接下来的几年里，围绕这一问题的争端持续不断，一次又一次地申请仲裁、一次又一次地在世界各地的法院提起诉讼和反诉讼。此后，一家名为Farimex的公司也加入了这场纷争。Farimex是一家在英国维京群岛注册的公司，拥有VimpelCom 0.002%的股份。它向西伯利亚的法院起诉Telenor（Telenor在西伯利亚并没有业务）阻碍VimpelCom进入乌克兰市场。西伯利亚法庭下令Telenor支付28亿美元赔偿金，经上诉后赔偿金额降低到了17亿美元。就在Telenor拒绝支付赔偿，声称它还有权继续上诉时，另一家法院没收了Telenor在VimpelCom30%股份的大部分。6月19日，俄罗斯法院执行官下令拍卖这些股份，以筹集17亿美元赔偿金。在大多数国家，这一举动被称为充公。

Telenor表示，它相信Farimex案与它和Alfa集团的争端有关。Telenor还相信，如果公司解决了与Farimex之间的问题，那么它将可以与Alfa达成协议。Alfa集团老总米哈伊尔·弗里德曼则声称，Alfa与Telenor之间的纠葛和Farimex一点关系都没有，虽然他支持后者的起诉。挪威首相延斯·斯托尔滕贝格曾向俄罗斯总理弗拉基米尔·普京提起过Telenor争端，而普京表示政府是公正的。但正如Telenor指出的，普京先生本人也承认俄罗斯法院难以预料，亟需改革。

几天前宜家对俄罗斯投资环境的投诉是相关控诉中最明确的一次。这家瑞典连锁企业自2000年在莫斯科附近开设第一家店以来，在当地的经营发展速度很快。6月23日，宜家表示因为“行政程序的不可预测性”（这只是以权谋私的委婉说法），它将暂停在俄罗斯的投资。

世界银行开展了一项关于经商便利程度的调查。在被调查的181个国家中，俄罗斯位于尼日利亚之后，列第120位。透明国际给俄罗斯打出的分数仅为2分（总分为10分）——这是该国十年来的最差表现，与肯尼亚旗鼓相当。直到不久前，克里姆林宫还无需为产权或法律规则这样的问题操心。不论它如何对待投资者，石油产业带来的财富已足够确保其经济的繁荣发展。流入这个国家的大部分钱都以贷款而非他国直接投资的形式进入。而现在，这些贷款都已枯竭。预计今年俄罗斯经济将收缩8.5%，而它仍然将其不幸归咎于全球经济危机。仔细了解一下宜家或者Telenor，以及许多俄罗斯的本土公司，你会发现实际情况要复杂得多。





Unit 63


A white kid sells a bag of cocaine at his suburban high school. A Latino kid does the same in his inner-city neighborhood. Both get caught. Both are first-time offenders. The white kid walks into juvenile court with his parents, his priest, a good lawyer and medical coverage. The Latino kid walks into court with his mom, no legal resources and no insurance. The judge lets the white kid go with his family; he’s placed in a private treatment program. The minority kid has no such option. He’s detained.

There, in a nutshell, is what happens more and more often in the juvenile-court system. Minority youths arrested on violent felony charges in California are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be transferred out of the juvenile-justice system and tried as adults, according to a study released last week by the Justice Policy Institute, a research center in San Francisco. Once they are in adult courts, young black offenders are 18 times more likely to be jailed and Hispanics seven times more likely than are young white offenders. “Discrimination against kids of color accumulates at every stage of the justice system and skyrockets when juveniles are, tried as adults,” says Dan Macallair, a co-author of the new study. “California has a double standard: throw kids of color behind bars, but rehabilitate white kids who commit comparable crimes.”

Even as juvenile crime has declined from its peak in the early 1990s, headline grabbing violence by minors has intensified a get-tough attitude. Over the past six years, 43 states have passed laws that make it easier to try juveniles as adults. In Texas and Connecticut in 1996, the latest year for which figures are available, all the juveniles in jails were minorities. Vincent Schiraldi, the Justice Policy Institute’s director, concedes that “some kids need to be tried as adults. But most can be rehabilitated.”

Instead, adult prisons tend to brutalize juveniles. They are eight times more likely to commit suicide and five times more likely to be sexually abused than offenders held in juvenile detention. “Once they get out, they tend to commit more crimes and more violent crimes,” says Jenni Gainsborough, a spokeswoman for the Sentencing Project, a reform group in Washington. The system, in essence, is training career criminals. And it’s doing its worst work among minorities.

