第九届华政杯全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题

第九届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题

试题一：（598words）

Commerce’sprimaryargumentisthattheplainstatutorylanguagemandatingthata

countervailingduty“shallbeimposed”requiresittoimposecountervailingdutieswhenitis

abletoidentifyasubsidy,merceBr.19-23;Commerce

toftherelevantstatutestatesthatif“theadministering

authoritydeterminesthatthegovernmentofacountry...isproviding,directlyorindirectly,a

countervailablesubsidy,”andifthedomesticinjuryrequirementismet,“thenthereshallbe

imposeduponsuchmerchandiseacountervailingduty,inadditiontoanyotherdutyimposed,

equaltotheamountofthenetcountervailablesubsidy.”19U.S.C.§ryto

Commerce’tutedoesnot

explicitlyre

questioniswhethergovernmentpaymentsinanMEeconomyconstitute“countervailable

subsidies”indeedpreviouslyheldthatthestatute

doesnotcompeltheimpositionofcountervailingdutiestogoodsfromMEcountries

becausethegovernmentpaymentswithrespecttosuchgoodsarenot“bountiesorgrants,”or

“countervailablesubsidies”townSteel,801F.2dat1314.

Section303oftheTariffActof1930,thepredecessortothecurrentcountervailingdutylaw,

statedthat“wheneveranycountry...shallpayorbestow,directlyorindirectly,anybounty

orgrant,”then“thereshallbelevied...inadditiontoanydutiesotherwiseimposed,aduty

equaltothenetamountofsuchbountyorgrant.”19U.S.C.§1303(1988)(repealed1994).In

GeorgetownSteelwefoundthatthe“economicincentivesandbenefits”providedby

governmentsinMEcountries“donotconstitutebountiesorgrantsundersection303,”801

F.2dat1314,thatis,“countervailablesubsidies”inthelanguageofthecurrentstatute.

GeorgetownSteelfound“noindication...thatCongressintended”thislawtoapplytoME

exports,notingthatthepurposeofcountervailingdutylawis“tooffsettheunfaircompetitive

advantagethatforeignproducerswouldotherwiseenjoyfromexportsubsidies,”andthat“[i]n

exportsfromanonmarketeconomy...thiskindof‘unfair’competitioncannotexist.”801

F.2dat1315-16(States,437U.S.443,456(1978)).We

statedthat“[e]venifoneweretolabeltheincentives[providedbyMEstoexportingentities]

asa‘subsidy,’...thegovernmentsofthosenonmarketeconomieswouldineffectbe

subsidizingthemselves.”upheldCommerce’sdecisionnottoimpose

countervailingdutiesongoodsfromMEcountries.

The“bountyorgrant”languageofSection303involvedinGeorgetownSteelwasreplacedby

thecurrent“countervailablesubsidy”languageintheUruguayRoundAgreementsAct,Pub.

.103-465,108Stat.4809(1994)(“URAA”),butCongressmadeclearthatthischange

AStatementof

AdministrativeAction(“SAA”),which“shallberegardedasanauthoritativeexpressionby

theUnitedStatesconcerningtheinterpretationandapplicationofthe[URAA],”19U.S.C.§

3512(d),statedthat“thedefinitionof‘subsidy’willhavethesamemeaningthat

administrativepracticeandcourtshaveascribedtotheterm‘bountyorgrant’and‘subsidy’

underpriorversionsofthestatute”andthat“practicescountervailableunderthecurrentlaw

willbecountervailableundertherevisedstatute,”.103-316,at925(1994).

Thus,GeorgetownSteelisequallyapplicabletotherevisedstatute.

试题二：（499words）

Whenastatute’sconstitutionalityisindoubt,wehaveanobligationtointerpretthelaw,if

possible,,e.g.,a

GulfCoastBuilding&Council,485U.S.568,575(1988).Asonetreatise

putsit,“[a]statuteshouldbeinterpretedinawaythatavoidsplacingitsconstitutionalityin

doubt.”&,ReadingLaw:TheInterpretationofLegalTexts§38,p.247

(2012).slikethis

one,“ourtaskisnottodestroytheActifwecan,buttoconstrueit,ifconsistentwiththewill

ofCongress,soastocomportwithconstitutionallimitations.”CivilServiceComm’

Carriers,413U.S.548,571(1973);States,561U.S.358,403

(2010).Indeed,“‘[t]heelementaryruleisthateveryreasonableconstructionmustberesorted

to,inordertosaveastatutefromunconstitutionality.’”Id.,at406(quotingHooperv.

California,155U.S.648,657(1895);emphasisdeleted);seealsoExparteRandolph,20F.

Cas.242,254(o.11,558)(CCVa.1833)(Marshall,C.J.).

TheCourtallbutconcedesthattheresidualclausewouldbeconstitutionalifitappliedto

“real-worldconduct.”Whetherthatisthebestinterpretationoftheresidualclauseisbeside

urely

isthat.

First,thisinterpretationheedsthepointeddistinctionthattheArmedCareerCriminalActof

1984(ACCA)drawsbetweenthe“element[s]”ofanoffenseand“conduct.”Under

§924(e)(2)(B)(i),acrimequalifiesasa“violentfelony”ifoneofits“element[s]”involves

“theuse,attempteduse,orthreateneduseofphysicalforceagainstthepersonofanother.”But

theresidualclause,whichappearsintheverynextsubsection,§924(e)(2)(B)(ii),focuseson

“conduct”—specifically,“conductthatpresentsaseriouspotentialriskofphysicalinjuryto

another.”Theuseofthesetwodifferenttermsin§924(e)indicatesthat“conduct”refersto

thingsdoneduringthecommissionofanoffensethatarenotpartoftheelementsneededfor

ethoseextraactionsvaryfromcasetocase,itisnaturaltointerpret

“conduct”tomeanreal-worldconduct,nottheconductinvolvedinsomePlatonicidealofthe

offense.

Second,astheCourtpointsout,standardsliketheoneintheresidualclausealmostalways

ronglysuggeststhatthe

residualclausecallsforthesamesortofapplication.

Third,iftheCourtiscorrectthattheresidualclauseisnearlyincomprehensiblewhen

interpretedasapplyingtoan“idealizedordinarycaseofthecrime,”thenthatistelling

otherinterpretationisreadyathand,

whyshouldweassumethatCongressgavetheclauseameaningthatisimpossible—oreven,

exceedinglydifficult—toapply?

各参赛选手任选一题作答，且只能提交一道试题的译文。要求全文翻译，包括其中的案

号（citation）。