我爱竞赛网

 找回密码
 立即注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

分享到:
2019-4-20 10:32| 评论: 0 | 1774

第十届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛

摘要: 答题截止时间:2019年6月16日||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和翻译人才。

第十届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛

答题截止时间:2019年6月16日

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和翻译人才。

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,至今已成功举办九届,共有3000余名来自近200所高校的本科生、研究生及已工作的青年法律翻译爱好者参赛。大赛影响日益扩大,受到《文汇报》《法制日报》《中国社会科学报》《新民晚报》《英语世界》等报刊及上海教育门户网站、上海教育电视台的关注和报道。

三、组织机构
(一)主办单位
华东政法大学
全国翻译专业学位(MTI)研究生教育指导委员会
教育部高等学校翻译专业(BTI)教学协作组
中国翻译协会法律翻译委员会
(二)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
华东政法大学法律翻译研究所
华东政法大学法律语言学研究所
(三)协办单位
上海市法学会法学翻译研究会
商务印书馆《英语世界》杂志社
《法制日报》社
上海外服国际人才培训中心
英国皇家特许语言家学会中国分会(CIOL China Association)

四、大赛组委会
(一)大赛顾问(按姓氏拼音排序)
何勤华(原华东政法大学校长、教授、博士生导师、全国外国法制史研究会会长)
许钧(浙江大学文科资深教授、博士生导师、中国译协常务副会长、全国翻译专业学位研究生教育指导委员会副主任委员)
仲伟合(广东省翻译协会会长、原广东外语外贸大学校长、教授、博士生导师、中国译协常务副会长、全国翻译专业学位研究生教育指导委员会副主任委员)
(二)历届颁奖嘉宾与评委名单(按姓氏拼音排序)


五、决赛获奖证书盖章
“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛组委会
全国翻译专业学位研究生教育指导委员会
教育部高等学校翻译专业教学协作组
中国翻译协会法律翻译委员会

六、参赛对象
欢迎全国各高校各专业在校本科生、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,参赛年龄需在40周岁以下(1979年1月1日以后出生)。

七、比赛方式
比赛分为初赛和决赛两轮。初赛为英译汉(笔译);决赛包括英译汉和汉译英,均为笔译。试题形式包括法学学术文章翻译、法律法规翻译、律师常用法律文书翻译等。
(一)初赛
初赛采取开卷方式,共两道试题,均需翻译(每道试题字数后的参考来源不用翻译)。译文文责自负,选手务必独立完成,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答题,并于2019年6月16日(含)前将试题译文及《初赛选手信息表》(见下文)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(学校名或单位名)+选手姓名”,同时发送填写完整的《初赛选手信息表》,文档命名格式为“XXX(姓名)大赛报名表”。
译文正文内不要出现译者任何个人信息,否则将被视为无效译文。收到参赛译文后,邮箱自动回复确认邮件,没有收到回复的选手请再次发送答案,直至收到回复。收到回复的,请勿重复发送答案。
(二)决赛
初赛成绩排名前50名的参赛选手可进入决赛。请关注“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛网站(http://hzb.ecupl.edu.cn)、华东政法大学外语学院官方网站(http://www.wyxy.ecupl.edu.cn)公布的入围名单。组委会将向进入决赛选手的电子信箱和手机分别发送入围通知。初赛及决赛参赛者均无需缴纳任何报名费用,入围考生参加决赛的交通费及食宿费等自理。
决赛地点设在华东政法大学长宁校区(上海市长宁区万航渡路1575号)。入围决赛选手凭身份证和学生证入场,统一参加考试。决赛以纯闭卷形式进行。

八、赛程安排
1、2019年4月15日—6月16日公布初赛试题。选手可在此期间将答卷发送至指定电子信箱,收到回复后不得重复投递。6月16日之后停止接收答卷。
2、2019年6月21日— 6月27日初赛评卷。
3、2019年6月28日公布入围决赛选手名单(请见“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛网站、华东政法大学外语学院官方网站)。
4、2019年7月6日9:00—11:00决赛。地点设在华东政法大学长宁校区(具体考场另行公布)。

九、奖项设置
本次比赛将设特等奖1名,一等奖4名,二等奖8名,三等奖20名,优胜奖12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。
英国皇家特许语言家学会中国分会还将为决赛中胜出的前5位选手提供奖学金,每位3000元,仅限用于参加CIOL“DipTans”高级翻译文凭考试(英国承认的硕士研究生级别的学位证书考试,原英联邦多个成员国的专业翻译上岗证书)。
特等奖获得者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中心特邀法律翻译人员”的邀请函,参与中心的法律翻译业务,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务与学术研讨会。知名律所当场向特等奖获得者和一等奖获得者颁发兼职译员证书。

十、颁奖仪式
颁奖仪式将于2019年7月7日上午在华东政法大学长宁校区举行,届时将邀请全国法律翻译界、法律界、翻译界名家出席颁奖典礼。
大赛组委会设在华东政法大学松江校区集英楼C202室。大赛事务联系人:王老师。联系电话:021-57090148。

“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛组委会

2019年4月15日


第十届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛
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。本人同意主办方将我的参赛译文作为教学材料使用。
                                                                           年 月 日


第十届“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛初赛试题
试题一:
One of the biggest mistakes I made early on as an entrepreneur was hiring cheap lawyers or not using an expensive lawyer nearly enough, thinking I was saving money for my business. But over the years, the school of hard knocks taught me just how expensive cheap legal help can be.