注（1）：本文选自Time；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为1997年真题Text 5（其中因1997年真题Text 5只有4个题目，所以本文第4题模仿参照对象为1999年Text 4的第4题）。



1. From the first paragraph we learn that ______.

A) the white kid is more innocent than the minority kid

B) the white kid has got a lot of help than the minority kid

C) the white kid and minority kid have been treated differently

D) the minority kid should be set free at once

2. According to the passage, which of the following is TRUE?

A) Kids shouldn’t be tried as adults.

B) Discrimination exists in the justice system.

C) Minority kids are likely to commit crimes.

D) States shouldn’t pass the laws.

3. The word “skyrocket”（Line 7, Paragraph 2）means ______.

A) rising sharply

B) widening suddenly

C) spreading widely

D) expanding quickly

4. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that ______.

A) something seems to be wrong with the justice system

B) adult prisons have bad influence on the juveniles

C) juveniles in adult prison are ill-treated

D) the career criminals are trained by the system

5. The passage shows that the author is ______ the present situation.

A) amazed at

B) puzzled by

C) disappointed at

D) critical of





篇章剖析


本文的结构形式为提出问题——分析问题。第一段首先提出问题，以一个案例为切入点，对比白人少年与有色人种少年受到的不同待遇；第二段和第三段用事实进一步说明司法机关对有色人种青少年的歧视以及他们受到的不公正待遇；第四段阐述了司法机关这一做法造成的不良影响。





词汇注释


offender /əˈfendə(r)/ n. 罪犯；冒犯者

coverage /ˈkʌvərɪdʒ/ n. 保险项目；保险范围

option /ˈɒpʃ(ə)n/ n. 选择；供选择的事物

detain /dɪˈteɪn/ v. 拘留

in a nutshell /ˈnʌtʃel/简括地，简言之

felony /ˈfeləni/ n. 【法】重罪

rehabilitate /riːhəˈbɪlɪteɪt/ v. 使（身体）康复；使复职；使恢复名誉；使复原

get-tough /ˈgetˈtʌf/ adj. 强硬的

concede /kənˈsiːd/ v. 勉强，承认

brutalize /ˈbruːtəlaɪz/ v. 残酷地对待

detention /dɪˈtenʃ(ə)n/ n. 拘留，禁闭





难句突破


Minority youths arrested on violent felony charges in California are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be transferred out of the juvenile-justice system and tried as adults, according to a study released last week by the Justice Policy Institute, a research center in San Francisco.

主体句式：Minority youths are as... as...

结构分析：这是一个比较长的简单句。“more than twice as likely as their white counterparts”是一种表示倍数的表达方式；“to be transferred out of the juvenile-justice system and tried as adults”不定式短语来修饰white counterparts;“according to a study released last week by the Justice Policy Institute”作伴随状语；“a research center in San Francisco”是“the Justice Policy Institute”的同位语。

句子译文：据旧金山一家研究中心——司法政策研究所——上周发表的一项研究结果显示，在加州因暴力重罪嫌疑被捕进而转出少年法庭而作为成人被审判的少数民族青少年的数量可能是白人青少年的两倍。





题目分析


1. C 推理题。作者在第一段中进行对比，其目的在于引出“同一性质的案例因为犯罪对象的不同，从而处理的结果也不同”这一论点。

2. B 细节题。原文对应信息是在第二段：“Discrimination against kids of color accumulates at every stage of the justice system and skyrockets when juveniles are, tried as adults”。其他选项意思与原文不符。

3. A 语义题。从单词所在的句子语境中，可以判断skyrocket与accumulate的意思相近，都表示激增，并且前者程度更强。

4. A 推理题。原文相关信息是文章最后两句话“The system, in essence, is training career criminals. And it’s doing its worst work among minorities.”。

5. D 情感态度题。作者通篇都在阐述司法机关对有色人种青少年的不公正待遇，所以对司法系统是持批判态度的。





参考译文


一白人少年在其就读的郊区中学贩卖了一袋可卡因，一拉丁美洲少年在其市内社区也做了同样的事情。两人都被逮捕了，并且他们都是初犯。白人少年在其父母、牧师、知名律师陪伴下走进少年法庭——他有医疗保险；而那个拉丁美洲少年却只在他母亲陪伴下来到法庭，没有任何法律援助，也没有什么保险。法官让白人少年随家人回家，判他接受私下处理计划监管的惩罚；而那位少数民族少年则别无选择，被拘留了。

