法学专业毕业论文外文翻译--- 新西兰奥特来罗瓦的公正和法律

毕业论文外文资料翻译

学院(系):

专业：

姓名：XXX

学号：

外文出处：1、《Center for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies Monash University Melbourne》

附件： 1.外文资料翻译译文；2.外文原文

外文资料翻译译文

新西兰奥特来罗瓦的公正和法律

————两个案例的学习

摘要：本文通过对两个案例的学习，分析在新西兰奥特来罗瓦法律的实践和这个殖民大陆上“非法”、“不文明”以及“混乱”的关系。由于在奥特来罗瓦，法律和殖民利益的直接挂钩，我认为，无论在哈克党案还是迈尔五世万佳市议会案，关于辩护的法令都着重于法律的权威性和对差异性的排挤之间的关系。据两案的法官说，毛利法律的规定和文化与“法律和秩序”这一原则想冲突。根据殖民联系，毛利法律和文化与文明的威胁之间所表现出来的关系，法律和秩序展现了法律对于一种有文化偏差的习惯的操控，并且反映了帕克哈（欧洲新西兰的士族）的利益。因此，挑战那浮出水面的威胁已使法律在任何案子里都展现出其原有的威胁，暴露那原本就控制着它的暴力，也因此为公众打开了批评的大门。也许比实质上对体系的攻击更厉害的是，这些法令暴露了法律对公正性的挑战，不仅使法律有可能成为一种特定文化阶层利益的反映，而且因此能被改变得可以为公正服务。

关键词：殖民的，哈卡党，公正，毛利法律，新西兰，帕克哈

1，暴力问题

1978年，新西兰政府委托了一个报告，即众所周知的“罗珀报告”，这个报告在各种坏境下研究暴力行为。虽然许多人都称赞这个报告，但人们也普遍注意到，很多来自毛利人的评论并不好。许多批评家认为与毛利人在这些问题上商议的失败，影射出社会上和政治上存在更加普遍的不公正现象，这些都使给制造暴力创造了社会条件。例如，泰特海·哈日怀瑞,争论说任何有关毛利人和暴力之间关系的报道应该考虑到这些暴力发生的社会和文化环境。换句话说，必须考虑到权利和财富在社会中的不平均分布，以及在这些关系下“暴力”的确立，维持和产生。它必须脱离法律法规和犯罪来看待这件事，要考虑发生这些暴力所在的特殊历史文化环境。这样，哈日怀瑞所关心的就仅仅是报道上所写的，而是那些趋向暴行的因素是什么：系统化，制度化的种族主义在法律和刑事司法系统有暗示。

2. 代表性暴行：哈卡党案

新西兰奥特亚罗瓦的有关犯罪的媒体报道调查中，斯布雷发现：即使是过度[毛利人和太平洋岛民]表示允许。在犯罪行为上：当暴力和性描述了案件的结局，报纸更乐意使用如毛利人或太平洋岛民的标签，而不是白种人或欧洲。

这样身份标志物的使用是以刑事罪行的报告为基础的，同时重新申明普遍假设及族裔群体和犯罪行为之间的关联。事实上，斯布雷接着指出：“错误和夸张的报道也可能被认为是某些在阻碍与毛利人/太平洋群岛有关系的活动（如帮派成员，强奸，逾期居留）。重点是进一步支持在1986年提交给报业评议会，其中指出，在报纸报道未发表的210份调查中，只有非白种人[或者非欧洲后裔新西兰人]的种族确定，犯罪和暴力的项目中，那些少数人的标志经常在使用被弄乱（斯布雷）。

3.媒体表现

媒体对事件的反应很快证实了斯布雷概述的种族主义倾向。奥克兰明星第一份报纸头版标题写到：“匪帮在大学里暴动，学生在哈卡派对上怒殴”。毛利人和太平洋岛民，其中大部分也是学生，被描述为一个“匪帮”。尽管事实是他们“是不穿任何能识别的'补丁'”，这个文章本身也承认。

同样地，在新西兰先驱报的社论，题目是'没地方给暴力'，认为，'哈卡'不是故意要冒犯而这种罪行并没有在过去采取过。这位编辑坚持认为，大学是一个自由和宽容的地方，这次袭击很可能已经由“毛利人的激进派“计划过，因此不是一个自发的，而是故意的行为。有关这些'激进派'的可能身份的言论在附近开始流传。媒体压倒性的结论就是，被捕“哈卡党”的攻击者，如果新西兰人能保持安全，这些法律必须坚持。