I don’t recall ever meeting anyone who actually enjoys writing a check to an attorney. Frankly I can’t recall meeting many people who enjoy lawyers at all – not the individuals themselves, but the idea of having to have a lawyer in the first place. Heaven would be a world where the need for lawyers didn’t even exist – where everyone could be trusted to uphold their word, where no one would ever have misunderstood expectations in their agreements, and where a simple conversation could settle any dispute that arose. But we aren’t in heaven – not yet anyway – and we certainly aren’t living in a perfect world, so the cold hard truth is that when push comes to shove, you better be hoping to heaven you have a great lawyer there to have your back.

Let’s start with the importance of a contract. When I first started a business I was embarrassed to even mention the word contract. I thought that by even suggesting it I would morally offend the other party, causing them to believe I didn’t trust them. I wanted to be the person that took people at their word and believed that everyone had good intentions. Asking for a contract, in my mind, went totally against that. It wasn’t until one day I had a call with my father, who happened to be a former FBI agent, that I first understood why my thinking had been incorrect

When I shared with him my embarrassment about asking for contracts, he simply stated that the contract wasn’t to say “I don’t trust you.” Rather, the contract was there to make sure that I had laid out in writing exactly what my expectations and understanding of our agreement was, and so that the other person could review those and make sure that they expected and understood the exact same terms that I did. Putting it in writing, he explained, was about entering into a relationship with open and honest expectations from both sides up front, so that everyone was clear from the get-go on what they understood.

His explanation was like a light bulb going off in my head. No longer did it seem like an offense to do a clear contract with someone. Instead, it was a service to one another to ensure that the relationship would produce a result that both parties could be happy with. From that point forward I became a huge advocate on the importance of having a contract that was very clear and detailed, that laid out every expectation, leaving no room for interpretation or misunderstanding, not out of a lack of trust, but out of a value and respect for the relationship with the other party.(502 words)

(Source:https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2013/06/04/nothing-is-more-expensive-than-a-cheap-lawyer/#76a0bd7e7d10)

试题二:

The later case of Zurich Insurance v Hayward [2017] A.C. 142 was the main case relied on by the judge. Insurers had settled a personal injury case despite doubts about the claimant’s injuries. They later discovered that the claimant had fully recovered a year before the settlement had been reached and brought an action in deceit claiming that he had fraudulently misrepresented the extent of his injuries. The Court of Appeal held that the insurers had not relied on the representation in reaching the settlement agreement because they had always had their suspicions about the claim. The Supreme Court allowed the insurers’ appeal holding that the fact that the insurers had not wholly believed the claimant did not preclude them from having been induced to reach the settlement by the claimant’s misrepresentation; they only had to prove that the misrepresentation had been “a material cause” of their reaching the settlement. Since the judge had held that it was a material cause, his order in their favour would be restored.

The question to be resolved was whether a representee had to show he believed the representation to which the Supreme Court returned a negative answer and, in one sense, the case is no more than an example of the principle set out in Edgington v Fitzmaurice that the representee only has to show that the representation was “a cause” of his entering the relevant contract. Indeed, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony (with whom Lord Neuberger PSC, Baroness Hale DPSC and Lord Reed JSC agreed) cited Barton v Armstrong for that very proposition. More importantly, for the present purpose, Lord Clarke relied on the existence of the presumption of inducement and agreed with the insurers’ submission that the presumption would have little value if the representee had to show that he believed the misrepresentation. He cited the relevant paragraph of Chitty (now para 7-041 of the 33rd edition) to the effect that it was a fair inference of fact though not of law that the representee will have been influenced by the representation: “and the inference is particularly strong where the misrepresentation was fraudulent.”(351 words)

(Source: Bv Nederlandse Industrie Van Eiprodukten v Rembrandt Enterprises, Inc. [2019] EWCA Civ 596)

(两道题目均为参赛试题,并非选做,且以此版发布为准。)


本文信息搜集整理自互联网,信息版权及活动解释权归主办单位所有,我爱竞赛网仅作媒体支持。



报名联系方式:

(一)初赛
初赛采取开卷方式,共两道试题,均需翻译(每道试题字数后的参考来源不用翻译)。译文文责自负,选手务必独立完成,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答题,并于2019年6月16日(含)前将试题译文及《初赛选手信息表》(见下文)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(学校名或单位名)+选手姓名”,同时发送填写完整的《初赛选手信息表》,文档命名格式为“XXX(姓名)大赛报名表”。
译文正文内不要出现译者任何个人信息,否则将被视为无效译文。收到参赛译文后,邮箱自动回复确认邮件,没有收到回复的选手请再次发送答案,直至收到回复。收到回复的,请勿重复发送答案。
(二)决赛
初赛成绩排名前50名的参赛选手可进入决赛。请关注“华政杯”全国法律翻译大赛网站(http://hzb.ecupl.edu.cn)、华东政法大学外语学院官方网站(http://www.wyxy.ecupl.edu.cn)公布的入围名单。组委会将向进入决赛选手的电子信箱和手机分别发送入围通知。初赛及决赛参赛者均无需缴纳任何报名费用,入围考生参加决赛的交通费及食宿费等自理。
决赛地点设在华东政法大学长宁校区(上海市长宁区万航渡路1575号)。入围决赛选手凭身份证和学生证入场,统一参加考试。决赛以纯闭卷形式进行。

    暂时没有组队需求,您可以发起新的组队。
标题
需求人才
联系方式
团队介绍
 
我爱竞赛网赛事交流总群
962764125
商业创业比赛交流群
920077277
设计广告比赛交流群
606056978
科技IT类比赛交流群
605731009
学科技能比赛交流群
749922526
选秀歌唱比赛交流群
829587892
兴趣爱好比赛交流群
940909818
公益志愿者交流群
963518380
青年机遇信息交流群
921345431

最新评论

本月同类热门 · · · · · · ( 更多 )

全站热门信息 · · · · · · ( 更多 )

获奖作品分享 · · · · · · ( 更多 )

    比赛经验交流 · · · · · · ( 更多 )

      返回顶部