上海市行政法制研究所译审外事室 （总第26期） 1.在法规，规章的翻译中，多次出现“按照职责分工”的翻译，如“各相关部门按照职责分工，积极配合开展工作”。 对此词条，常见的译文有“according to （in accordance with) their respective responsibilities”, “according to their different official duties”, “according to their duties and responsibilities”和 “according to their respective functions and duties”。 考虑到在此 “职责”有两层涵义“职能和责任”, 故参照国务院法制办公室法规译审和外事司编译的《规译审常用句式手册》, 在今后的翻译中, 将此句统一为 “according to their respective functions and duties”。 2. “联席会议”翻译的统一 在我们的法规翻译中越来越多的出现“联席会议”的翻译,如 “上海市整顿和规范市场秩序联席会议”, “市科协决策咨询联席会议工作规则”。 在日常翻译中, “joint (associated) meeting”, “joint conference”和 “joint committee”, “joint staff meeting”都有出现。 “联席会议”在实际的使用中,有两种涵义. 第一, 指相关部门以召开会议的形式,共同协商某一问题的解决方案,如“召开部门联席会议”，此时, “joint conference”优于 “joint meeting”, 因为 “conference”多指非定期举行的正式会议,由具有共同兴趣的与会者参加,并希望与会者有主动的参与(新牛津英语词典);第二, “联席会议”接近于团体,或者机构的涵义, 如 “国家技术性贸易措施部际联席会议在北京成立”，“香港基本法推介联席会议” , 此时 “joint committee”更合适。 故在今后翻译中, “联席会议”如指 “会议”,则统一译为 “joint conference”, 如 “The National Standing Committee of Sub-provincial Municipal People's Congresses' Chairmen Joint Conference” was held in …; 指 “机构”, 则统一译为 “joint committee”, 如 “Joint Committee for the Promotion of Hong Kong Basic Law”. 3. “…届…中全会”翻译的统一 在翻译中, 对 “…届…中全会”的翻译各有不同, 常见的有 “the … Plenary Session of … Central Party Committee”, “the … Plenary Session of the … CPC Central Committee”, “the … Session of … Central Committee of the Party” ,“the … Session of … Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party” etc.. “…届…中全会”全称 “中国共产党第…届中央委员会第…此全体会议”, 根据新华网http://www.xinhuanet.com/ 和中央电视台网http://www.cctv.com上的翻译, 今后统一译为 “the ...Plenary Session of …CPC Central Committee”. 原文：第五十八条 下列民事行为无效： 译文：Article 58. Civil acts in the following categories shall be null and void: (1) those performed by a person without capacity for civil conduct; (2) those that according to law may not be independently performed by a person with limited capacity for civil conduct; (3) those performed by a person against his true intentions as a result of cheating, coercion or exploitation of his unfavorable position by the other party; (4) those that performed through malicious collusion are detrimental to the interest of the state, a collective or a third party; (5) those that violate the law or the public interest; (6) economic contracts that violate the state's mandatory plans; and (7) those that performed under the guise of legitimate acts conceal illegitimate purposes. Civil acts that are null and void shall not be legally binding from the very beginning. （LAB） Article 58. The following civil legal acts are not valid: (i) those performed by a person without capacity for civil acts; (ii) those which, according to the law, may not be performed independently by a person with limited capacity for civil acts; (iii) those performed by way of one party cheating, coercing or taking advantage of the other party’s precarious situation, thereby causing the other party to act against his true wishes; (iv) those performed in collaboration and with ill intent, harming the interests of the State, collective or a third party; (v) those which violate the law or interests of society; (vi) economic contracts which contravene State planning directives; (vii) those which conceal illegal aims in a legal form. Invalid civil legal acts shall have no binding force from the time of commencement of the act. (CCH) Article 58. The following civil juristic acts are invalid: (1) those carried out by persons without capacity for civil activity; (2) those carried out by persons with limited capacity for civil activity which cannot be carried out independently in accordance with the law; (3) those where one party by means of fraud or duress or by taking advantage of the weakened position of the other causes the other party to act under circumstances contrary to his true intent; (4) a malicious conspiracy which harms the rights and interests of the State, a collective or a third party; (5) those violating the law or the public interest; (6) economic contracts which violate the State’s mandatory plans; (7) those in a lawful form which conceal an unlawful purpose. Invalid civil acts have no legal binding force from the time such acts commence. (CLR) 述评： （1）由于立法者随时导入新概念――如此处的“民事行为”――而又拒不为概念下定义，造成了不必要的混乱，应引以为训； （2）以本条为论，理解就有不同而且已经在译文中反映出来了； （3）“null and void”是叠床架屋式的法律陈词滥调，为法律文体学所不齿，改为“void”; （4）第二款的英译可大大精简如下，请指正： A void civil activity is void ab initio. 