简而言之，这样的事情在少年法庭上越来越常见。据旧金山一家研究中心——司法政策研究——上周发表的一项研究结果显示，在加州因暴力重罪嫌疑被捕之后进而转出少年法庭而作为成人被审判的少数民族青少年的数量可能是白人青少年的两倍。一旦被移交成人法庭，那些青少年黑人犯罪者被送进监狱的可能性是白人的18倍，美籍西班牙人是白人的8倍。“司法系统对有色人种青少年的歧视每升一级都加一次码，而这些年轻人一旦以成人的身份被审判的话，这种歧视便被极度升级，并且愈演愈烈，达到无以复加的地步。”这项研究的合作者丹·麦卡莱尔（Dan Macallair）说，“加利福尼亚历来奉行双重标准：把犯罪的有色人种青少年投进监狱，但对犯有同等罪行的白人少年却进行教育感化。”

正当青少年犯罪率从20世纪90年代初期的高峰开始下降的时候，常常成为报刊头条新闻的少数民族未成年人暴力犯罪强化了公众的强硬态度。在过去6年中，43个州通过的法律使青少年以成人的身份受审变得更加易如反掌。1996年，美国得克萨斯州和康涅狄格州（这是这两个州能收集到的最新一年的青少年犯罪记录）的资料表明，在监狱服刑的所有青少年都是有色人种。司法政策研究所所长文森特·希拉迪承认，“有些青少年需要作为成人进行审判，但是他们中大多数人是可以被教育感化的。”

成人监狱经常虐待这些青少年。这些人自杀的可能性是少管所罪犯的8倍，遭到性虐待的可能性是他们的5倍。华盛顿的一个改革革命性团体“审判项目组织”的女发言人Jenni Gainsborough认为，“这些人一旦被释放，往往会疯狂作案，实施更多的暴力犯罪。”这种体系实质上是在培养职业罪犯，对有色人种而言，它起的作用更糟。





Unit 64


On April 3rd a handful of supporters greeted Josh Wolf as he came out of prison in Dublin, California. He had spent more than seven months in jail for refusing to testify and turn over to federal prosecutors a videotape of a 2005 street demonstration in San Francisco. The prosecutors were investigating injury to a policeman and minor damage to a police car. It is apparently the longest an American journalist has served for protecting his sources and materials.

What makes the case odder is that Mr Wolf, who is 24, is a video-blogger as much as a freelance journalist. Moreover, the material was from a public setting and the sources have scant claim to confidentiality. He could have been protected by California’s generous “shield law” for journalists, but the federal government became involved on the thinnest of pretexts: namely, that it partly finances the San Francisco Police Department. This made Mr Wolf feel that though the evidential value of his videotape was low, the federal prosecutors meant to force him to identify the masked protesters before a grand jury. This, he said, would have transformed him into an investigator for the government. So he chose jail instead.

The case raises hard issues. What are the rights of bloggers in an era when almost anyone may claim to qualify for a journalist’s protection? What legal privilege do reporters enjoy to keep source material from government’s prying eyes? And did federal prosecutors abuse their authority by bringing charges for small municipal offences, thereby deliberately bypassing the state’s law shielding journalists?

Mr Wolf’s case underscores the reality that journalists—or simply those who behave as if they were journalists, when formally they are not—have few rights to shield themselves from revealing their sources or reportorial material. Although 49 states offer certain rights （Wyomin is the exception）, only the barest protection exists at national level. Potential federal legislation, which has bipartisan support, would require prosecutors to show that the information is necessary and cannot be otherwise obtained. The debate is over how broad the shield should be. Apply it too widely and the protection will inevitably be diluted; too narrowly and many eligible people will not be covered, explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer. In 1972 the Supreme Court, in the Branzburg case, said that reporters had no shield. But a concurring opinion contained the remark that the government should show the “necessity” of forcing reporters to testify. Prosecutors have largely accepted this legal gloss, until the recent cases when they have attacked on the press—or on “citizen journalists” like Mr Wolf.

“The whole issue of whether or not I am a journalist is irrelevant: the first amendment was written to protect pamphleteers,” says Mr Wolf. He did not have time to get a card-carrying reporter’s job, since he was imprisoned two months after graduating from university. “This was my entry into the world of journalism,” he says, “and a hell of an entry it was.”

注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2003年真题Text 4。



1. What can be concluded from the first two paragraphs?

A) The case lasted for such a long time because of the low efficiency of the Police Department.

