法律翻译 | 《纽约大学法律评论》第95卷第3期摘要+目录

译者 | 李怿哲 北京大学法本

一审 | 刘寅    西南政法大学LL.M.

二审 | 岳文豪 上海交通大学硕士

编辑 | 王妮茜 新疆农业大学本科

         邵娅绮 浙江工商大学本科

责编 | 戚琳颖 大连海事大学本科

Complexity, Judgment, and Restraint - Gerard E. Lynch

复杂性、判断力与克制力

网址：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-95-number-3/complexity-judgment-and-restraint/

I am honored to have been asked to give this year’s James Madison Lecture. I hesitate to single out any of my extraordinary predecessors at this podium—there are too many great judges to list, and too much risk of slighting any. So I will note only that the list includes both judges for whom I clerked more than forty years ago, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., and Chief Judge Wilfred Feinberg, of the court on which I now serve. That long-ago law clerk could not have dreamed of being someday in a position once occupied by those two giants of my current profession: the art and craft of judging.

被邀请进行今年的詹姆斯·麦迪逊系列演讲[1]，我感到非常荣幸。我不敢在这个讲台上例举我的杰出前辈——有太多伟大的法官无法列出，也有太多忽视任何一位的风险。因此，我只想指出这一名单所包含的我四十多年前为其做过书记员的两位法官：William J. Brennan, Jr., 和我现在任职法院的首席法官Wilfred Feinberg。那个多年以前的书记员不会想到有一天他也在曾被这两位卓越法官所占据的地方拥有一席之地，而在这个位置上需要充分运用审判的艺术和技巧。

That profession, that art, is under considerable pressure today. In the legal academy, there has long been a body of thought that sees the work of judges as a mere mask for the exercise of raw power. Increasingly, our political leaders act as if to reinforce the message of critical theorists, and their actions may help to turn that message from a theory to a reality. The press cannot seem to report the decision of a federal court on a matter of political significance without identifying the judges who made it by the political party of the President who appointed them. The general public, which has tended to rate the judiciary highest among the three branches of our government, seems increasingly skeptical. And indeed, whenever I speak to nonlawyers about what judges do, their questions often seem to assume that when confronted with questions that touch on controversial issues of public policy, the role of the judge is simply to decide what is the best rule— by which of course the questioner means “to reach the outcome that [the questioner thinks] is [ideologically or politically] correct.”

这种职业、这种艺术，如今正面临着相当的压力。在法学院，一种长期以来的思想是，法官的工作仅仅是为权力的野蛮运作蒙上一层面纱。我们的政治领导人似乎想要与日俱增地强化批判理论家的预言，他们的行动或许会将之从理论转变为现实。当报道某一联邦法院具有政治意义的判决时，倘不指出该法官的党派、或是任命该法官的总统，新闻媒体似乎就丧失了报道的能力；作为我国三个政府部门中的一个，法院尽管曾经获得了公众的最高评价，如今，公众的怀疑感却与日俱增。实际上，每当我与不从事法律工作的人们谈论法官的行为时，他们的问题似乎常常假设，当面对公共政策的争议议题时，法官的仅仅需要决定什么是“最好的规则”。也就是说，他们的意思的确是，（法官的决定）是为了达到一种提问者所认为意识形态或政治上正确的结果。

If politicians, editorialists, and law students seem to expect judges to decide cases based on their political preferences, judges speaking out in defense of judicial independence often take an opposite, but equally simplistic, tack: resorting to metaphors that seem to strip judges of judgment, as if judges could be replaced by something like the “K-zone” computer that television baseball commentators use to critique the performance of umpires. Other judges retreat to a set of formalistic rules that (an informed but cynical citizen might observe) produce, with suspicious regularity, results that correspond to the policy preferences of one political party. It is not a good time for nuance and complexity, but nuance and complexity is what, for good or ill, I have to offer this evening.

如果政治家、评论家和法学生期待法官根据他们的政治需要来决定案件，为了捍卫司法独立，法官往往选择一种相反的、同样简单的策略：法官可以被某种机械取代，就仿佛棒球解说员用“K区电脑”[2]来批评裁判员的表现一样。其他法官回归到了一种形式主义规则，一个知情但具有批判意识的公民可能意识到，判决结果与某一政党的政治偏好富有规律地一致，这是令人怀疑的。在此时讨论细微的差别与复杂性可能不合时宜，但无论如何，这是我今晚想要讨论的内容。

（图片来源于网络）

I want to speak about a jurisprudential question that was a hot academic topic when I was a young lawyer: whether there are correct answers to difficult questions of law. I caution that I am not a professional philosopher of law, and so I approach this topic not from deep theoretical premises but from the experience of many years of trying to make sense of concrete legal problems, as a practicing lawyer and judge, as well as a legal academic. The answers I will propose, I am afraid, are somewhat personal, and are rooted not in jurisprudential first principles, but in what it feels like, at least for me, to act as a judge.