澳大利亚和新西兰的环境差异，在这里是值得着重比较的。像新西兰的法律制度，在一定程度上，澳大利亚法律承认土著法律。特别是在马博v昆士兰（第2号）（1992）高等法院承认原住民土地权和在这个过程中推翻了这一概念，即澳大利亚是以往任何时候无主地，这是一个概念，对这一信仰提供了法律支持，尽管明显地在法律和文化系统上属于土著居民。“1788年澳大利亚无人居住由主权或由院校或法律承认的人”

4. 法律和人权

遥感的紧迫性，他们需要解决的情况下的'哈卡党案'，人权委员会收集的'白种人意识形态'的范例和毛利人的反对意见，并发表了一份初步报告，是新西兰种族和谐声明的问题。该报告是一个由公众提交人权调解人，曾要求受访者询问与哲学有关的“哈卡党”的问题，他正义地考虑到自己手中调用的结果。这项研究分为七个标题（“所有新西兰人”，“不同待遇”，“不容忍公差”，“新西兰作为一个多文化的社会”，“种族主义”，“双文化主义，土地，文化认同和语言”和“法律/权利”），并分为两类组织的报告：“观点一”，“以中心主题为基础，新西兰是一个单一文化的社会--我们都是新西兰人”，“观点A”，其中“地方上的观点强调，新西兰是一个多元文化群体的社会”。'哈卡党攻击者从“观点一“非常清晰地表出现敌对的态度。受访者形容为“有组织的行为凶杀，几乎是暴力阴谋”，一个是'哈卡党攻击'“一些愚蠢的误导青少年不正当的行为：为原始的野蛮人决定争辩的手段”。在'差别待遇'这一节中，他们争辩说，毛利人的特殊规定是'种族'和“为了使事情公然”，将使毛利人享有“文明的文化，同时为他们自己的文化享受特殊待遇。其中在'禁忌'和'峡谷'的例子中，异教徒的做法就给整个社会带来不便。”这一判决有许多不同反响，这些受访者认为，平等和民主只能在实现毛利人根本上认为自己是新西兰人时，才能实现。因此，需要公正和平等的差异否定;作为分裂主义和种族主义的毛利人的习俗，从这一立场，法律或身份是看到的。因此，毛利人被他们自己指责为种族紧张关系的原因。

这一观点为法院的决定提供了一些的解释。的确，正如沃克指出，布莱克伍德的反应证明了“英国审判”的方式与白种人法律和秩序的概念很早就被认为是对毛利文化和政治完整的不屑断言。

5.案例二：迈尔V万佳区议会

法律，另一种揭示实例的方式，毛利人法律和风俗已经代表性地被迈尔v万佳区法院断言为一个威胁。虽然不直接涉及任何暴力的例子，这个案件涉及的行为审判长选择解释为对法律的权威攻击。此外，这种特殊的情况下以何种方式来显示重要地位的法院，无论是作为一个物理空间还是一个象征，都是对统治关系的空间和建筑的体现。这一事件发生于1995年10月31日，当肯梅尔，一个众所周

知的毛利活动家，在法庭上协助一个被告袭击他人的朋友。迈尔向法官表示，他将要进行karakia，或在向法院提出诉讼前，让传统的毛利人进行祈祷。法官爱迪恩说：“作为一个法官，在我看来，在karakia期间出现在这些特殊的境况下是不合适的。迈尔提出的问题是，不是karakia自身的说法，而是尝试去“由法官在的情况下进行karakia。”

法官的裁决因此不仅仅是对迈尔的话语回应，而是对他反应的“警告”，威胁或挑战，法律不得不作出反应锯。由于时间和事件发生的地点在1995年10月的万佳区法院，很少人会不注意到迈尔在这一年的早些时候在这个城镇参与毛特欧花园的职业。由于迈尔频繁被媒体描绘为'毛利激进'，极力反对官方竞选毛利人主权问题，许多人可能确实怀疑他对法律的尊重。然而，迈尔没有公开提出质疑：在法庭上，他都在各方面顺从法官的指示，除非它违反了毛利人的法律。迈尔在法庭上的行动是他与他的文化和法律相一致的：这是真正的威胁。迈尔不只是打破或拒绝按照程序，他更选择要按照毛利人的法律。作为回应，对法官的裁决他公开揭示了法律的暴力行为。

这个“出席和缺勤”的确立，为了解空间活化通过差异（订购和分类），使'听'可能，最好是分析可能创造在哪些方面可以提出的定义或者说，什么必是须按照法律规定继续说出口的。

对取消抵押品赎回权的操作中引用的默认实例中，我们要问：什么是为了继续行使他们的权力而必须对当代政权的言论保持沉默的？如何在“主体”之前通过其他可能的阐明，在法律范围内排除网站产生的法律？在某种程度上，这样的构排除提供了任何言语行为可能性的条件，可以得出“未经审查的文字必然是不完整的”。理解为取消抵押品赎回权，审查通过产生无法形容的话语生产机制。

