初級(jí)口譯譯文的文章，歡迎閱讀。
Why China Says No to the Arbitration on the South China Sea
中國(guó)為什么對(duì)南海仲裁案說(shuō)不
Fu Ying
傅瑩
July 10, 2016
2016年7月10日
The Hague tribunal in the much-discussed South China Sea arbitration case between China and the Philippines has notified the world that it will issue a final verdict on July 12. Many Western countries seem to think they already know the result of the arbitration – that China will lose. They have already started urging China to accept the ruling. But Beijing’s position is clear: no acceptance, no participation, no recognition, and no implementation. There is solid international legal basis for China to oppose this case. And by doing so, China is not only safeguarding its national interests, but also protecting the integrity and legitimacy of the international maritime order.
菲律賓單方提起的南海仲裁案?jìng)涫荜P(guān)注，海牙仲裁庭已經(jīng)宣布將于7月12日公布最終裁決結(jié)果。一些西方國(guó)家和媒體似乎知曉裁決結(jié)果將對(duì)中國(guó)不利，早早開始敦促中方接受裁決。但中國(guó)對(duì)仲裁案的立場(chǎng)十分明確，即“不接受、不參與、不承認(rèn)、不執(zhí)行”。中國(guó)反對(duì)南海仲裁案有充分的國(guó)際法理依據(jù)。中國(guó)這樣做不僅是在維護(hù)自身的國(guó)家利益，也是在捍衛(wèi)國(guó)際海洋秩序的完整性和合法性。
Why does China refuse to accept and participate in the proceedings of this tribunal, being heard at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague? Because China, as a sovereign state, is entitled to choose its preferred means of dispute resolution – a legitimate right under international law. Moreover, the Philippines’ case is inherently flawed and illegitimated by such irregularities as the country’s abuse of the dispute settlement procedures, its distortion of concepts, and its deliberate disguise of the real nature of the disputes.
為什么中國(guó)拒絕接受和參與仲裁程序?因?yàn)橹袊?guó)作為主權(quán)國(guó)家，有權(quán)選擇解決爭(zhēng)議的方式，這是國(guó)際法賦予主權(quán)國(guó)家的合法權(quán)利。同時(shí)也是因?yàn)榉坡少e單方提起的南海仲裁案存在濫用爭(zhēng)端解決程序、偷換概念和刻意掩蓋爭(zhēng)議實(shí)質(zhì)的諸多問(wèn)題，自始就存在瑕疵，因此缺乏合法性。
The Philippines’ arbitration relates to the dispute over the sovereignty of islands and reefs in the South China Sea, and to maritime delimitation. But these territorial issues are not regulated by – and therefore beyond the scope of – the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). And in 2006, China declared it would exclude “disputes concerning maritime delimitation” from compulsory arbitration, under Article 298 of UNCLOS. Second, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of compulsory arbitration did not meet UNCLOS preconditions for such initiation. The “no arbitration without the existence of a dispute” principle requires that before resorting to compulsory arbitration, there must have existed a real dispute between the parties. However, China has not yet presented specific claims with individual islands: Instead, it has always treated them as part of its Zhongsha Islands or Nansha Islands in the South China Sea.
首先，菲律賓提起仲裁的訴求涉及與中國(guó)一些島礁爭(zhēng)議和兩國(guó)之間的海域劃界問(wèn)題。領(lǐng)土主權(quán)問(wèn)題不屬于《聯(lián)合國(guó)海洋法公約》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《公約》)調(diào)整范圍;對(duì)于海域劃界問(wèn)題，中國(guó)已于2006年依據(jù)《公約》298條規(guī)定作出排除性聲明，因而不再接受使用強(qiáng)制爭(zhēng)端解決程序。
第二，菲方單方面提起的強(qiáng)制仲裁未滿足《公約》規(guī)定的前置條件。根據(jù)“無(wú)爭(zhēng)議不仲裁”的原則，提起任何強(qiáng)制仲裁前，雙方就仲裁事項(xiàng)須確實(shí)存在爭(zhēng)議。但是，例如菲律賓在仲裁中提出關(guān)于單個(gè)島礁法律地位的問(wèn)題，而中方從未就單個(gè)島礁主張海洋權(quán)益，是一直將其當(dāng)作群島的組成部分。
UNCLOS also stipulates that the Philippines must exchange views related to the arbitration over the dispute with China. But the Philippines has never consulted with China on the subject matters of the arbitration. And it was not telling the truth when it reported an “impasse” with China in “the bilateral exchanges” and “the great many subsequent exchanges.” In fact, it was China that tried in vain to engage in meaningful dialogue with the Philippines.