原文： 第五十九条 下列民事行为，一方有权请求人民法院或者仲裁机关予以变更或者撤销： 译文：Article 59. A party shall have the right to request a people's court or an arbitration agency to alter or rescind the following civil acts: (1) those performed by an actor who seriously misunderstood the contents of the acts; (2) those that are obviously unfair. Rescinded civil acts shall be null and void from the very beginning. (LAB) Article 59. In the case of the following civil acts, one of the parties has the right to petition the People’s Court or an arbitration organ to modify or rescind the act: (i) an act where the actor seriously misunderstands the content of the act; (ii) an act where there is a clear loss of fairness. Civil legal acts which are rescinded are invalid from the time of commencement of the act. (CCH) Article 59. With respect to the following civil acts, any party has the right to request the people’s courts or an arbitration agency to modify or annul them: (1) acts where the actor is grossly mistaken about the substance of the act; (2) acts which are manifestly unfair. Civil acts that are annulled shall be invalid from the time such acts commence. (CLR) 述评：（1）LAB又乱用“shall”了，而且用得特别不通――“shall have the right”就是“有义务拥有……权”不啻变权利为义务了！LAB应好好向CCH和CLR学习――至少在这一点上。 （2）第二款的译文LAB和CLR均误作“shall be”应向CCH学习――CCH正确地用了没有“shall”的“are”。 （3）“仲裁机关”CCH作“arbitration organ”而LAB与CLR又均作“arbitration agency”[完全可以被误解为“仲裁代理（机关）”！]。据笔者印象，习惯上似乎多作“arbitration court/institute”; (4)本条第二款可作如下译： A revoked civil activity is void ab initio. 原文：第六十条 民事行为部分无效，不影响其他部分的效力的，其他部分仍然有效。 译文：Article 60. If part of a civil act is null and void, it shall not affect the validity of other parts. (LAB) Article 60. The partial invalidity of a civil legal act shall not affect the validity of other parts, which shall remain valid. (CCH) Article 60. Where a civil act is partially invalid, but this does not affect the validity of the other parts of the civil act, the other parts of the civil act remain valid. (CLR) 述评：（1）由译文以观，三家译文有两种不同的理解――LAB与CCH是一种理解而且是一种错误的理解和翻译；CLR又是一种理解而且是一种正确的理解和翻译，但似乎也不够精确。 （2）如下译法是否会精确一点呢？请看： If a partially void civil activity does not affect the validity of its other part or parts, the other part or parts remain valid. 原文：第六十一条 民事行为被确认为无效或者被撤销后，当事人因该行为取得的财产，应当返还给受损失的一方。有过错的一方应当赔偿对方因此所受的损失，对方都有过错的，应当各自承担相应的责任。双方恶意串通，实施民事行为损害国家的、集体的或者第三人的利益的，应当追缴双方取得的财产，收归国家、集体所有或者返还第三人。 译文：Article 61. After a civil act has been determined to be null and void or has been rescinded, the party who acquired property as a result of the act shall return it to the party who suffered a loss. The erring party shall compensate the other party for the losses it suffered as a result of the act; if both sides are in error, they shall each bear their proper share of the responsibility. If the two sides have conspired maliciously and performed a civil act that is detrimental to the interests of the state, a collective or a third party, the property that they thus obtained shall be recovered and turned over to the state or the collective, or returned to the third party. (LAB) Article 61. After a civil act is confirmed invalid or is rescinded, the party concerned shall return the property obtained as a result of the act to the party which has suffered loss. