参考译文


4月3日，一群支持者向刚刚从加州都柏林监狱被释放的约什·沃尔夫表示祝贺。他已经被关了7个多月，原因是他拒绝作证以及拒绝向联邦检察官交出关于2005年发生在旧金山的一场示威游行的录像带。当时，那些检察官们正在调查一起伤害警察及破坏警车案。在所有因为保护消息来源和资料而被关押的记者中，显然沃尔夫是被关押时间最长的一个。

这件案子的特别之处在于，24岁的沃尔夫既是一个博客作者，也是一个自由撰稿人。此外，他所掌握的资料来自公共设施，其消息来源也没有声明其保密性。他本可得到加州慷慨的“新闻保障法”对记者的保护，但是联邦政府却找出了一个非常牵强的借口：具体来说，洛杉矶警署的资金部分来自政府。这就使得沃尔夫先生觉得，尽管他的录像带没有很高的证据价值，但是联邦检察官故意强迫他在大陪审团面前确认那些戴面具的示威者。他认为这会使他变成政府的探子。所以他宁愿选择进监狱。

这个案子引起了人们对一些棘手问题的关注。在一个几乎所有人都可以声称自己具备得到记者保护的条件的时代，博客作者们到底都有哪些权利呢？为了保护消息来源不被政府的眼线查到，记者们享有什么样的合法特权呢？当联邦检察官们为了故意避开州级记者保护法律而对小型市级违法行为提起诉讼时，他们是否滥用了自己的权力呢？

沃尔夫案突显了一个现实，那就是记者——或者只是那些以记者自居但严格说不是记者的人——在保护消息来源或报道材料方面几乎没有任何的权利。尽管有49个州提供一些权利（除了怀俄明州），但最明确的相关规定只是停留在全国的层面上。一项得到两党支持的可能即将生效的联邦法律规定，检察官要证明需要得到信息是必需的且不能从其他途径获得。争议的内容主要在于对记者权利保护的范围大小。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到保护的人得不到保护。1972年，最高法院在布兰斯堡案件中声称，记者无权享受保护。但同时还出现了一些其他观点，如政府在强迫记者作证时需证明其“必要性”。检察官普遍都已经接受了这一法律解释，直到最近他们又重新开始攻击媒体——或者是像沃尔夫这样的“民间记者”的案子。

“整件事情跟我是不是记者没有关系：第一修正案本来意在保护所有小册子撰写人，”沃尔夫说。他还没来得及得到一份携带记者证的工作，因为他刚大学毕业两个月就被关进监狱。“这是我进入记者世界的开始，”他说，“一个极度糟糕的开始。”





Unit 65


On March 9th the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing ban on handguns. Some might say, so what? Last year the police recovered 2, 655 guns in the District, which hardly suggests that the ban was keeping guns out of circulation. Nonetheless, Washington, DC, has long been a small spot of resistance to a culture all too tolerant of firearms.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges rejected the District’s claim that the Second Amendment applies only to militias. The rights protected in the amendment “are not limited to militia service”, the majority argued, “nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon... enrolment in the militia”. The debate about the meaning of the second amendment is one of the fiercest in constitutional law. In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of “United States v Miller”, that the amendment was adopted “with ［the］ obvious purpose” of protecting the ability of states to organise militias, and “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view”. More recently, the individual-rights view has been gathering support, and not just from the Bush administration and the National Rifle Association（NRA）.

In 2001 the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit（which includes gun-loving Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas）embraced the individual-rights view. The DC lawsuit was filed in 2003, nine months after the then attorney-general, John Ashcroft, argued that individual gun bans are unconstitutional. If the District appeals the ruling, as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, will come down on the side of individual rights.

The Court of Appeals decision is just the latest in an almost unbroken series of advances for the gun-rights lobby. The NRA has made a steady progress in loosening local gun controls, particularly in pushing “concealed carry” laws, which now exist in 48 states. The Democrats have softened their anti-gun stance in an attempt to make advances in “red America”—particularly in the all-important mountain West where gun rights are sacrosanct and the next presidential election may be decided. Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic governor of Montana, speaks for a new breed of pro-gun Democrats when he says that he has “more guns than I need but not as many as I want”.

