法律翻译 |《纽大法律评论》第97卷第6期

译者 | 张语嫣 北京大学 LL.B.

一审 | Ellen Chen Cornell LL.M.

二审 | 陈思源 北京大学

编辑 | 李建云 湖南师范大学本科

责编 | 王有蓉 西安外国语大学本科

Tout Moun se Moun: Critical Legal Empowerment for Human Rights in Haiti

人生而平等：促进海地人权的批判性法律赋能

作者：Nixon Boumba & Margret Satterthwaite

In his opening remarks on the first day of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Term, Chief Justice Roberts offered a tribute to Justice Stevens. His remembrance emphasized Justice Stevens’s lifelong commitment to public service and his imprint on the Court, his colleagues, and the country. We are grateful to Chief Justice Roberts for contributing those remarks to this collection. We provide an excerpt from his statement as an Introduction to the collection of Tributes that follows.

在海地，批判性法律赋能（Critical Legal Empower-ment）提供了一个在历史上将大多数人口排除在法律保护之外的系统中重新想象法律承诺的视角。从人生而平等（Tout Moun se Moun）的信念出发，批判性法律赋能要求打破区分不同类别的人的理论和规则，还要求依法对所有全权者的侵权行为追责。这意味着海地政府，尤其是其国际“伙伴 ”要对那些不仅被排除在法律之外，而且被法律排除在外的人负责。

This Article traces the thread of legal oppression and resistance in Haiti, examining efforts by Haitian communities to make demands of the law and the legal system based on the insistence that all Haitians have equal rights, that tout moun se moun. These demands do not stop with equality, however. They also include affirmative claims of dignity and life-affirming autonomy from the state, spaces where subsistence farmers can protect unique Haitian lifeways. This insistence—on the protection of life, freedom from abuse, and extension of basic rights to subsistence—including land, food sovereignty, and clean water—is ongoing but also radically incomplete. Only once the law can encompass these rights as against powerful actors who deprive both individuals and collectives of their rights and dignity will the promise of the Haitian revolution finally be fulfilled.

本文追溯了海地法律压迫和抵抗的线索，研究了海地的社群在坚持所有海地人生而平等（Tout Moun se Moun）的基础上，对法律和法律体系提出的诉求。然而，这些诉求并不局限于平等。它们还包括对尊严和生命的积极要求，即从国家处获得自主权，自给自足的农民可以保存海地独特的生活方式。这种对保护生命、不受虐待和扩张基本生存权利（包括土地、食物主权和清洁水）的坚持是持续的，但也是非常不完整的。只有当法律能够涵盖这些权利，反对剥夺个人和集体权利和尊严的强大行为者时，海地革命的承诺才能最终实现。

（图片来源于网络）

Lawyering in Times of Peril:

 Legal Empowerment and the Relevance of the Legal Profession

危险时期的律师工作：

法律赋能与法律工作的相关性

作者：Ariadna M. Godreau-Aubert

As the world violently shifts and adjusts to peril, the legal profession has not been exempted from the challenge to transform itself. Within a legal empowerment practice, the question of relevance invites legal advocates and professionals to adapt and respond to the unmet legal needs arising from deepened states of inequality. This Article summarizes the experience and contributions of legal empowerment work in Puerto Rico during and after significant catastrophes. Analyzing how states of emergency and failed recovery processes affect the exercise of human dignity in Puerto Rico provides the legal profession perspective on the urgency to defend legal empowerment mainly when crises occur. Despite its importance during and after emergencies, access to justice is rarely considered an essential component of disaster preparedness or response. Unlike food, medicine, and debris removal, the capacity of individuals and communities to understand and traverse legal processes is not contemplated amidst the chaos. Survivors of emergencies who subsequently become victims of resulting economic fallout, law enforcement, and other social issues are left behind and fall through the abyss of underserved justice. A people-centered, legal empowerment approach to lawyering has proven valuable and feasible to address and respond to the acute disparities amplified during emergencies. It is also a call to a broadly defined justice community—the judiciary, agencies, lawyers, law students, and law schools—that is also at risk of peril if transformations fall short.

随着世界的剧变与对危险的适应，法律界也未能免于自我变革的挑战。在法律赋能的实践中，相关性的问题要求法律倡导者和专业人士适应和回应因不平等状态加深而产生的未被满足的法律需求。本文总结了波多黎各在重大灾难期间和之后的法律赋能工作的经验和贡献。通过分析紧急状态和失败的恢复过程如何影响波多黎各人尊严的行使，本文展示了危机发生时法律职业角度下捍卫法律赋能的紧迫性。尽管获得司法救济的权利在紧急状态下和之后都很重要，但这一权利很少被认为是备灾或救灾的一个重要组成部分。与食物、药品和废墟清除不同，个人和社区了解和参与法律程序的能力在混乱中没有被考虑。紧急状态下的幸存者，随后成为由此产生的经济后果、执法和其他社会问题的受害者，被抛掷脑后，跌入司法服务不足的深渊。事实证明，以人为本、法律赋能的律师工作对于解决和应对紧急状态下被放大的严重差异是有价值和可行的。这也是对广义的司法界——司法机关、机构、律师、法学生和法学院的呼吁，如果转型失败，他们也将面临危险。

