翻譯學與國際法的相遇：《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》兩中文本的歧異

When Translation Studies Meet International Law: Divergences between the Two Chinese Versions of the ICCPR

陳雅齡(Yaling Chen)

《SPECTRUM ： NCUE Studies in Language, Literature, Translation》 14卷1期 (2016/01) Pp. 89-114

摘要

本研究結合翻譯學與國際法的觀點，探討聯合國盟約國於1966 年所簽署《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》(以下簡稱ICCPR 或本公約) 至今的兩種中文本。目前，已知國際間因為條約文字所引起之相關爭議，多為條文某詞彙的解釋與翻譯問題，類似於本公約之中文本出現前後版本，且部分用語意義歧異，至屬罕見。ICCPR 最早中文本溯至1967 年，1973 年有新版本出現，自1978 年起收錄在聯合國人權彙編，現在聯合國官方網站掛的是這個新版本1。本論文共五部分，第一部分為研究動機與目的，第二部分文獻回顧主要整理國際法的基本概念，後半部陳述相關文獻的研究成果，第三部分針對條約兩中文本較明顯差異處依序作比較，同時對照英文本相關部分。第四部分歸納兩種中文本的主要差異，整理條約中同一法律詞彙的前後表達。研究發現，1973 年後來本受有英文作為強勢語言的影響，語言表達上甚至有中文西化的傾向，另外，後來本與1966 年的中文本有不少處語義分歧，甚至可能造成法律效果的不一致。本公約原有中文、英文、俄文、西班牙文及法文五種官方版本，如今聯合國網站及中國出現不同於當時的中文版本，國際間根據維也納條約法必須小心看待這問題。環顧今日全球化之結果國際關係愈來愈密切，多邊條約愈來愈重要，筆者期望這樣的研究角度能豐富翻譯學科的視野，並為台灣少數的法律翻譯研究注入活力。

關鍵字

法律翻譯 ； 國際法 ； 《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》 ； 條約解釋 ； 人權

並列摘要

In this study I compare the two Chinese versions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) from the perspective of both translation studies and international law. Currently in the knowledge of the author, the controversy arising from the usage of the words in the treaties are mostly related to interpretation of a certain term according to international law. It is quite rare to see a treaty come up with two versions in one official language, like what happens to the Chinese ICCPR. The earliest Chinese version of ICCPR was first drafted by the United Nations in 1967. Another Chinese version was completed in 1973, and since 1978 this new version^2 was found to be included in the United Nations corpus on human rights, and is currently the version which appears on the official website of the United Nations. There are five parts in this paper. In the first part I present the purpose and background of the study. In the second part I review important concepts of international law. In the third part I compare a number of articles with discrepancy in meaning in the two Chinese versions. In the fourth part I summarize the differences between the two Chinese versions, and collate the legal terminology. Results show that there are some divergent renderings in the later version, which might lead to different legal effects. Originally, the ICCPR has authentic texts in five languages, which are English, French, Chinese, Russian and Spanish. Now there appears a Chinese version which is different from the original Chinese version. It therefore deserves our attention according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). As the pace of globalization quickens, multilateral treaties are becoming important. I hope such a study will help to enrich the field of translation studies, especially the emerging field of legal translation in Taiwan.

並列關鍵字

legal international law ； International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ； treaty interpretation ； human rights ； legal translation