《公約》也規(guī)定，提起訴訟前相關(guān)方須充分交換意見，但菲律賓從未與中國(guó)就仲裁事項(xiàng)進(jìn)行任何溝通。菲在申訴報(bào)告中聲稱，因與中國(guó)的“雙邊磋商”以及“后續(xù)的眾多溝通”都“陷入僵滯”無(wú)法解決問(wèn)題而提起仲裁。這不是實(shí)話，事實(shí)上，是中方一直試圖與菲律賓進(jìn)行有意義的溝通而得不到回應(yīng)。
Therefore, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of arbitration has fallen short of meeting the UNCLOS conditions. Besides, by unilaterally initiating the arbitration, the Philippines has violated an earlier agreement it reached with China: Both countries previously stated their commitment to bilateral negotiations and consultations as the means to settle disputes.
因此，菲單方面提起的仲裁并未滿足《公約》規(guī)定的法定前置條件。此外，菲方單方面提起仲裁也違反了其先前與中方達(dá)成的共識(shí)，即：雙方承諾通過(guò)雙邊談判和協(xié)商解決爭(zhēng)議。
Why does China find it impossible to recognize and implement the tribunal’s upcoming decision? Although Article 288(4) of UNCLOS stipulates that the tribunal should decide whether it has jurisdiction, the application of this provision is not unconditional. Indeed, there is no such thing as absolute power in international law. This tribunal, whose authority and power are conferred by states, is an international dispute settlement mechanism under UNCLOS. If the tribunal abuses its power, China – along with any other members in the international community – would have the right to reject its decisions. And in this case, the tribunal has acted in a reckless and arbitrary fashion. In doing so, it has violated the basic principles of international rule of law and undermined China’s and other nations’ faith in UNCLOS.
為什么中國(guó)“不承認(rèn)、不執(zhí)行”仲裁庭即將作出的裁決?盡管《公約》288(4)條款規(guī)定，仲裁庭有權(quán)決定自身管轄權(quán)，但是該條款的適用不是無(wú)條件的。國(guó)際法中不存在所謂“絕對(duì)權(quán)力”，仲裁庭作為《公約》制度下的一個(gè)國(guó)際爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制，其權(quán)威和權(quán)力是所有締約國(guó)讓渡的。如果仲裁庭濫用權(quán)力，包括中國(guó)乃至國(guó)際社會(huì)有權(quán)拒絕接受裁決。我們不難看到，仲裁庭在該案的審理過(guò)程中過(guò)度任性，明顯違反國(guó)際法治基本準(zhǔn)則，動(dòng)搖中國(guó)和其他國(guó)家對(duì)《公約》的信心。
We don’t yet know the outcome, but we do know that the tribunal failed to fully understand and investigate the real dispute between China and the Philippines. It disregarded the essence and purpose of the Filipino claims in filing the case, deliberately regarding it as a mere issue of the interpretation and application of UNCLOS – but in fact, the submissions handled are far beyond this scope. There is deep concern in China that the tribunal is failing to consider the specific geographical framework and situation in the South China Sea where the maritime claims of the two countries potentially overlap.
雖然我們還不知道最終結(jié)果，但可以確信，仲裁庭在管轄權(quán)裁決中沒(méi)有了解和確認(rèn)中菲間存在的爭(zhēng)議是什么，忽視菲律賓提起該案的目的和訴求的實(shí)質(zhì)，刻意將其視為純粹的《公約》解釋和適用問(wèn)題，而實(shí)際處置的內(nèi)容又遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出這個(gè)范疇。另外，中方高度關(guān)切，仲裁庭未考慮南海的特定地理框架和海洋劃界態(tài)勢(shì)，也就是中菲兩國(guó)在相關(guān)海域的海洋權(quán)益主張上是有重疊的。
I hope it is not hard to understand why China has decided not to recognize and implement the tribunal’s ruling. More than 60 countries have voiced their support for China’s position on resolving the South China Sea issue through negotiations and consultations. China, as a state party to UNCLOS, supports and respects the treaty’s principles and spirit. What China opposes is not UNCLOS and compulsory arbitration, but the tribunal’s abuse of power in handling the case.
