联合国中文翻译考试题目及答案（原创答案）

YOU MUST TRANSLATE BOTH TOPIC 1 AND TOPIC 2 

Topic 1: Distributive justice 

How can the distribution of social goods in a society be just? Utopian visionaries throughout history have given answers to this question and, to the extent to which these answers varied, have set off ideological controversies as well as wars. Questions that need to be settled by dogma or force, however, are liable to have no answers at all. Presumably it is this insight that has led many sober-minded students in the fields of sociology, economics and political science to abandon the question of how distributive justice can be realized, replacing it with the question of why the belief in distributive justice is illusory. 

在一个社会当中，怎样分配社会善才是公平的呢？古往今来，乌托邦空想家们已经对这一问题作出了种种回答，这些形形色色的答案大相径庭，以至于不仅引起了意识形态上的争论，甚而引发了战争。然而，如果问题需要依靠教条或者武力来加以解决，此类问题很可能根本没有答案。如此看来，也许正是源于这种认识，使得众多社会学、经济学、政治学领域的明智学生不再沉迷于“分配正义如何实现”这一问题，而以“为什么相信分配的公平性就不切实际”的问题取而代之。

Posed from this perspective the question gains complexity as well as openness. There may be many answers. None of these answers can claim to be the ultimate one but, summed, they may contribute to our understanding of the forces inhibiting or facilitating distributive social justice. 

从这个角度来看，分配公平的问题不仅日益复杂，而且始终开放。答案可能多种多样，层出不穷。没有哪个答案能声称其就是最终的答案，不过总的说来，这些答案有助于我们理解究竟是哪些因素起着抑制或促进社会分配公平性的作用。

I attempt to address one of the many aspects of the illusion of distributive justice, focusing on the conceptual distinction between realizing vs. perceiving distributive justice. Distributive social justice is liable to be 'illusory' on both accounts. It can be illusory because, contrary to the beliefs we may have, it may be impossible for the distribution of social goods to be just regardless of what we do. For instance, the 'impossibility theorem', according to which collective social welfare functions cannot be determined, is directed towards the destruction of this type of illusion. Distributive justice, however, can also be illusory because the perception we have of it does not mirror reality adequately. 

分配公平的不现实表现在诸多方面，笔者着眼于“分配公平的实现”与“分配公平的认识”概念之间的差异，试图从一个方面来阐述分配公平的不现实。分配的社会公平性之所以“虚无缥缈”，在于两个原因。与我们已有的信念相反，社会善的公平分配可能是一种假象——因为无论我们怎样努力，社会善也不可能实现公平的分配。例如，根据“不可能定理”，共同的社会福利职能无法确定——这足以令此类幻想破灭。不过，社会善的公平分配之所以是一种假象，也可能由于我们对它的认识未能足以反映现实。

There is a certain causal relationship between the perceptual illusion and the illusory feasibility of distributive justice. Because if we perceive social distributions as just, even though this is not what they are, then nobody will attempt to strive for change. Thus we are left with distributions that are unjust for ever. That is, 'false' perceptions of distributive justice have social consequences that render the realization of distributive justice impossible. 

在感性的幻想和分配上的公平完全不可行之间，存在着一定的因果关系。因为，如果我们认为社会分配是公平的（即使不是真正意义上的），那么没有人会试图努力改变现状。因此，我们只能永远认为分配是不公平的。这就是说，恰恰就是对分配公平性的“错误”认识所产生的社会后果，使得分配上的公平无法实现。

 

Topic 2: Global Warming  

We are now faced with a momentous challenge: global warming. The steady deterioration of the very climate of our very planet is becoming a war of the first order, and by any measure, the U.S. is losing.  The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases each year and has stubbornly made it clear that it doesn't intend to do a whole lot about it. Although 174 nations ratified the admittedly flawed Kyoto accords to reduce carbon levels, the U.S. walked away from them. While even developing China has boosted its mileage standards to 35 m.p.g., the U.S. remains the land of the Hummer. 

全球变暖

   

我们正面临着一个重大的挑战——全球气候变暖。在我们唯一可以生活的这个星球中，我们赖以生存的气候正在不断恶化——这已经成为一场迫在眉睫的战争；而无论以何种标准来衡量，美国都正在节节败退。尽管美国每年排放的温室气体占世界温室气体总量的近四分之一，它却依然固执地清楚表明：美国并不打算为制止全球变暖付出努力。虽然有174个国家批准了存在公认缺陷的《京都议定书》，以降低二氧化碳的水平，美国却一意孤行。甚至当作为发展中国家的中国已经将其里程标准改进到35哩/加仑时，美国还是悍马这类大排量汽车所奔驰的世界。

 

The rub is, if the vast majority of people increasingly agree that climate change is a global emergency, there's far less consensus on how to fix it. Industry offers its plans, which too often would fix little. Environmentalists offer theirs, which too often amount to naive wish lists that could cripple America 's growth. But what would an aggressive, ambitious, effective plan look like—one that would leave us both environmentally safe and economically sound? 

矛盾在于：如果说绝大多数人都日益认同气候变化是一项全球紧急事务，就这一问题的解决方法却远未形成共识。工业界提出了各种计划，几乎往往于事无补。环保人士提出了他们的计划，往往是削弱美国经济增长的一揽子天真愿望。但一个积极进取、雄心勃勃、具有实效的计划——在实现环境安全的同时，也能确保经济运行良好的计划，将会是什么样子呢？

   

Halting climate change will be far harder than even that. One of the more conservative plans for addressing the problem calls for a reduction of 25 billion tons of carbon emissions over the next 50 years. And yet by devising a coherent strategy that mixes short-term solutions with farsighted goals, combines government activism with private-sector enterprise and blends pragmatism with ambition, the U.S. can, without major damage to the economy, help halt the worst effects of climate change and ensure the survival of our way of life for future generations. Money will get us part of the way there, but what's needed most is will. 

制止气候变化的困难程度将远甚于这种计划的制订。在解决这一问题的众多计划当中，一种较为保守的方案要求在未来50年减少25亿吨二氧化碳排放量。然而，通过制定一项连贯的战略，将短期方案与长远目标有机结合起来，充分发挥出政府与私营企业的能动性，将万丈雄心化作脚踏实地的行动，美国可以在不对经济造成重大损害的情况下，帮助制止气候变化带来的极恶劣影响，确保我们的生活方式延续到子孙后代。金钱能让我们实现部分目标，然而最为急缺的是决心。