A few clouds loom on the horizon for gun-rights supporters. On the very day of the DC ruling the Police Executive Research Forum, a police think-tank, reported that violent crime, including homicides, had been rising rapidly since 2004. Meanwhile, the NRA is slowly losing one of its most important constituencies: the proportion of Americans holding hunting licences has declined from 10% in 1985 to 6% last year. If both trends continue, more and more Americans will come to associate guns not with healthy outdoorsmanship, as the NRA would like, but with swift and violent human death.

注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象为2004年真题Text 2。



1. What does the author intend to illustrate with the case of “United States v Miller”?

A) The second amendment was once interpreted as only to protect the right of militias.

B) The second amendment is not supposed to support the individual right of carrying guns.

C) American Supreme Court has never changed its interpretation of the second amendment.

D) The individual-rights view has been on the rise since earlier 20th century.

2. What can we infer from the first two paragraphs?

A) Whether Washington, DC will continue to maintain its ban on handguns is yet to be determined.

B) The individual-rights view barely attains support from the government but is backed by the US Court.

C) The second amendment has aroused heated debate on the relation between militias and individual.

D) The entire American society is growing more tolerant of individual possession of firearms.

3. The third and fourth paragraphs suggest that _______.

A) the Republicans traditionally maintain the anti-gun stance

B) most members of the Supreme Court are against individual-rights view

C) the issue of gun right might influence the next presidency campaign

D) individual gun right may negatively stimulate people’s desire for violence

4. What does the author mean by “A few clouds loom on the horizon for gun-rights supporters”（Line 1, Last Paragraph）?

A) Gun-rights supporters are pessimistic about the future of individual gun-rights.

B) People might relate the spread of guns to the increase of crime rate.

C) The public opinion turns to be negative for gun-rights supporters.

D) There are some opponents who are against individual gun-rights.

5. Which of the following is TRUE according to the text?

A) Washington, DC is the last place in America to abandon the ban on gun.

B) Individual gun right began to be legal in some states since 2001.

C) The American constitutional law is too vague to be interpreted.

D) NRA has been playing an active role in promoting the gun legalization.





篇章剖析


本文讨论的话题是哥伦比亚特区今年取消了长期实行的枪支禁令及其相关问题。第一段说明了事情的起因，同时指出枪支禁令并没有阻止枪支的流通；第二段回顾了对《第二修正案》关于个人拥有枪支权利的表述和不同解读；第三、四段是赞成个人拥有枪支权利一方的关系；第五段则是反对意见。





词汇注释


circuit /ˈsɜːkɪt/ n. 周游，巡回

overturn /ˌəʊvəˈtɜːn/ vt. 推翻，颠倒

circulation /ˌsɜːkjʊˈleɪʃən/ n. 流通

militia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ n. 民兵

contingent /kənˈtɪndʒənt/ adj. 附随的

rifle /ˈraɪfl/ n. 来复枪，步枪

attorney /əˈtɜːni/ n. 律师

stance /stæns/ n. 立场

sacrosanct /ˈsækrəʊsæŋkt/ adj. 极神圣的

loom /luːm/ v. 隐现，迫近

homicide /ˈhɒmɪsaid/ n. 杀人，杀人者

outdoorsmanship /ˌaʊtˈdɔːzˌmənʃɪp/ n. 野外活动





难句突破


If the District appeals the ruling, as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, will come down on the side of individual rights.

主体句式：If the District appeals the ruling, there is a good chance that...

结构分析：as Mayor Adrian Fenty says it will是一个插入语，对前面的if引导的条件句进行补充说明。wth its conservative majority也是一个插入语。

句子译文：假如该特区像阿德里安·芬迪市长所说的那样对此次判决提出上诉的话，对于保守派占大多数的最高法院而言，将会作出有利于个人权利的终审裁决。





题目分析


1. A 细节题。文章第二段中指出，关于第二修正案的解读一直有许多不同的见解。早期最高法院的解读支持民兵组织权利说，只是到了近几年，个人权利说才开始兴盛。“合众国对米勒”案是对前一种说法的解读。

2. D 推理题。文章第一段结尾提到社会对于枪支越来越宽容，同时第二段也提到个人拥有枪支的学说得到了越来越多的支持，这些观点选项D都有体现。

3. C 推理题。文章第四段提到“The Democrats have softened their anti-gun stance in an attempt to make advances in ‘red America’—particularly in the all-important mountain West where gun rights are sacrosanct and the next presidential election may be decided”，说明了个人拥有枪支权利的问题将会影响下届美国总统大选，民主党派甚至为了拉选票而改变其原先的反对态度。

