一、 （大赛目的与宗旨）构建全国法律翻译竞赛平台，选拔并培养优势突出的高端法律英语人才，并以此形式来庆祝每年9月30日的世界翻译日。
二、 （大赛历史）“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛最早于2010年12月举办，至今已举办三次。第一届参赛院校32所，选手326名；第二届参赛院校41所，选手385名，第三届参赛院校47所，选手共195名。影响日益扩大，第三届选手中还有来自境外的选手。本大赛正在成为全国青年法律翻译人才的选拔平台。《文汇报》、《法制日报》、《中国社会科学报》等报道了大赛。
三、 （主办与承办单位）

主办单位

华东政法大学

教育部翻译专业学位教育指导委员会

教育部高等学校翻译专业教学协作组

承办单位

华东政法大学外语学院

华东政法大学法律翻译中心

华东政法大学翻译研究所

华东政法大学法律语言学研究所

四、 （大赛组委会）

大赛顾问（按姓氏拼音排序）

陈忠诚教授 华东政法大学、著名法律翻译家

何勤华教授 华东政法大学校长、全国外国法制史研究会会长

许 钧教授 南京大学教授、长江学者、中国译协常务副会长

杨 平编审 中国译协翻译理论与翻译教学委员会副主任

仲伟合教授 广东外语外贸大学校长

历届颁奖嘉宾与评委名单（按姓氏拼音排序）

艾米·莎蒙丝（Amy L. Sommers）高盖茨律师事务所(K&L Gates LLP)上海办事处合伙人

柴明熲教授 上海外国语大学高级翻译学院院长

丹·格特曼（Dan Guttman） 北京大学访问学者

杜金榜教授 广东外语外贸大学、中国法律语言学会会长

何刚强教授 复旦大学翻译系主任

何勤华教授 华东政法大学校长

胡开宝教授 上海交通大学外国语学院常务副院长

李克兴教授 香港理工大学中文及双语系

林 巍教授 澳门理工学院、暨南大学外籍专家

刘 平先生 上海市人民政府法制办公室副主任

刘蔚铭教授 西北政法大学外语学院副院长

马 莉教授 华东政法大学外语学院

屈文生副教授 华东政法大学外语学院副院长

沙丽金教授 中国政法大学外语学院副院长

邵慧翔先生 上海市人民政府外事办公室副主任

肖云枢教授 西南政法大学外语学院学科带头人

许 钧教授 南京大学研究生院常务副院长

许 旭先生 中化国际（控股）股份有限公司法律部总经理

杨 平编审 《中国翻译》副主编

姚锦清教授（加拿大籍） 上海外国语大学高级翻译学院

姚骏华副教授 华东政法大学外语学院党委书记

叶 芳女士 锦天城律师事务所合伙人

余素青副教授 华东政法大学外语学院院长

张智强教授 华东政法大学副校长

张朱平老师 华东政法大学外语学院副院长

赵军峰教授 广东外语外贸大学

五、 （决赛获奖证书盖章）

教育部翻译专业学位教育指导委员会

教育部高等学校翻译专业教学协作组

“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛组委会

六、（参赛对象）

欢迎全国各高校在校本科生、硕士生及博士生踊跃参赛，比赛不限专业和年级，不分组别。已参加工作或自由职业者也可参加比赛。参赛年龄须在40周岁以下（1973年4月1日以后出生）。

七、（比赛方式）

比赛分为初赛和决赛两轮。初赛试题形式为英译汉，决赛试题形式既有英译汉，也有汉译英。内容包括法学学术文章翻译、合同翻译、法律法规规章翻译、律师常用法律文书翻译等。

（一）初赛

初赛采取开卷方式，译文文责自负，需独立完成，杜绝抄袭现象，一经发现，将取消参赛资格。初赛试题见下文，参赛选手根据试题要求进行答题，并于2013年9月19日（含）前将答卷及《初赛选手信息表》发送到ecuplds@163.com（只接收电子信箱投稿）。

译文应为WORD电子文档，中文宋体、英文Times New Roman字体，全文小四号字，1.5倍行距，文档命名格式为“XXX大学/单位XXX人名（学校名或单位名加姓名）译文”，同时寄回填写完整的初赛选手信息表，文档命名格式为“XXX（姓名）大赛报名表”。