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for any resulting loss. Where both parties are at fault, each shall undertake respective liability. Where both parties collaborate with ill intent to harm State or collective interests or the interests of a third party, both parties shall be required to hand over the property they have acquired, ownership of which shall revert to the State or collective or return it to the third party. (CCH) Article 61. After a civil act has been confirmed as invalid or annulled, the party concerned should return property acquired through such act to the injured party. The party at fault should compensate the other party for any damage he may have sustained as a result. If both parties are at fault, each should undertake appropriate responsibility. If both parties conspired maliciously to carry out civil acts that violate the rights and interests of the State, a collective or a third party, then the property which the parties have obtained must be recovered and returned to State or collective ownership or to the third party. (CLR) 述评：（1）“有过错的一方”LAB译作“the erring party”至少是不明确的、模棱两可的――有过错，还是出差错？幸好CCH和CLR译作“the party at fault” 是明确的、贴切的。 （2）“受损失的一方”LAB作“the party who suffered a loss”而不作“the party who has suffered a loss”或“the party who suffers a loss”――用了过去时，意味着损失已不存在矣。 （3）LAB上列译法，与CCH和CLR所译的非常贴切的“the injured party”相比，更见其短――何等clumsy！ （4）LAB把前后两个指同一内涵的损失的“损失”，译成先单（the loss）后复（the losses）了。这是错的：“suffered”是“a loss”（而不是losses），而“compensate the other party for”即要赔偿的却“losses”了，这公平吗？！ （5）立法原文第二款也有问题：在法律上，对恶意的双方来说，国家和集体都是第三人，因此“国家的、集体的或者第三人的利益”是不合逻辑、文理不通的，必须更正为“国家的、集体的或者其他第三人的利益”或“国家、集体等第三人的利益”。 （6）第二款末立法原文又在浪费笔墨了――应精简节约并维护民事立法体在法律上的平等，更正为“收归国家、集体或者其他第三人”。这不是笔者无知之言，而是CLR的有知之译。CLR的译者已经深入了原文的实质，故能摆脱原文文字的繁琐；此乃LAB与CCH两译所不及者也。 （7）“恶意串通”只需用“collude”一词，意思就全都有了。奈三译不厌其烦，或者作“to conspire maliciously”或者用“to collaborate with ill intent”，何苦呢？！对了，既然提到了“to conspire”，那就只能直言：CLR用过去时conspired是错的，LAB（用现在完成时）、CCH（用现在时）都不用过去时是对的，值得LAB学习。 （8）试改译本条第二款如下，供评论： If both parties collude in their civil activity or activities to violate the rights and interests of the state, a collective, or some other third party or parties, the property the two parties appropriate shall be recovered and returned to the state, the collective, or the third party or parties, as the ease may be. 原文：第六十二条 民事法律行为可以附条件，附条件的民事法律行为在符合所附条件时生效。 译文：Article 62. A civil juristic act may have conditions attached to it. Conditional civil juristic acts shall take effect when the relevant conditions are met. (LAB) Article 62. Conditions may be attached to civil legal acts. Civil legal acts with conditions attached become valid upon fulfillment of such conditions. (CCH) Article 62. Civil juristic acts may be conditional; conditional civil juristic acts shall become effective when the conditions are met. (CLR) 述评：（1）翻译的基础立于理解，所以就对本条立法的理解说一句决非题外之言：本条系片面立法。因附条件行为的条件可以是生效或成立条件，也可以是失效或解除条件，亦即先决条件（condition precedent）或后决条件（condition subsequent）。这里必须指出，我们一再表明过，此后仍将继续表明：立法文字未能曲尽立法原意时，译者务必不顾文字而通过文字探索立法之原意并传译之。但本条不属于上述情况。本条原文的文字非常达“意”即“立法意图”――但立法的意图是片面的。于兹场合，译者不能代立法者立意，而只能将错就错，译出立法者的片面或错误的意图来。这可说是法律英译者对待立法原文的政策界线。 （2）很不忍心再说，却又不得再说的是，本条法律所规定的是法律制度（即附条件民事法律行为之如此这般）乃“rules of law”之属而不是规定民事法律主体必须如此这般即不在“rules of conduct”，根本没有“shall”的立锥之地。因此，LAB与CLR又一次滥用了“shall”实属非是，必须以十分的虚心向不用“shall”的CCH学习，学习，再学习！ 原文：第二节 代理 译文：Section II Agency Article 63. Citizens and legal persons may perform civil juristic acts through agents. An agent shall perform civil juristic acts in the principal's name within the scope of the power of agency. The principal shall bear civil liability for the agent's acts of agency. Civil juristic acts that should be performed by the principal himself, pursuant to legal provisions or the agreement between the two parties, shall not be entrusted to an agent. （LAB） Article 63. Citizens and legal persons may perform civil legal acts through an agent. An agent shall, within the scope of his agency, perform civil legal acts in the name of the principal. The principal shall assume civil liability for the representing acts of the agent. Civil legal acts which, according to law or express agreement between the interested parties, must performed by the principal may not