4. B 语义题。从最后一段谈到越来越多的美国人不会把枪支和健康向上的户外运动联系在一起，而是认为枪支是导致致命性死亡的原因，这些对那些个人携枪权利支持者来说都是不利因素。

5. D 细节题。纵观全文，NRA被提及许多次，每次都涉及该组织为争取放宽枪支管制而做出的各种努力，可见其活动非常积极且具有重要的影响力。





参考译文


3月9日，美国特区巡回上诉法院撤销了哥伦比亚特区长期实行的枪支禁令。有人也许会说，这有什么呢？去年，警方在特区共发现2655支枪，这表明枪支禁令并未遏制住枪支流通。尽管如此，华盛顿在其小小的管辖范围内还是一直抵制社会对于枪支的纵容。

上诉法院法官以2票对1票驳回了特区关于《第二修正案》仅适用民兵组织的申诉。多数方认为，修正案所保护的权利“并不仅限于民兵组织”，且“个人享有的权利也不依赖于其是否加入民兵队伍”。在联邦宪法中，关于如何解读第二修正案的争论一直是所有涉及宪法辩论中最为激烈的。1939年，美国最高法院在“合众国对米勒”一案中判定，当“其明显意图”为保护各州组织民兵队伍能力时，此修正案才适用，并且“解释时必须基于修正案的这一目的。”最近，个人拥有和携带枪支的权利获得了越来越多的支持，不仅仅是布什政府和全美步枪协会。

2001年，美国第五巡回上诉法院（辖区内有路易斯安那、密西西比和得克萨斯三个偏爱枪支的州）支持个人权利的观点。此次特区诉讼始于2003年，此前9个月时任首席检察官的约翰·阿施克罗夫特曾表示，禁止个人拥有和携带枪支的规定违反了宪法。假如该特区像阿德里安·芬迪市长所说的那样对此次判决提出上诉的话，对于保守派占大多数的最高法院而言，将会作出有利于个人权利的终审裁决。

上诉法庭的决议只是一系列主张个人有权拥有和携带枪支的活动所取得的最新进展之一。全美步枪协会为争取放宽枪支管制所做的努力也不断获得成效，尤其是推动通过了“秘密携带枪支”法令，目前该法令已在48个州实施。为了在“红色美国”有所进展——特别是在枪支拥有权利神圣不可侵犯的西部重要山区，这也可能是决定下一届总统大选结果的地方，民主党反对个人拥有和携带枪支的立场也有所松动。蒙大拿州民主党州长布莱恩·施瓦泽说，他“所拥有枪支超出了自己的需求，但却总希望能有更多。”此话代表了新一代支持枪支拥有权利的民主党人的心声。

对于主张个人有权拥有和携带枪支的人来说，也会有一些不利因素。特区案判决当天，警界智库警政研究公会报道称2004年至今，包括杀人在内的暴力犯罪率迅速增长。同时，一个对全美步枪协会最有利的因素也正逐渐减弱：美国狩猎许可证持有人数比例已经从1985年的10%下降到去年的6%。如果这两个趋势持续发展下去的话，越来越多的美国人将不会像NRA所期望的那样，把枪支和健康向上的户外运动联系在一起，而是认为枪支是导致致命性死亡的原因。





Unit 66


After five years of litigation, the World Trade Organisation （WTO） is about to deliver its preliminary ruling on America’s complaint against the provision of prohibited subsidies to Europe’s commercial aircraft industry. The United States alleges that this support was worth $200 billion over 20 years. In a few months the WTO will rule on a counter-claim by the European Union that Boeing received about $24 billion in subsidies over the past two decades as well as large, non-repayable benefits from military and space contracts. Both rulings are subject to appeal. This first ruling is a potential thunderbolt that could ignite a damaging trade dispute between America and Europe at a time when both economies need to present a united front on trade, to prevent a slide towards protectionism.

