考研英语阅读材料及译文:Human rights and Europe

　　考研英语阅读材料及译文:Human rights and Europe

　　“UNWORKABLE”, “contradictory” and “incoherent”. Those were among the epithets that have greeted the Conservative Party's plans to reform Britain's human-rights laws. The Tories have long wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act (HRA), passed in 1998 by a Labour government. On October 3rd Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, promised to do just that as the Tories gear up for a May election in which the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) threatens to lure away voters. In fact, the reforms will change less than supporters hope or critics fear.

　　The HRA incorporated into British law the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which Britain signed (and helped to draft) more than half a century ago. The act allowed Britons to pursue human-rights violations in British courts, rather than going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Although demonised by the Tories as European interventionism, the HRA actually made it more likely that human-rights cases would be heard in domestic courts, albeit in the light of internationally agreed principles.

　　Several decisions by the European court have particularly upset the Conservatives. The court ruled that Britain's ban on any prisoners voting was unlawful; it laid down that whole-life sentences should be subject to review; and it insisted that Abu Qatada, accused of terrorist offences, should not be deported to Jordan without guarantees that neither he nor those giving evidence at his trial would be tortured. Eurosceptics and British tabloids have seized on these cases as evidence of European meddling in British affairs.

　　The Tories say they will replace the HRA with a new Bill of Rights. They argue that Britain has a long history of its own human-rights laws (including Magna Carta) and that the European court is overreaching. The Conservatives want to limit the rights of individuals (notably foreigners) under the convention in certain circumstances. The European court's judgments would be merely advisory as far as British courts are concerned. If the Council of Europe, the guardian of the convention, refuses to accept these changes, Britain would withdraw from the convention.

　　In fact the ECHR has less legal power than first appears. International treaties are difficult to enforce, and the court cannot force Britain to change its laws even now. Prisoners do not have the vote despite the court's objection to Britain's ban. The main problem is political; other members of the Council of Europe may not want to put up with Britain continually ignoring the court's rulings, as the Tories' proposals suggest they might.

　　Nor has European human-rights legislation proved as restrictive as critics suggest. In 2012, of 2,146 foreign offenders ordered to be deported, just 256 successfully appealed on human-rights grounds. In the 16 years since the HRA came into force, domestic courts have made 28 “declarations of incompatibility”, holding that British laws conflict with the European convention. In 2013, of 1,652 British cases dealt with in Strasbourg, judges found violations in just eight.

　　Without the HRA, the liberties enshrined in the European convention would still apply to Britons, who would then have to revert to going to Strasbourg about human-rights violations, as they did before its introduction. If the promised Bill of Rights were at odds with the convention, appeals would multiply.

　　参考译文:

　　“不切实际”、“相互矛盾”又“杂乱无序”。这些词汇都是舆论对保守党改革英国人权法案计划的反应。一直以来保守党都想废除人权法案(HRA)，该法案于1988年被工党政府通过生效。司法部长克里斯格雷林于10月3日承诺此种举动仅是保守党为了一个“五月的选举”做准备，对此选举最反欧的英国独立党(UKIP)扬言会拉拢选民。实际上，此项改革能改变的远不到支持者所期望的或是批评者所担忧的那样。

　　英国HRA将纳入大英律法，它于半个多世纪前签署(并协助起草)后缔结成欧洲人权公约(ECHR)。此项法案允许英国人在英国法庭之上追究人权侵害之责，而免于奔赴位于斯特拉斯堡的欧洲人权法院。虽然保守党将该法案歪曲成了欧盟干涉主义，但是根据国际公认的原则，HRA实际上更加使得有关人权的案件能在国内法院受审。

　　欧洲法院所做出的一些决议，犹使保守党焦躁不安。法院规定，英国针对囚犯投票的任何禁令是违法的;它主张有关终身性的判决应该受到审查;而且法院坚持认为在没有对他或是其他与审判庭上提供证据的人免受责难的担保之下，被指控恐怖主义犯罪的阿布卡塔达不应被流放到约旦。欧洲怀疑论者和英国的小报抓住这类案件作为欧盟干预英国事务的证据。

　　保守党表示他们将以一个全新的权利法案替代HRA。他们认为，英国在很长一段历史上拥有自己的人权法案(包括《大宪章》)但欧洲法院如今过分干预。遵从公约为前提，保守党希望在某些情况下限制个人权利(特别是外国人)。只有英国法院还是有些忠实的，那么欧洲法院的判决也仅是参考而已。如果欧洲理事会—公约的监护者—拒绝接受这样的改变，英国将退出该公约。

　　实际上，相较于ECHR的首次亮相，如今它拥有的法律权力弱了很多，国际条约难以强制执行，即使现在法院也不能强制英国改变它的法律。尽管法院反对英国的禁令，但是囚犯还是没有投票权。这主要是因为政治性问题;由于保守党的提议表明他们可能会继续无视欧洲法院的裁定，而其他欧洲理事会成员国也可能不想容忍英国的这种无视。

　　欧洲的人权立法也不如批评家们指明的限制性。2012年，在被命令驱逐的2146名外国罪犯中，仅有256名成功的以人权缘由上诉。自HRA生效施行的16年间，国内法院给出了28 次有关“无法兼容的通告”，认为英国法律与欧洲公约存在冲突。2013年，在斯特拉斯堡处理的1652起英国案件中，法官发现仅有8起出现违规。

　　没有HRA，欧洲公约中的一些自由许恒星能仍旧适用于英国人，随之英国人就必须恢复到奔赴斯特拉斯堡处理人权侵害的问题—就像在签署公约之前一样做。若是承诺的权利法案与公约还是存在冲突，上诉可能会增多。