选手发送的答案须标明题号，并只发送中文。译文正文内不要出现译者任何个人信息，杜绝抄袭，否则将被视为无效译文。组委会将对收到的电子邮件回复，没有收到回复的选手请再次发送答案。收到回复的，不要重复发送答案。

（二）决赛

初赛成绩排名前30名的参赛选手可进入决赛，请关注华东政法大学外语学院官方网站公布的入围名单，组委会还将向进入决赛的选手的电子信箱和手机分别发出入选通知。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。参赛者无需缴纳任何费用，但入围考生因参加复赛产生的交通费及住宿费等均需自理。入围选手凭身份证和学生证入场，统一参加笔试。

从本届比赛始，决赛以纯闭卷形式进行。比赛结束后，试卷由评委现场沿骑缝线装订，经大赛评委匿名评审后，确定比赛结果，并于次日举行颁奖仪式。所有获奖选手，无特殊理由，不得缺席颁奖仪式。

八、赛程安排

1、2013年4月1日 — 9月19日 公布初赛试题。选手可在期间将确定不再修正的答卷发送至指定电子信箱。9月20日 零点起停止接收试卷。

2、2013年9月20日 —10月7日 初赛评卷。

3、2013年10月9日 公布入围决赛选手名单（请见华东政法大学外语学院网站http://www.wyxy.ecupl.edu.cn）。

4、2013年10月19日 9:30—11:30决赛，地点设在华东政法大学松江校区。

5、2013年10月20日 公布决赛获奖名单，并在华东政法大学松江校区举行颁奖仪式。

九、奖项设置

本次比赛将设特等奖1名，一等奖2名，二等奖4名，三等奖8名，优胜奖15名，分别予以奖励。特等奖设奖金3000元，一等奖设奖金2000元，二等奖设奖金1500元，三等奖设奖金800元，优胜奖设奖金500元，并颁发获奖证书。本届大赛另设最佳组织奖3个，并颁发奖状。

特等奖选手代表全体参赛选手在颁奖仪式上发言。决赛所有获奖选手都有机会收到担任“华东政法大学法律翻译研究中心特邀法律翻译人员”的邀请函，参与中心的法律翻译工作，并有机会在大赛结束后不定期参与该中心举办的法律翻译实践与学术研讨会。

十、颁奖仪式

颁奖仪式将于2013年10月20日于华东政法大学松江校区举行，届时将邀请全国法律界、翻译界、法律翻译界名家出席颁奖典礼。

大赛组委会设在华东政法大学外语学院集英楼C204室。大赛事务联系人：王文老师。联系电话：021-67790148。

“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛组委会

华东政法大学

2013年3月31日

初赛选手信息表

姓名

专业

性别

年龄

学历

（1）本科；（2）硕士；（3）博士；（4）其他

学校

学号

身份证号

手机

固定电话

邮箱

我承诺，本译文系由本人（姓名 ） 独立完成，无抄袭现象，并同意主办方将我的译文作为教学材料使用。同意（）不同意（）。

日期 年 月 日
第四届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题

试题一 (239 words)
Few informed observers of America's civil justice system would dispute that Americans who cannot afford legal representation in court "routinely forfeit basic rights, not due to the facts of their case or the governing law, but due to the absence of counsel." Forging a solution to this serious problem, however, has proven elusive, with the United States now lagging far behind other advanced industrial democracies in ensuring access to justice for its low-income population. Litigation strategies aimed at achieving the recognition of a constitutionally based right to counsel have foundered as judges have hesitated to establish new rights that would likely be onerous for the government to support and enforce. Meanwhile, legislators have been reluctant to commit substantial additional public funds to make a civil justice system already regarded as wasteful and dysfunctional even more litigious. Against this background, it is noteworthy that all three branches of California's politically fractured state government recently rallied around a new approach to the problem in the form of Assembly Bill (AB) 590. The legislation, signed into law in the fall of 2009, establishes pilot programs that will begin to give low-income Californians access to counsel in "civil matters involving critical issues affecting basic human needs." Defined by three key elements—legislative as opposed to judicial line-drawing, targeted experimentation, and an emphasis on pragmatism over judicially enforceable guarantees—AB 590 represents an important new model for expanding access to justice to low-income people.