（图片来源于网络）

[De-]Prioritizing Prevention: A Case Against the 2020 Title IX Sexual Harassment Rule

反对预防优先：

反对2020年第九条性骚扰规则的案例

作者：Yonas Asfaw-Cooper

In 2020, the Department of Education issued a final Rule pursuant to notice-and-comment rulemaking which created the most far-reaching regulation on sexual harassment in educational institutions under Title IX to date. This Rule significantly limited the availability of administrative remedies for those experiencing sexual harassment in their educational institutions. While much has been said regarding the propriety of the substantive policy decisions advanced by the Department’s regulation, relatively little attention has been paid to the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) employed in the Rule. The Rule’s CBA found that the regulations would result in a net cost of tens of millions of dollars. In justifying their commitment to these cost-unjustified regulations, the Department relied only on a few non-quantified benefits. To make matters worse, the Department also disclaimed any responsibility to consider whether the Rule’s deregulatory policies would leave sexual harassment under-deterred. The 2020 Rule was arbitrary and capricious by reason of its faulty CBA. The Department’s failure to consider the costs associated with the Rule’s under-deterrent effects was an abrogation of their obligation to uphold Title IX’s preventative purpose.

2020年，教育部根据通知和评论规则制定（Notice-and-comment Rulemaking），发布了一项最终规则，该规则是迄今为止对第九条规定的教育机构中的性骚扰问题影响最深远的法规。该规则大大限制了在教育机构中遭遇性骚扰的人的行政救济。虽然人们对教育部的规则所提出的重大政策决定的适当性多有议论，但却相对较少关注该规则的成本效益分析。成本效益分析发现，该规则将导致数千万美元的净成本。在证明他们对这些成本不合理的法规的采纳时，教育部只援引了一些非量化的好处。更糟糕的是，教育部还否认自己有责任考虑该规则的放松管制政策是否会使得对性骚扰的威慑力不足。由于其错误的成本效益分析，2020年的规则是任意和反复无常的。教育部没有考虑与该规则威慑力不足有关的成本，这是对他们维护第九条预防目的义务的放弃。

（图片来源于网络）

A Unified Theory of Knowing Exposure: Reconciling Katz and Carpenter

知情公开的统一理论：调和卡茨案和卡彭特案

作者：Luiza M. Leão

The search doctrine has long been in a state of disarray. Fragmented into different sub-doctrines, Fourth Amendment standards of constitutional protection vary based on how the government acquires the information in question and on how courts define the search that occurred. As trespass-based searches, reasonable expectation of privacy searches, consent-based searches, third-party searches, and private searches each trigger different levels of protection, the doctrine has become what more than one Justice has termed a “crazy quilt.” This Note argues that unriddling the Fourth Amendment is easier than it might appear with the aid of the concept of knowing exposure, first discussed in Katz v. United States. An undercurrent across different strands of the search doctrine, the knowing exposure principle holds that what one “knowingly exposes to the public” is beyond the scope of Fourth Amendment protection. As the Court grapples with the search doctrine in an age of unprecedented exposure to third parties, most recently in Carpenter v. United States, it should seek to unify the standard for searches around the foundational question of what renders one’s exposure “knowing.” Turning to Carpenter’s modifications to the third-party doctrine, this Note suggests a unified theory of knowing exposure that can apply across different kinds of searches, centering on whether the exposure is (1) knowing, (2) voluntary, and (3) reasonable.

长期以来，搜查理论一直处于混乱状态。第四修正案的宪法保护标准被分割成不同的子理论，根据政府如何获得有关信息以及法院如何定义所发生的搜查而有所区别。由于基于侵入的搜查、对隐私合理期望的搜查、基于同意的搜查、第三方搜查和私人搜查都会引发不同程度的保护，该理论已经成为不止一位法官所说的“疯狂拼布”。本文认为，借助于卡茨诉美国（Katz v. United States）案中首次讨论的“知情公开”（Knowingly Exposes to the Public）的概念，解开第四修正案的谜团要比看起来容易得多。知情公开原则是搜查理论中的一股暗流，它认为一个人“在知情状态下向公众公开”的东西是超出第四修正案保护范围的。当法院在一个空前对第三方公开个人生活的时代，最近在卡彭特诉美国（Carpenter v. United States）案中处理搜查原则时，它应该围绕如何使一个人的公开构成“知情”这一基本问题寻求统一的搜查标准。谈到卡彭特案对第三方理论的修改，本文提出了一个可以适用于不同类型的搜查的统一的知情公开理论，其核心是公开是否知情、自愿、合理。