The origins of the dispute lie in America’s decision, at Boeing’s prompting, to withdraw in 2004 from a 12-year-old bilateral agreement with Europe governing trade in large civil aircraft. The agreement banned direct production and sales subsidies, but let governments continue to funnel money into new aircraft projects. It permitted both repayable direct state aid（the European approach）covering up to a third of all development costs, known as launch aid, and indirect state aid（the American approach）if limited to 3% of the domestic industry’s sales volume. Boeing, however, says it expected the deal to lead to a gradual reduction in subsidies to Airbus. When this failed to materialise, it withdrew. What caused its patience to run out? Two things: the success of Airbus in achieving rough market-share parity at the end of the 1990s, and resentment over launch aid for the A380, the superjumbo designed to bring to an end the long reign of the 747.

Boeing is right to argue that all subsidies distort competition. But although the subsidies that Airbus receives are different from Boeing’s, they are not necessarily much worse. At least they are transparent—and Europe claims that by 2007 Airbus had repaid 40% more than it had been given. Nor has the effect of the subsidies received by both firms been anti-competitive. Boeing and Airbus fight like rats in a sack for every sale, with the consequence that airlines have been able to buy cheaper and better aircraft than if one firm had been dominant.

Two other points should be borne in mind. The first is that it is out of date to see either firm as a national champion. The size and riskiness of large commercial-aircraft projects has forced even Boeing to create extended international supply chains. Second, the aircraft-makers’ subsidies pale by comparison with those doled out by governments on both sides of the Atlantic in the past year. Leaving aside the trillions of dollars spent on preventing financial collapse, industrial subsidies of a kind almost certainly illegal under WTO rules have mushroomed.

Both sides should therefore hold their fire until the WTO rules on Europe’s complaint. Then, putting further litigation to one side, they should head for the negotiating table. The aim should be to secure a new deal along the lines of the old agreement, but this time with an explicit goal of phasing out the most egregious subsidies within a reasonable period. The alternative of an escalating tit-for-tat trade dispute between Europe and America does not bear thinking about.

注（1）：本文选自Economist；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象：第1、2、3、5、4题分别模仿1995年真题Text 3第1、2、3、5题和Text 4第1题。



1. The word “thunderbolt”（Line 6, Paragraph 1）most probably means ______.

A) thunderstorm

B) cause

C) disaster

D) danger

2. The main problem concerning the dispute between American and European air industries is ______.

A) the breach of their bilateral agreement

B) the different approaches of governmental subsidies

C) whether the governmental assistance they receive is legal

D) whether governmental subsidies would affect market competition

3. From the passage we can infer that ______.

A) it was because of Boeing that America decided to withdraw the bilateral agreement

B) by withdrawing the bilateral agreement, Boeing expected to realize a gradual reduction in subsidies to Airbus

C) the form of subsidy that Boeing receives is superior than that Airbus receives

D) subsidies received by Boeing and Airbus have significantly affected a fair market order

4. According to the author, Boeing’s argument is not quite correct because of the following reasons EXCEPT ______.

A) in this case subsidies do not completely distort the market competition

B) Boeing itself is no longer a national but a multinational company

C) the subsidy dispute will lead to a war between America and Europe

D) governmental subsidies are becoming increasingly common

5. We can learn from the last paragraph that ______.

A) the best way to solve the problem is to wait for WTO’s ruling

B) both litigation and negotiation should go ahead shoulder by shoulder

C) both parties should start negotiating to reach a new deal in place of the old one

D) both parties cannot afford a long-term vicious cycle of sue and counter-sue





篇章剖析


本文主要介绍了世界上两大飞机制造公司——美国的波音公司和欧盟的空客公司的法律争端。第一段首先介绍了两家公司之间的起诉和反诉，表明这可能会引起一场贸易大战；第二段分析了两家公司发生矛盾、冲突的原因；第三、四段作者表明了自己的观点，认为两家公司提出的一些理由有失偏颇；最后一段作者提出，解决两家公司争端的最好办法是进行谈判。





词汇注释


subsidy /ˈsʌbsɪdi/ n. 津贴，补贴；补助金

allege /əˈledʒ/ v. 断言，宣称

ignite /ɪgˈnaɪt/ v. 点燃；激起

bilateral /baɪˈlætərəl/ adj. 双方的；双边的

funnel /ˈfʌnəl/ v. （用漏斗）注入；使汇集，集中

parity /ˈpærɪti/ n. 同等；类似；相同

distort /dɪsˈtɔːt/ v. 扭曲，曲解