试题二 (263 words)
As all criminal justice observers know, the United States Constitution requires the suppression of evidence found by illegal police activity. Texas's statutory exclusionary rule goes even further by excluding evidence illegally procured by private citizens. Texas's expansive exclusionary rule is drastically out-of-step with the rest of the nation and very beneficial to criminal defendants.
The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure specifies that "no evidence obtained by an officer or any other person in violation of federal or state law shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case." Under this rule, if an individual citizen violates a statutory or constitutional guarantee and turns the resulting evidence over to the police, that evidence will be inadmissible, even if the police had no connection to the misconduct.
For example, in 2005, a priest in Grand Prairie, Texas was charged with ppossession of child pornography. Because the lurid images had been illegally procured by private actors—another priest and a church deacon—who searched his computer without consent, the judge was forced to suppress the photos. With no evidence to rely on, state prosecutors had no choice but to dismiss the charges. Although Texas's statutory exclusionary rule decimated the state prosecution, federal prosecutors were not restricted by a private actor exclusionary rule. Federal prosecutors therefore charged the then-former priest with violation of federal child pornography laws and relied on the very same evidence that was inadmissible in Texas state court. The former priest pleaded guilty to the federal charges and was sentenced to more than four years in federal prison.

试题三(300 words)
On July 12, 2007, Senator Russ Feingold proposed the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 (AFA). The bill purports to address numerous failings of current arbitration practice in the United States by amending the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which, along with subsequent case law interpreting it, largely shapes current arbitration practice. The FAA, passed in 1925, was initially designed to permit arbitration agreements to be enforceable across state lines. Advocates of the FAA emphasized both the business and legal advantages of increasing arbitration's usefulness. In addition to these gains, Congress hoped to confront longstanding suspicion of arbitral proceedings by promoting a policy favoring arbitration. By its terms, the FAA implies a preference for extremely limited judicial review. While it permits the courts to enforce an agreement to arbitrate, it allows review and possible reversal of an arbitral award only on narrow procedural grounds.
For many years following the passage of the FAA, courts took a relatively modest approach in considering the scope of pre-dispute arbitration clauses. For example, in 1953 the Supreme Court refused to enforce an agreement to arbitrate, stating that the right to a judicial forum could not be waived. Over time, however, the Supreme Court articulated two doctrines that gave pre-dispute arbitration clauses a uniquely powerful position among contracts. First, the separability doctrine effectively provides the arbitration clause with "its own legal identity." A second doctrine, known as the kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine, gives the arbitrator sweeping authority to decide on matters concerning "the validity or the scope of the agreement to arbitrate." In practical terms, these doctrines combined mean that even when the contract itself apparently contains problems of formation or illegality that would normally render an entire contract invalid, the arbitration clause is still binding; an arbitrator rather than a court must evaluate the validity of the contract.

试题四（327 words）
The facts of the Arar case are well-known and highly provocative. Maher Arar is a dual citizen of Canada and Syria and resides in Canada, to which he immigrated with his family when he was seventeen. In September 2002, during a layover at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, he was detained by U.S. officials as a possible terrorist. Arar alleged that, during his detention in the United States, he was denied access to counsel and was subjected to coercive questioning and abusive conditions of detention. Arar was then transported, without his consent, to Syria. He alleged that, while in Syria, he was tortured and interrogated pursuant to instructions from U.S. officials. In October 2003, Arar was released into the custody of Canadian officials, and he returned to Canada.
Arar filed suit in the Eastern District of New York against several federal officials in their personal capacities, alleging that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by his detention in the United States (“domestic claim”), as well as by his incarceration and torture in Syria (“Syrian claims”). The district court dismissed with prejudice Arar's Syrian claims on the grounds that “the foreign policy and national-security concerns raised [by these claims] are properly left to the political branches of government.” It also dismissed his domestic claim on the grounds that Arar had failed to show which defendants, if any, were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations that occurred in the United States. The court gave Arar leave to “replead [this] claim without regard to [the Syrian claims] and name those defendants that were personally involved in the alleged unconstitutional treatment.”
Writing for a panel of the Second Circuit, Judge Cabranes affirmed the district court's dismissal of Arar's Syrian claims, both because an alternative remedial scheme existed and because national security and foreign relations concerns constituted “special factors” that “counsel[ed] against creation of a Bivens remedy.” He dismissed Arar's domestic detention claim for failure to state a claim.

【作者：－　】