B) “Shield law” failed to protect Mr Wolf because the prosecutor worked independently from the government.

C) It talks about a legal case concerning journalist’s right of source protection.

D) The importance of the case lies in the video’s confidentiality rather than journalists’ right.

2. The author quotes Floyd Abrams’s explanation to show that _______.

A) it is difficult to define a proper “shield” that journalists should be entitled to

B) the protection should enable journalists to safeguard most resources

C) the federal legislation is still undergoing the debate on journalists’ right

D) the protection should be strictly limited to a certain degree

3. Josh Wolf’s attitude towards his case is _______.

A) indifferent

B) outrageous

C) sad

D) considerate

4. Journalists’ protection rights exist _______.

A) only at the national level

B) only at the state level

C) clearly at both the national and state level

D) clearly at the national level and vaguely at the state level

5. The text intends to express the idea that _______.

A) people should be more concerned about whether they can enjoy journalists’ protection

B) the first amendment should be given a clearer explanation on journalists’ rights

C) the legislation for journalists’ privilege of protecting resources has a long way to go

D) more campaigns should be launched to protest federal prosecutors’ abusing authority





篇章剖析


本文讨论的是在美国，记者是否应该具有合法保护特权这个问题。第一、二段简要介绍了约什·沃尔夫一案；第三段提出了与话题有关的几个主要问题；第四段从法律上讨论了记者是否享受保护以及如何享受保护等；第五段是沃尔夫先生对整个事件的评论。





词汇注释


testify /ˈtestɪfai/ v. 证明，作证

prosecutor /ˈprɒsɪkjuːtə/ n. 起诉人；检举人

freelance /ˈfrɪˌlæns/ n. 自由作家；自由记者

scant /skænt/ adj. 缺乏的，不足的

confidentiality /kɒnfɪˌdenʃəˈælɪti/ n. 机密性

shield /ʃiːld/ n. 防护物，护罩

pretext /ˈpriːtekst/ n. 借口，托辞

transform /trænsˈfɔːm/ vt. 转换，改变，改造

pry /prai/ v. 探查

bypass /ˈbaɪpɑːs/ vt. 走旁路以避开

underscore /ˌʌndəˈskɔː/ vt. 画线于…下，强调

bipartisan /baɪˌpɑːtɪˈzæn/ adj. 两党的

dilute /daɪˈljuːt/ v. 冲淡，变淡，变弱

eligible /ˈelɪdʒəbl/ adj. 符合条件的，合格的

amendment /əˈmendmənt/ n. 修正案

pamphleteer /ˌpæmflɪˈtɪə/ n. 小册子作者





难句突破


Apply it too widely and the protection will inevitably be diluted; too narrowly and many eligible people will not be covered, explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer.

主体句式：...explains Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer.

结构分析：这是一个倒装的句子结构，其正常的结构应该为Floyd Abrams, a first-amendment lawyer explains，前面的内容都是explain的宾语，是一个间接引语。宾语由两个并列结构组成，中间以分号分隔。其中第二个分句是一个省略句，完整的句子应该为apply it too narrowly and...。

句子译文：第一修正案律师弗洛伊德·艾布拉姆斯解释说，如果法案适用范围太广，其效力会不可避免地降低；如果太狭窄则又会使得应受保护的人得不到保护。





题目分析


1. C 推理题。选项C简要地归纳了前两段的内容。A选项表述不符合文意；B选项对应的信息为文章第二段第四句话，其主要原因是政府和警察机关的紧密关系；D选项的表述与原文意思相反。

2. A 推理题。弗洛伊德·艾布拉姆斯的话的意思是，如果法案适用范围太广，其效力会不可避免地降低；如果太狭窄则又会使得应受到保护的人得不到保护。可见要确定记者保护权的范围还是非常困难的。

3. B 情感态度题。文章对应信息为最后一句“This was my entry into the world of journalism,” he says, “and a hell of an entry it was.”，从“hell”这个词看出来沃尔夫是非常生气的。

4. D 细节题。原文对应信息为“Although 49 states offer certain rights（Wyomin is the exception）, only the barest protection exists at national level”，最明确的立法只是停留在美国整个联邦的程度，还没有明确地具体到各个州。

5. C 主旨题。解答主旨题要纵观全文，不要受到一些细节方面的干扰。全文在对沃尔夫案的讨论中表达的主要意思是对于记者保护信息源特权方面的立法还很不完善，尤其是相关规定在大部分的州依然非常不明确，因此还有很长的路要走。