be performed by an agent. (CCH) Article 63. Citizens and juristic persons may carry out civil juristic acts through an agent. Agents shall, within the limits of their rights as agents, carry out civil juristic acts in the name of the principal. The principal shall undertake civil responsibility for the agency acts of his agent. Civil juristic acts that should be carried out by the principal himself in accordance with the provisions of law or according to an agreement between the parties concerned shall not be done by agents. (CLR) 述评：（1）从立法文字来说，正如前已出现过的那样，如果法律规范对公民与法人不分 彼此，一视同仁，共同适用时，就不必反复使用“公民、法人”而只需称“人” 即收简练之效且无损立法意图于丝毫者，以“人”为上。因此，译文可据此 精简为“A person may…” （2）原文“依照法律规定或者按照双方当事人约定”被分别译为： A)”pursuant to legal provisions or the agreement between the two parties” (LAB) B)”according to law or express agreement between the interested parties” (CCH) C)”in accordance with the provisions of law or according to an agreement between the parties concerned” (CLR) 从而暴露三家译文的共同缺点：臃肿拖沓。其实完全可以译得大为简练以吻 合法律文字之要求的，如可试译为： “by act of the law or by agreement of parties” 显然，这许多译者的词典里是没有“act of the law”这个法律用语的吧。 者自己编的法律词典尚未出版，但笔者案头的The Oxford Companion to Law 中倒是有的。请看下列释义： D) Act of Party. An expression of the will or intention of a person, directed to the creation, transfer, or extinction of some right and having legal effect for the purpose, e.g. the execution of a conveyance. E) Act of the Law. The creation, transfer, or extinction of a right by the operation of some rule of law itself without the intervention or consent of a party concerned. Thus when a man writes a book the law confers copyright on him; if he becomes bankrupt, it transfers his assets to another; if time elapses, it extinguishes certain rights. Similarly the law itself imposes on a man duties not to injure fellow-men, and not to infringe the criminal law. 不过，更为直接的原因还是由于译者简练意识之贫乏。因为即使不识这两个法律术语，只要有简练意识，仍可予以精简的，如：“by law or by agreement”（较LAB节约一倍；较CCH和CLR精简了约两倍！）。请译者们牢记沙翁名言： BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT. （3）LAB和CLR两译都把“应当”都捂译为“should”了――这样的错误已非初犯，宜注意更正。好在CLR不用“should”是译对了的，值得LAB和CLR认真学习。 （4）“代理行为”以“act of agency”（LAB）或“agency act”（CLR）为当；“representing act”(CCH)比较罕用。 原文：第六十四条 代理包括委托代理、法定代理和指定代理。 委托代理人按照被代理人的委托行使代理权，法定代理人依照法律的规定行使代理权，指定代理人按照人民法院或者指定单位的指定行使代理权。 译文：Article 64. Agency shall include entrusted agency, statutory agency and appointed agency. An entrusted agent shall exercise the power of agency as entrusted by the principal; a statutory agent shall exercise the power of agency as prescribed by law; and an appointed agent shall exercise the power of agency as designated by a people's court or the appointing unit. (LAB) Article 64. Agency includes agency by mandate, statutory agency and designated agency. An appointed agent shall execute his agency rights in accordance with the principal’s appointment. A statutory agent shall execute his agency rights in accordance with the provisions of the law and a designated agent shall execute his agency rights as designated by the People’s Court or designating unit. (CCH) Article 64. Agency includes entrusted representation, legal representatives and appointed representatives. An entrusted agent exercises the power of agency in accordance with the entrustment by the principal; a legal representative exercises the power of agency in accordance with the provisions of law; and an appointed agent exercises the power of agency in accordance with the appointment by a people’s court or the appointing unit. 述评：（1）本条共两款，而CLR抹煞了款的接线，致使人们在述及某款时无法指称，其弊前已以评述。 （2）CLR对本条原文第一款的译文有处理不当之处，非常典型：大大冒犯了法律翻译的译名同一律――把四个“代理”分译为agency和representation了。须知尽管agency与representation在美国英语中有时可以相通，但一般来说，是两个不同的概念，比如说“代理处”是“agency”，而“representation”则是“代表处”！不，CLR不只是把四个“代理”分别译成“agency”和“representation”――还有两个“representatives”呢！在短短的一款原文中四个同一涵义的“代理”竟被分译为三个不同的英语词，这不是粗暴地践踏法律英译中的同名同义同译的译名同一律吗？！CLR必须好好向LAB与CCH用同一个“agency”译四个同一涵义的“代理”。严格遵守译名同一律的榜样看齐。但CCH用“agency by mandate”译“委托代理”又用“appointed agent”译“委托代理人”，又与CLR同病了。 （3）LAB和CCH的第一款译文犯了文理不通和文法不通两种错误：一个“Agency”怎么能“includes”一个又一个再一个共三个不同的agency呢？必须更正如下： A) “Agency” refers hereunder to … agency, … agency, or…agency.或 B) Agencies include…agency, …agency, and… agency. （4）本条其他问题还有；恕不细大不捐，面面俱到。 原文：第六十五条 民事法律行为的委托代理，可以用书面形式，也可以用口头形式。法律规定用书面形式的，应当用书面形式。书面委托代理的授权委托书应当载明代理人的姓名或者名称、代理事项、权限和期间，并由委托人签名或者盖章。 译文：Article 65. A civil juristic act may be entrusted to an agent in writing or orally. If legal provisions require the entrustment to be written, it shall be effected in writing. Where the entrustment of agency is in writing, the power of attorney shall clearly state the agent's name, the entrusted tasks and the scope and duration of the power of agency, and it shall be signed or sealed by the principal. If the power of attorney is not clear as to the authority conferred, the principal shall bear civil liability towards the third party, and the agent shall be held jointly liable. (LAB) Article 65. An appointment of agency for civil legal acts may be in written or oral form. Where required by law to be in written form, it shall be in written form. An appointment of agency in writing shall clearly state the personal or business name of the agent, the matters subject to agency, the limitations and duration of agency and shall bear the signature or seal of the principal. If the written appointment of agency is not clear, the principal shall undertake civil liability toward any third parties. The agent shall bear joint liability. (CCH) Article 65. An agency may be entrusted for civil juristic acts in written or oral form. Where the law provides for written form, a written form should be used. The authorization in the document entrusting power of agency shall clearly record the name or title of the agent, the items subject to the agency, the limits of the power, the duration of the agency, and the signature or seal of the entrusting person. In cases where the authorization in the document of entrustment is unclear, the principal should undertake civil responsibility toward third persons, and the agent should be jointly liable. (CLR) 述评：（1）学生应考，首先必须审题；否则，连考题都没有搞清楚就乱做一气，哪有不名落孙山，一败涂地的。法律英译也一样，得首先吃透原文才是。本条第一句原文，其话题是“委托代理”而不是“民事法律行为”。这一点，CCH与CLR两译是做到了；但LAB则否――竟反其道而译之为“A civil juristic act may be entrusted”了。 （2）CLR又把原文“应当”误译为“should”了。应向其他两译（LAB和CCH均作“shall”是对的）好好学习，天天向上。 （3）“授权委托书”有译作“power of attorney”（LAB）的、“appointment of agency in writing”（CCH）的和“document entrusting power of agency”（CLR）的。可见，多数译者还不懂“power of attorney”和“power of agency”的确切含义，特别是后者。从下列引文可以知道，在英语，“power of attorney”本身就是“（授权）委托书”却不是“授权”。至于“power of agency”则是德译英的产物，涵义亦不同于“power of attorney”，故CLR以之译“（授权）委托书”似有未当。请看： The authority of an agent to act on behalf of his principal, where not given by legal rules, is created by an act of the principal. The agent’s power derived under such and act is termed Vollmacht in German law, and is here translated by the term ‘power of agency’. The English term ‘power of attorney’… is inappropriate, as it suggests the idea of a formal document, whereas the German power of agency can be conferred informally and even by implication. The rule of English law, according to which an authority to execute a contract under seal must be given by deed under seal, has no counterpart in German law, it being expressly enacted that the declaration of intention, by which a power of agency is conferred, need not be made in the form required for the act which it authorizes.―B.G.B.167(2) --The Principles of German Civil Law, p.116 这就是说，“授权委托书”一语的英译，CCH与CLR所译均不恰当，以LAB的“power of attorney”为是。 原文：第六十六条 没有代理权、超越代理权或者代理权终止后的行为，只有经过被代理人的追认，被代理人才承担民事责任。未经追认的行为，由行为人承担民事责任。本人知道他人以本人名义实施民事行为而不作否认表示的，视为同意。 