我想谈谈一个法理学问题。当我是一个年轻的律师时，这是一个热门的学术话题：对于复杂的法律问题，是否有“正确”的答案？我要先说明，我并非一个专业的法哲学家，因此我不会从深奥的理论前提出发，而将从一个试图理解具体法律问题多年的执业律师、法官和学者的经验出发。我将提出的答案恐怕是有些个人化的，且并不根植于法学的基本原则。但是，至少对我来说，这是作为一名法官的答案。

The debate over right answers was often formulated, in the era of my youth, as one aspect of a debate between two formidable legal philosophers, the then-established eminence H.L.A. Hart and the then-upstart Ronald Dworkin, later to grace the faculty of this law school. Hart had contended that the system of rules created by legislation and precedent left a considerable number of questions open to judicial lawmaking, where the judge must exercise judgment and discretion. As he put it, “at the margin of rules and in the fields left open by the theory of precedents, the courts perform a rule-producing function . . . very like the exercise of delegated rule-making powers by an administrative body.” In contrast, Dworkin argued that this theory was inadequate, and proposed what he contended was a “better theory”: “that even when no settled rule disposes of the case, one party may nevertheless have a right to win.” That disagreement was part of a much broader jurisprudential debate, which long pre-dates Hart and Dworkin, and has continued in the decades since I encountered it in Dworkin’s book, concerning the relationship between law and morality. As I’ve noted, I am not qualified to enter that broader debate. I want to address only the humbler question of how a working judge struggles with the many questions that confront him or her in deciding actual cases.

在我年轻的时代，上述辩论经常被归纳为两位令人钦佩的法哲学家间的辩论：一位是当时的杰出人物哈特（H.L.A Hart），一位是后起之秀德沃金（Ronald Dworkin），他们后来都为这所法学院的教员名单增添了一抹鲜亮的色彩。哈特认为，由立法活动与判例创造的规则体系为“法院立法”遗留了相当多的问题。在这些问题上，法官必须行使裁量权作出判决。正如他指出的，“在规则的边缘、在先例领域留下空白之地，法院具有创制规则的职能……正如行政机关行使授权制定规则的权力。”相反，德沃金认为这一理论并不充分，并提出了他认为更好的理论：“即使没有既定的规则处理案件，一方仍有权胜诉。”这种分歧是一场更广泛的法学辩论的一部分，早在哈特和德沃金的辩论之前就已经存在，并且自从我在德沃金的书中接触到这个问题以来，已经进行了几十年。这场辩论关乎法律和道德的关系。正如我所说的，我没有资格参与那场更广泛的辩论。我只想讨论一个更加弱化的问题：当面对决定实际案件的众多问题时，一个在职法官如何处理。

In doing so, I want to suggest three propositions: First, that while most legal disputes can be resolved by identifying answers that are clearly correct under ordinary rules of legal reasoning, Hart is right that a significant number of important cases, including many that are politically salient, do not have answers that can be classified as “right” simply by applying those rules. Second, that one important reason for this conclusion is that the principles of reasoning that are sufficient to resolve most legal questions have exceptions and qualifications that frequently require the exercise of judicial judgment. And third, that the recognition that judgment is required in such cases is important to validating the principle of judicial restraint, a critical value that can only have real bite in a world in which judges are acknowledged to be exercising judgment in selecting an answer from among several more or less equally viable lines of reasoning, while the effort to resolve cases by more mechanical rules can point to unrestrained judicial interventions in the political process.

