2008年联合国译员招聘考试初试题及参考译文
北京外国语大学高级翻译学院 李长栓
按：此为2008年联合国译员招聘考试初试题及参考译文（部分）。此译文并非联合国提供，仅供参考。
Topic 1: Distributive justice
话题1：分配公平
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.
一个社会如何分配社会产品才算公平？不同历史时期的空想家们给出了各种答案，甚至由于见解的不同，引发了意识形态斗争，直至兵
戎相见。然而，需要诉诸教条或武力的问题，往往根本就不存在答案。大概正是因为意识到了这一点，很多冷静的社会学、经济学和政治学的研究者纷纷放弃如何实现分配公平的问题，转而思考为何关于分配公平的信念仅是一种幻想。
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.
从这个角度看，分配公平的问题显得更加复杂和捉摸不定。这个问题的答案可能有多种。哪个答案都不能自诩为最终答案。但是，把所有答案综合起来看，或许有助于我们理解妨碍或推动社会分配公平的因素。
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.
分配公平在很多方面具有虚幻性，我将重点讨论其中之一，即分配公平的客观实现与分配公平的主观感受两个概念的区别。在这两个层面，社会分配公平都可能是“幻想”。这是因为（这可能与我们的想法相反），无论我们如何努力，或许都不可能实现社会产品的公平分配。比如，阿罗（Arrow）的“难能定理”（根据该定理，集体社会福利函数无法确定）即旨在摧毁此类幻想。另一方面，分配公平具有虚幻性是因为我们对分配公平的主观感受并没有恰当地反映客观现实。[1]
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. (330 words)
主观感受的虚幻性与分配公平的虚幻可行性之间存在着一定的因果关系。因为如果我们感到社会分配是公平的（虽然事实并非如此），就不会有人去尝试改变现状。这样一来，分配便永远处于不公之中。换言之，关于分配公平的“虚假”感受会带来社会后果，那就是让分配公平的目标永远无法实现。
说明：这篇最主要的问题是理解。在不查资料的情况下，很难准确把握原文的意思，找到适当的翻译方法。所以，考试需要一定的运气。碰到自己懂的，就能翻好；碰到不懂的，肯定无法译好。考不好并不意味着做不好翻译。因为做翻译就是一个查资料的过程。在实际翻译过程中，如果不懂，肯定要查清楚的。相反，一个人考得很好，那也可能是运气。如果不懂得查资料，即使侥幸通过考试，将来遇到困难的内容，还是翻译不好。
我在翻译的时候，进行了仔细调查。这篇短文的出处是http://www.jstor.org/pss/522527。这是在完成翻译初稿之后发现的。在发现出处之前，就已经加入了“阿罗”的名字。因为从其他资
料看到那个理论是他的理论。后来看到出处里面本来就有Arrow，让我更加感到自己翻译时加入这个人的名字是十分正确的。
Topic 2: Global Warming
话题2 全球变暖
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.
现在我们正面临一项巨大的挑战：全球变暖。地球气候持续恶化，正在演变成一场最紧要的战争，而从任何一个标准来看，美国都在节节败退。美国每年排放的温室气体占全球总量的近25%，并固执地声明它不打算采取大规模的减排措施。虽然有174个国家为降低碳排放水平已经批准了并不完美的京都议定书，可美国却不肯批准。就连发展中的中国也已将燃油经济标准提高到了每加仑35英里，而美国仍是悍马汽车的天下。
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