6. 暴力威胁

至于“哈卡党”的案例，它不能简单地认为是毛利人威胁了法律的权威，而是它并没有包含规则，边缘和自身违反的束缚。像沃克的激进的暴力潜力的描述，迈尔企图说karakia为相关的疾病提供了一些威胁的方式来解释法律的回应。因为法官们自己清楚，这里的威胁与其说是作为一个犯罪组织，不如说是反对'法

律'这个概念的犯罪动机。这种威胁是在正义名义下的犯罪。如果像福柯指出，“政治权力是通过潜作战的形式永远重复地记载不平衡;在社会机构，经济上不平等，语言中机构和它们自身再登记，那么这种行为可以被理解为意图重建自身秩序的叛乱。通过对一个类似的不公正现象唤起历史上不公正的排斥，这种行为可以被认为既是考古，又是家谱。至于考古，只要他们试图揭露他们如何被列入等级秩序或权力;而家谱，只要他们通过“恢复当地的知识”来寻求反抗单一的和绝对的话语。

因此，反殖民'暴力'的目的不是仅仅需要推翻殖民者，而是要取代压迫体制本身，正如萨特指出，“一石二鸟，同时摧毁压迫者和被压迫之人。留下一个死人和一个自由的人“通过这样来呼吁另外一套秩序，他们通过使赋予法律权威的镇压和排外透明化，让这些'暴力'行为威胁到现存系统。通过诉诸过去和现在的不公平，他们试图引起人们对法律权威和压制与排斥的差异之间关系的注意。如果被认为是行使或应用过度或不公平的，是因为法律失去了它的合法性。说什么法律规定被遗忘，激进主义使该法成为可能，可向出现不公正，非法和不公平的。过去的人物用这种方式来思考法律，没有返回到野蛮，而是天真地被压迫和迫害。法律，之所以成为法律，必须始终掩盖镇压作为刑事体内这个数字作为暴力或秩序的对立面。然而，在努力这样做，特别是当遇到挫折或挑战时，它必须小心地不可过度反应或激烈。

也许揭露法律，挑战它所谓的正义的行为比任何人身攻击制度本身更有力，它使法律被视为一种特定的文化热情的体现，因此双方为共同拉拢能干，吸纳能力，能够服务另一端。这一法律之间的使用和法律已在当前系统运行方式的重要的区别是，相信判决永远不会是最终的或普遍的，但总是局部的，个别的和不完整的。换言之，司法将永远不会在眼前，而只会在将来，从未做过，但即将要做。

外文原文

Between Justice and Law in Aotearoa New Zealand：Two cases studies

Stephen PriteChaed

ABSTRACT. Through two case studies, this essay examines the relationship between theoperation and practice of law in Aotearoa New Zealand and the naming of the …unlawful?, …uncivil? or …disorderly? within a colonial context. Against the background of the apparent complicity between law and colonial interest and desire in Aotearoa, I argue that, in both the …Haka Party? case (1979) and Mair v Wanganui City Council (1996), the acts of the defendants draw attention to the relationship between the authority of the law and the repression or exclusion of difference. According to the judges in both cases, the dictates of Maori law and custom were in conflict with the principles of …law and order?. Read in terms of colonial relations, the perceived relationship between Maori law and custom and the threat to …civilisation?, law and order reveals the way in which …the law? has operated in a culturally biased manner and has reflected the interests of Pakeha (New Zealanders of European descent). Thus, the perceived threat of the challenge made to the law in either case can be seen as the threat to reveal it for what it is, to expose the violence that maintains it, and thus to open a space for critique. Perhaps more powerfully than any physical attack on the system itself, these acts which expose the law challenge it in the name of justice, making it possible for the law to be seen both as a reflection of a particular cultural interest and hence as co-opt-able, takeable and able to be made to serve another end, that of the other in the name of justice.

KEY WORDS: colonial, …Haka Party?, justice, Mair, Maori law, New Zealand, Pakeha 1. THE VIOLENCE PROBLEM

In 1987 the New Zealand government commissioned a report, the …Roper Report? as it became known, which examined violence in a broad range of contexts. Although many commended the report, it was widely noted that very few submissions were received from the Maori community. Many critics suggested that the failure to consult Maori on such issues reflected the more general social and political inequalities which

give rise to the social conditions that create violence in the first place. TitewhaiHarawira, for example, argued that any report which considered the relationship between Maori and violence should consider the social and cultural context in which such violence occurs.1 In other words, it must take into account the uneven distribution of power and wealth within society and the …violence? that establishes, maintains and is produced by such relations; it must look beyond matters of …law?, …order? and …criminality? to consider th e historically and culturally specific conditions under which violence is produced. Thus, Harawira?s concern was not merely with what was in the report, but with what its approach toward violence passes over and leaves unaddressed: systematised, institutionalised racism implicit in the legal and criminal justice system.