鑒于上述，中方做出 “不承認(rèn)、不執(zhí)行”的決定應(yīng)是不難理解的。目前，已有60多個(gè)國(guó)家公開支持中國(guó)關(guān)于通過(guò)協(xié)商談判解決南海爭(zhēng)議的立場(chǎng)，不少專家開始質(zhì)疑仲裁庭的程序問(wèn)題。中國(guó)作為《公約》的締約方，支持和尊重其原則和精神，我們反對(duì)的不是《公約》和強(qiáng)制仲裁機(jī)制本身，而是仲裁庭在審理此案中的濫權(quán)行為。
Today, most disputes are resolved through negotiations between the countries directly involved. The prerequisite for such negotiations, whether bilateral or multilateral, is the agreement or consent of those countries. China’s claim and position in the arbitration case are consistent with the basic spirit of international law, as well as state practice in international relations.
當(dāng)今世界上絕大部分爭(zhēng)端都是由直接當(dāng)事國(guó)之間通過(guò)談判協(xié)商解決的.。無(wú)論是雙邊、多邊談判，還是通過(guò)國(guó)際機(jī)制解決，其前提都是要直接當(dāng)事國(guó)達(dá)成協(xié)議或者形成共識(shí)。中國(guó)對(duì)此案的主張和立場(chǎng)符合國(guó)際法的基本精神和國(guó)際關(guān)系實(shí)踐。
This arbitration cannot resolve the disputes between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. Instead, it will only increase tensions and undermine peace and stability in the region. If the coastal countries in the South China Sea region do not intend to aggravate tensions, they have to return to the path of seeking resolution through negotiation. China and the countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have agreed to handle the issue through a dual-track approach – in other words, to resolve disputes through peaceful negotiations. Consultations on the code of conduct in the South China Sea region are making progress. The momentum should not be interrupted.
仲裁解決不了中菲在南海的爭(zhēng)議，只會(huì)刺激對(duì)立情緒，損害地區(qū)和平與穩(wěn)定。南海沿岸存在爭(zhēng)議的國(guó)家如不打算激化矛盾，總還需要回到雙邊談判解決爭(zhēng)議的軌道上來(lái)。中國(guó)和東盟國(guó)家現(xiàn)在都支持通過(guò)“雙軌思路”處理南海問(wèn)題，即直接當(dāng)事國(guó)通過(guò)友好協(xié)商談判尋求和平解決爭(zhēng)議，中國(guó)與東盟國(guó)家共同維護(hù)南海和平穩(wěn)定。商談“南海各方行為準(zhǔn)則” 的努力也已取得先期成果。這個(gè)勢(shì)頭不應(yīng)被中斷。
As President Xi Jinping said, China is committed to upholding international justice and is opposed to forcing one’s will upon other people. The handling of the South China Sea issue has a bearing on justice as well as peace and stability. Countries in this region need to work together to build rules-based cooperation. The international community should support the efforts made by China and other littoral states to manage and resolve disputes in a peaceful manner, respect China’s choice of using negotiations as the means to settle disputes, and protect the legitimacy and fairness of international mechanisms – especially UNCLOS.
主席指出，中國(guó)堅(jiān)持維護(hù)國(guó)際公平正義，反對(duì)把自己的意志強(qiáng)加于人。南海問(wèn)題的處理事關(guān)和平穩(wěn)定，也事關(guān)公平正義。本地區(qū)的國(guó)家需要共同努力，建立基于規(guī)則的合作機(jī)制。國(guó)際社會(huì)應(yīng)支持中國(guó)和其他南海沿岸國(guó)以和平方式管控和解決爭(zhēng)議所做的努力，尊重中國(guó)以談判解決分歧的選擇，維護(hù)國(guó)際機(jī)制特別是《公約》的合法性和公正性。
【2017年CATTI初級(jí)口譯譯文訓(xùn)練】相關(guān)文章：
6.2017年CATTI三級(jí)口譯訓(xùn)練題及答案