译文：Article 66. The principal shall bear civil liability for an act performed by an actor with no power of agency, beyond the scope of his power of agency or after his power of agency has expired, only if he recognizes the act retroactively. If the act is not so recognized, the performer shall bear civil liability for it. If a principal is aware that a civil act is being executed in his name but fails to repudiate it, his consent shall be deemed to have been given. An agent shall bear civil liability if he fails to perform his duties and thus causes damage to the principal. If an agent and a third party in collusion harm the principal's interests, the agent and the third party shall be held jointly liable. If a third party is aware that an actor has no power of agency, is overstepping his power of agency, or his power of agency has expired and yet joins him in a civil act and thus brings damage to other people, the third party and the actor shall be held jointly liable. (LAB) Article 66. Civil liability for acts performed without agency, beyond the scope of agency or after termination of agency rights shall only be assumed by the principal following ratification by the principal. The actor shall assume civil liability for acts not ratified by the principal. Failure on the part of the principal to deny an act which he is aware of being performed in his name by another person shall be deemed to be consent. If an agent does not fulfill his duties and thereby causes the principal to suffer damage, he shall assume civil liability. If an agent and a third party collaborates to harm the interests of the principal, the agent and the third party shall bear joint liability. If a third party performs a civil act with an actor while aware that the actor is without agency rights, is exceeding his scope of authority or that such authority has terminated, and thereby causes damage to another person, the third party and the actor shall bear joint liability. (CCH) Article 66. The principal takes civil responsibility for acts where there is no power of agency or exceeding the power of agency or after the power of agency has terminated only if they have been ratified by the principal. As to ungratified acts, the actor bears civil responsibility for such acts. A principal who knows that another person uses his name to carry out civil acts and fails to indicate his denial shall be deemed to consent to such acts. When an agent fails to perform his duties thus causing losses to his principal, he should undertake civil responsibility. When an agent colludes with a third person to harm the rights and interests of his principal, the agent and the third person shall bear joint liability. When a third person knows that an actor has no power of agency or has exceeded the power of agency or that the power of agency has terminated, yet still carries out civil acts with the actor thus causing harm to anthers, the third person and the actor shall bear joint liability. (CLR) 述评：（1）原文第一款“代理权终止后”，说了等于不说，不如不说。立法者多说了不起作用的废话照译，而应该在无损立法原意的前提下废话不译，保证法律文字之精练。理由很简单：“代理权终止”就是上文所已经说过的“没有代理权”了（已经“终止”即“死”了，还能有代理权吗？！）；再说，“代理权终止后”还要有什么“代理”行为，也不必再说，就是上文已经说了的“超越代理权”。所以说“代理权终止后”是地地道道的立法废话，应该坚决有前提地不予译出，以正法律文风。 （2）第二款在“没有代理权”的情况下，是不可能有“代理人”的；在这一意义上，“被代理人”就只有50%存在理由（raison d’etre）了――译者不得不在译文中予以弥补。 （3）同一内涵的概念在本条立法原文中被异化为二：“被代理人”和“本人”，既损害了法律内容的精确度，又违反了用语同一律，是立方者的又一败笔。译文必须使之同一，以资弥补。 （4）本条共仅四款，但CLR把第一款分为两款，这样全条多了一款，共有五款了。其弊前已评述，不赘。 （5）本条译文应就精确与简练两个方面力求完善。为此，试译如下，以示参与，并请指正： A principal or potential principal is civilly liable for an actor’s act without or beyond agency power only if he approves of the act. Where no approval is available, it is the actor that bears the civil liability. A principal’s failure to negate the juristic act done in his name to his knowledge means his approval of the act. Failing in his agency duty to the prejudice of his principal, an agent shall bear the civil liability. An agent and a third party collude to cause damage to the principal are jointly and severally liable therefore. A party knowingly transacts with someone acting without or beyond agency power to the prejudice of another is liable jointly and severally with the ultra vires actor for the damage(s) caused. 