厦门大学南海研究院近期将出版会议论文集，需要笔译员（英译中/中译英），有意者请将如下内容的试译、简历和报价发到邮箱：。

汉译英：

国际法院曾在多个案件宣布管辖权取决于在此以前进行的双边谈判的努力是否竭尽。国际法院认为：只有在直接谈判失败后，才具有提起强制解决争端程序的合理性。比如：在英挪渔业案中，在关于适用法律原则方面的分歧，国际法院建议争端各方应通过谈判方式加以解决；在安巴提洛斯案中，国际法院是在争端各方谈判的努力被认为已经“竭尽”时，方才行使管辖权；在明基埃和埃克荷斯群岛案中，国际法院审查了争端各方谈判的陈述之后，才由法院裁决做出结论；在渔业管辖案中，法院在指出该案所包括的问题的性质以后给出了：“解决争端最适当的方法显然是谈判”的意见；在北海大陆架案中，法院宣称：谈判的义务原出于关各方各自权利的性质，因此，在该案例中，进行谈判以行使法律的职能，这也符合《联合国宪章》有关和平解决争端的原则和规定。



英译汉：

the jurisprudence of the icj concerning negotiations

（to what extent the obligation to negotiate is fulfilled have been considered in a number of previous cases by international courts and tribunals.） from the icj’s perspective, on the one hand, states have an obligation to negotiate and pursue negotiations as soon as possible with a view concluding agreements, to conduct meaningful negotiations, which will not be the case when either of them insists upon its own position without contemplating any modification of it. notably, such a requirement does not impose any specific obligation to accept any particular settlement. on the other hand, the court observed that “the fact that negotiations are being actively pursued during the present proceedings is not, legally, any obstacle to the exercise by the court of its judicial function”. there was no general rule in the un charter and international law that “the exhaustion of diplomatic negotiations constitutes a precondition for a matter to be referred to the court”. the court asserted that negotiation as a precondition “may be embodied and is often included in compromissory clauses of treaties or may be included in a special agreement”. the court’s two contrasting positions reflect that “such a precondition is normally found to be a conventional rule” rather than a general rule. a further comprehensive parsing is echoed in georgia v. russia case. the court considered that the concept of negotiations “requires a genuine attempt by one of the disputing parties to engage in discussions with the other disputing party, with a view to resolving the dispute”. （without evidence of a genuine attempt to negotiate, the precondition of negotiation is not met. it is satisfied “only when there has been a failure of negotiations, or when negotiations have become futile or deadlocked”.） moreover, “the subject-matter of the negotiations must relate to the subject-matter of the dispute which, in turn, must concern the substantive obligations contained in the treaty in question”. （above all, the court has addressed some issues relating to “the nature of the precondition of negotiations”.） （可不必翻译括号部分）