在此，我想提出三个观点：首先，尽管通过一般规则进行法律推理能够得出显然正确的答案、进而解决大多数的法律争议，哈特仍然是正确的：许多重要的案件，包括许多对政治极为重要的案件，并不能仅仅通过适用一般的规则，就得出“正确”的答案。其次，那些足以解决大多数法律问题的推理原则存在例外和限制，这使得法官经常需要行使裁量权——这是我提出上述观点的一个重要原因。最后，在这些案例中，承认判断力的必要性对于确认司法谦抑原则至关重要。这是一个关键的价值观，但仅当人们承认，法官是在行使自己的判断力、从几个或多或少可行的推理方式中选择一个答案时，这一价值观才有其真正的意义；而如果试图通过更机械化的规则解决案件，则可能导致司法对政治进程的无节制干预。

Anti-Segregation Policing - Monica C. Bell

关于反种族隔离的警务工作

网址：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-95-number-3/anti-segregation-policing/

Conversations about police reform in lawmaking and legal scholarship typically take a narrow view of the multiple, complex roles that policing plays in American society, focusing primarily on their techniques of crime control. This Article breaks from that tendency, engaging police reform from a sociological perspective that focuses instead on the noncriminal functions of policing. In particular, it examines the role of policing in the daily maintenance of racial residential segregation, one of the central strategies of American racial inequality. Unlike previous work that touches on these issues, this Article argues that police reformers and police leaders should adopt an anti-segregation approach to policing. It also offers legal frameworks and policy prescriptions that flow from an anti-segregation ethic in police governance.

立法和法律学术界对于警务改革的讨论，通常小看了警察在美国社会中扮演的角色之多样性与复杂性，而主要关注他们控制犯罪的技术。本文突破了这一倾向，从社会学的角度讨论警务改革，将重点放在警察的非刑事职能上。本文特别研究了警察在日常维护基于种族的住宅隔离中的角色，这是美国种族不平等的核心策略之一。与触及这些问题的既往研究不同，本文主张，警务改革者和警方领导人应该采取反隔离的警务策略。基于警务策略中的反隔离伦理，本文也提供了法律框架和政策方针。

（图片来源于网络）

This Article begins by setting forth a rich account of residential segregation, clarifying the distinction between easily measurable proxies for segregation and the type of segregation with which law and policy should be concerned: the spatial separation that confines, subordinates, and dominates. It then identifies and illustrates six mechanisms through which American policing perpetuates residential segregation, drawing from sociological research, including qualitative narratives collected in Dallas County, Texas; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; and Baltimore, Maryland. Next, the Article sketches the architecture of anti-segregation policing, offering legal frameworks based on fair housing law and federal and state consent decrees, as well as a non-exhaustive set of practical approaches police departments could take to advance an anti-segregation agenda. Finally, the Article engages a fundamental question central to police transformation movements today: Is meaningful police reform, including anti-segregation policing, possible in a society that is structured through race?

本文首先提供了关于住宅隔离的丰富信息，厘清了“较容易评估的隔离指标”与“法律和政策应当关注的隔离情形”间的区别。这些情形包括限制、从属和支配的空间隔离。然后，本文通过社会学研究，包括对德克萨斯州达拉斯县、俄亥俄州凯霍加县和马里兰州巴尔的摩市有关信息的定性叙述，阐释了美国警务工作中延续住宅隔离的六个机制。接下来，文章描绘了反隔离警务工作的基本架构，基于公平住房法以及州和联邦的确认判决，提供了法律框架；此外，还提出了为推进反隔离议程，警察部门可以采取的实际方法——尽管它不是尽善尽美的。最后，对于当今的警务改革运动，本文提出了一个极为重要的基本问题：在一个基于种族构建的社会中，有意义的警务改革（包括反种族隔离工作）是否可能？

The Imperative for Trauma-Responsive Special Education - Nicole Tuchinda

“创伤回应型特殊教育”的迫切性

网址：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-95-number-3/the-imperative-fo-trauma-responsive-special-education/

Recent, robust research makes clear that childhood trauma, such as abuse or neglect in the home or the chronic lack of basic necessities, is common and can cause and exacerbate disabilities in learning and behavior. These disabilities prevent many children from making educational progress, but evidence-based strategies now exist to give these children access to education. To appropriately implement these strategies, the nation’s educational disability rights laws—the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (together, “Section 504”)—must become “trauma-responsive” or “healing centered.” The imperative to make education for children with trauma-induced disabilities trauma-responsive is not just moral, however; it is also legal. IDEA’s “Child Find” and Section 504’s “Locate and Notify” mandates require public school systems to identify and provide an evaluation and individualized education to all children with disabilities. This is the first article in the legal literature to describe the need to make IDEA, Section 504, and their implementation trauma-responsive. This article is also the first to propose three ways to meet this need: 1) requiring assessment of trauma’s impact when trauma is suspected to be a cause of disability in a child; 2) amending IDEA to add a stand-alone, trauma-specific disability category through which children can become eligible for special education and recognizing that trauma causes disability under Section 504; and 3) putting trauma-responsive specialized instruction, related services, and accommodations into individualized educational programs developed under IDEA (“IEPs”) and programs developed under Section 504 (“504 plans”).