原文：第六十七条 代理人知道被委托代理的事项违法仍然进行代理活动的，或者被代理人知道代理人的代理行为违法不表示反对的，由被代理人和代理人负连带责任。 译文：Article 67. If an agent is aware that the matters entrusted are illegal but still carries them out, or if a principal is aware that his agent's acts are illegal but fails to object to them, the principal and the agent shall be held jointly liable. (LAB) Article 67. If an agent knows that the matter in which he is appointed to act as agent are illegal and nevertheless carries out his agency activities or if a principal is aware that the actions of an agent are illegal and fails to object, the principal and agent shall bear joint liability. (CCH) Article 67. When an agent knows that the items entrusted to agency violate the law, but still carries out the agency activities, or when the principal knows that the agent’s acts as agent violate the law, but does not express opposition, the principal and the agent shall bear joint liability. (CLR) 述评：（1）以“entrust”译“委托”（前已有之，为笔者所不取，但未予述评），是否有歧义（“委托”与“信托”）？而“appoint”（CCH）呢（“委托”与“指定”？） （2）试译如下，作补充述评： If either an agent knows what he is authorized to do is illegal but nevertheless acts accordingly or a principal knows that his agent’s act is illegal but nevertheless raises no objection thereto, then both are jointly and severally liable. 原文：第六十八条 委托代理人为被代理人的利益需要转托他人代理的，应当事先取得被代理人的同意。事先没有取得被代理人同意的，应当在事后及时告诉被代理人，如果被代理人不同意，由代理人对自己所转托的人的行为负民事责任，但在紧急情况下，为了保护被代理人的利益而转托他人代理的除外。 译文：Article 68. If in the principal's interests an entrusted agent needs to transfer the agency to another person, he shall first obtain the principal's consent. If the principal's consent is not obtained in advance, the matter shall be reported to him promptly after the transfer, and if the principal objects, the agent shall bear civil liability for the acts of the transferee; however, an entrusted agency transferred in emergency circumstances in order to safeguard the principal's interests shall be excepted. （LAB） Article 68. If, in the interests of a principal, an appointed agent finds it necessary to appoint a sub-agent, he shall obtain the prior permission of the principal. If he does not obtain the prior permission of the principal, he shall notify the principal promptly after the event. In the event that the principal does not agree, the agent shall bear civil liability for the acts of the sub-agent appointed by him, except where the sub-agent has been appointed under emergency conditions for the purpose of protecting the interests of the principal. (CCH) Article 68. Whenever the entrusted agent, in the interest of the principal, must appoint a subagent, he should obtain the consent of the principal in advance. If he cannot obtain the principal’s consent in advance, he must notify the principal after the action has been taken in timely fashion. If the principal does not consent, the agent shall bear civil responsibility for the acts of the subagent he appointed, unless the subagent was appointed under emergency conditions to protect the interests of the principal. (CLR) 述评：本条译文应如何进一步精确简练？以下列试译权充对各细节的述评： A principal-authorized agent who needs to delegate a subagent in the principal’s interests shall first obtain the principal’s consent. Which failing, he shall immediately notify the principal post facto of the delegation. Absent the principal’s consent the agent shall be liable in civil law for his subagent’s act(s), unless the delegation is meant for protecting the principal’s interests in an emergency. 原文：第六十九条 有下列情形之一的，委托代理终止： 译文：Article 69. An entrusted agency shall end under any of the following circumstances: (1) when the period of agency expires or when the tasks entrusted are completed; (2) when the principal rescinds the entrustment or the agent declines the entrustment; (3) when the agent dies; (4) when the principal loses his capacity for civil conduct; or (5) when the principal or the agent ceases to be a legal person. (LAB) Article 69. Should any one of the following conditions exist, the appointed agency shall terminate” (i) expiration of the period of agency or completion of the matters entrusted to the agent; (ii) cancellation of the appointment by the principal or resignation from the appointment by the agent; (iii) death of the agent; (iv) loss by the agent of capacity for civil acts; (v) termination of the legal person constituting the principal or the agent. (CCH) Article 69. Entrusted representation shall terminate in any of the following situations: (1) the time period of the agency has expired or the task of the agent has been completed; (2) the principal cancels the entrustment or the agent resigns from the entrustment; (3) the agent dies; (4) the agent loses his capacity for civil activity; (5) a juristic person that was the principal or that was the agent is terminated. (CLR) 述评：（1）笔者在感情上真不想再谈，但是在理智上又深感责任重大，非说不可。正如爱滋病例频繁出现，做医生的不能望之生厌不予重复治疗一样，笔者也只得在旧事重提（说不清已经是多少次了，上列三译中三个“shall”病毒又来作乱了，必须一个个地斩草除根！）：须知本条规定是法律本身的规则（rule of law），即规定委托代理的终止制度，因此根本没有“shall”的立锥之地。国际间中国法律英译的译者同仁们，谨以尊重中国法的名义、谨以保证中国法英译的国际质量的名义，请勿再滥用“shall”了，切记，切记！ （2）LAB的译文“（1）――（5）”中每项都有一个“when”总共有5个“when”。这5个“when”为什么不合五为一，只留下一位“when”并把他请到上文“circumstances”与冒号“：”之间去好好地就座？！――当然这唯一的一个“when”还是改名“where”更彻底。法律英译的诀窍之一，别忘了，是力求简练――在精确的前提下。 （3）还有一条规律性的体会：“有下列情况之一者”的英译千万不要不问场合一律硬译为“in any of the following circumstances”――凡可以“if”“where”或“when”译之者，决不用需6倍兵力的“under (或in) any of the following circumstances”。译者作为词语兵的总指挥而调兵遣将，要千万爱惜自己手下的词语兵――哪怕是一兵一卒都要爱惜，切莫浪费兵力！ （4）请看笔者的试译并结合三种原有译文展开评比指正： A principal-delegated agency terminates if (1) the agency expires or its business is completed; (2) either the principal revokes the delegation or the agent quits; (3) the agent dies; (4) the principal loses his disposing capacity; or (5) the agent- or principal-legal person ceases to be. 原文：第七十条 有下列情形之一的，法定代理或者指定代理终止： 译文：Article 70. A statutory or appointed agency shall end under any of the following circumstances: (1) When the principal gains or recovers capacity for civil conduct; (2) When the principal or the agent dies; (3) When the agent loses capacity for civil conduct; (4) When the people's court or the unit that appointed the agent rescinds the appointment; or (5) When the guardian relationship between the principal and the agent ends for other reasons. (LAB) Article 70. Should any one of the following conditions exist, the statutory agency or designated agency shall terminate: (i) acquisition or resumption of capacity for civil acts by the principal; (ii) death of the principal or agent; (iii) loss by the agent of capacity for civil acts; (iv) cancellation of designated agency by the People’s Court or designating unit; (v) dissolution, due to other reasons, of the guardianship between a principal and an agent. (CCH) Article 70. Legal representation or appointed representation terminates in any of the following situations: (1) the principal obtains or recovers the capacity for civil activity; (2) the principal or the agent dies; (3) the agent loses his capacity for civil activity; (4) the people’s court or the unit that appointed the agent cancels the appointment; (5) other reasons which arise to eliminate the guardianship relation between the principal and the agent. (CLR) 述评：(1)CLR较其在上条中已有进步，已经不再屈服于“shall” 病毒，已经只用“terminates”而不用“shall”了――值得三呼“欢迎”，大声叫“好”！但令人痛惜的是LAB与CCH却沉疴依旧，宿疾难愈，积重难返，仍在“shall…”、“shall…”，为“shall”病毒所困！ （2）兹改译如下： A statutory or a designated agency terminates when: (1) the principal obtains or recovers his disposing capacity; (2) either the principal or the agent dies; (3) the agent loses his disposing capacity; (4) the court- or the institute-designator of an agent recalls the designation; or (5) the guardianship of the agent toward the principal dissolves owing to some other cause. （3）必须注意LAB所犯的一个独特错误：即虽然在前文用了“any of the following”而“following”的（4）与（5）之间的连词却用了“or”――应该用的当然是“and”。 |
 |
法规翻译 2006第1期
来源：
发布时间：
阅读次数：
【相关报道】