最近的研究有力表明，例如家庭虐待或忽视、对基本必需品的长期缺乏等童年创伤是常见的，并且可能导致和加剧学习与行为上的障碍。许多儿童因此无法取得学习上的进步，但现在已有一些基于研究证据的策略来帮助他们接受教育。为了适当地实施这些策略，国家的残疾人教育权法要求必须“对创伤有回应”，或者“以疗愈为核心”，如《残疾人教育法》（“IDEA”）、1973年《康复法》第504款以及《美国残疾人法》（合称第504款）。但是，当教育那些因创伤而致障碍的儿童时，应当具有对创伤的回应——这种必要性不仅仅是道德上的，更是法律上的。IDEA法案的“寻找儿童”以及第504款的“定位与告知”任务，要求公立学校系统发现那些障碍儿童，并为他们提供评估和个性化的教育。本文是第一篇描述“IDEA法案、第504款以及它们的实施必须回应创伤”的法律文章。本文也第一次提出了满足这种需求的三种方式：第一，当怀疑创伤是儿童障碍的原因时，需要对创伤的影响进行评估；第二， 修订IDEA，以新增一个单独针对创伤的障碍类别，使儿童有资格接受特殊教育，并承认创伤是第504条下之障碍的原因；第三，在根据IDEA制定的个性化教育计划（“IEP”）和第504条下制定的计划（“504计划”）中，加入回应创伤的专门指导、相关服务和辅助性措施。

Overfiling and Under-Enforcement - Hannah R. Miles

执法过载与不力

网址：

https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-95-number-3/overfiling-and-under-enforcement/

Environmental regulation is accomplished through a system of cooperative federalism—the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets nationwide standards for various pollutants, but the responsibility for granting permits, inspecting facilities, and punishing violations is generally delegated to state agencies. This power-sharing arrangement has frequently created tensions between the federal and state environmental agencies. Overfiling is one of the most contentious of these tensions; it occurs when the federal government files an enforcement action against a polluter for a violation of a federal environmental statute after the delegated state agency has reached a settlement with the same polluter for the same violation. While overfiling occurs very rarely, it is a critical component of the cooperative federalism arrangement, and in this Note, I propose that it should occur more frequently in order to ensure that state agencies are not using low enforcement to de facto create a more hospitable landscape for polluters and damage public health and the environment.

环境监管是通过合作联邦制[1]完成的。联邦环境保护局（EPA）为各种污染物制定了全国性的标准，但是授权许可、检查设施和惩治违法行为的责任一般被授权给各州机构。这种分享权力的安排屡次造成联邦和州政府的环境机构间的紧张关系。“执法过载”是其中最有争议的：这是指当联邦政府对违反联邦环境法规的污染者进行强制执行时，被授权的州政府机构已经与同一污染者就同一违法行为达成了和解。尽管“执法过载”的情况很少发生，但它是合作联邦制安排的重要组成部分。在本文中，我建议这种情形应当更频繁地产生，以此确保州政府机构不会利用低水平的执法在事实上为污染者创造更有利的形势，并损害环境与公共健康。

译者注

[1] 译者注：詹姆斯·麦迪逊讲座是纽约大学法学院最重要的讲座系列之一。该系列讲座始于1960年，旨在增强公民的自由意识和国家使命感。该系列讲座由雨果·布莱克大法官开创，他提出了他著名的宪法第一修正案的绝对性理论。自那时以来，超过十二名美国最高法院大法官和超过二十四名美国上诉法院法官发表了麦迪逊系列演讲。

[2] 译者注：这可能是指棒球比赛中，裁判员没能对投手的投球处于“好球区”还是“坏球区”进行正确判断的糟糕表现。而ESPN推广了“K区”这一术语，似乎是因为他们使用了一套能够毫无差错地判断球的位置的电脑技术。

[3] 译者注：合作联邦制是一种政府间关系的模式，其承认国家和州政府的职能重叠。这种模式可以与双重联邦制模式形成对比，后者认为国家和州政府有不同的、独立的政府职能。