2. REPRESENTING VIOLENCE: THE “HAKA PARTY CASE”

In a survey of media reportage of crime in Aotearoa New Zealand,

Spoonley discovered that: Even allowing for the over-representation of [Maori and Pacific Islanders] ::. in criminal behaviour :::newspapers are three times more likely to use labels such as Maori or Pacific Islander rather than Pakeha or European when describing cases of violent and sexual offending.4

The use of such markers of identity in reports of criminal offences is

both based upon and re-affirms prevalent assumptions and associations between ethnic groups and criminal behaviour. Indeed, Spoonley goes on to note that: “[i]naccurate or exaggerated reportage can also be s een in the way that certain activities (e.g. gang membership, rape, overstaying) tend to be associated with Maori/Pacific Island groups”.5 The point is further supported by a submission to the Press Council in 1986, which noted that, in an unpublished survey of 210 newspaper reports, only non-Pakeha [or non-European descended New Zealanders] were racially identified, and that minority labels were most often used in items about disorder, crime and violence (Spoonley). ```````````````````````

3. MEDIA REPRESENTATIONS

The media response to the incident quickly confirmed the racist tendencies outlined by Spoonley. The first newspaper headline on the front page of the Auckland Star read: …Gang Rampage at Varsity. Students at Haka Party Bashed?. The Maori and Pa cific Islanders, most of them also students, were described as a …gang?, despite the fact that, as the article itself admits, they “were not wearing any identifying …patches?.····Similarly, an editorial in the New Zealand Herald, headlined …No Place for Violence?, argued that the …haka? was not intended to offend and that offence had not been taken in the past. The editor insisted that the university was a place for liberalism and tolerance and that the attack must have been planned, probably by …Maori radicals?, and was therefore not a spontaneous, but a deliberate, act. Theories began circulating about the possible identities of these …radicals?. The overwhelming conclusion in the media, with respect to the arrested …haka party attackers?, was that the la w must be upheld if New Zealanders were to remain secure.

``````````````````````````

It is worth making a point of comparison here to demonstrate the similarity and differences between Australian and New Zealand contexts. Like the New Zealand legal system, Australian law has recognised indigenous law to some extent. In particular, in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) (1992) the High Court recognised native title and in the process overturned the notion that Australia was ever terra nullius, a notion that provided legal support to the belief that, despite the obvious presence of indigenous populations with systems of law and culture, “Australia in 1788 [w]as uninhabited by a sovereign or sovereigns or by people with institutions or laws.”```````````````````````````

4. LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Sensing the urgency with which they needed to address the situation

following the …Haka Party Case?, the Human Rights Commission collected examples of …Pakeha ideology? and of the opposing Maori views and published a preliminary report, Racial Harmony in New Zealand – A Statement of Issues. The report was the result of a call for public submissions by the Human Rights Conciliator, who had

asked respondents to philosophise about issues relating to the …Haka Party? incident and He T aua?s taking of justice into their own hands. The study was divided into seven headings (…All New Zealanders?, …Different Treatment?, …Intolerance/Tolerance?, …New Zealand as a Multi-cultural Society?, …Racism?, …Bi-culturalism, land, cultural identity and language? and …Law/Rights?) and the report organised into two categories: …View One?, “based on the central theme that New Zealand is a mono-cultural society –that we are all New Zealanders”,18 and …View A?, which “places emphasis on the view that New Ze aland is a society of diverse cultural groups”.19 Opposition to the …Haka Party attackers? from …View One? emerged with great clarity. Respondents described the …Haka Party attack? as an “organised act of thuggery, almost a conspiracy of violence”, a “fool ish unwarranted action by some misguided youths: a means of deciding an argument for primitive savages”. In the section on …Different Treatment? they argued that special provision for Maori was …racist? and that “to make matters blatant” would allow Maori to enjoy “civilised culture while enjoying special treatment for their own culture. Heathen practices of which …tapu? and …tangis? are examples bring inconvenience to the whole community:” echoing many ideas from the judgment, these respondents suggested that equality and democracy could only be achieved if Maori thought of themselves, primarily, as New Zealanders. Justice and equality therefore required the disavowal of difference; the assertion of Maori custom, law or identity was seen, from this position, as separatist and racist. Consequently, Maori themselves were blamed for racial tensions,

`````````````````````

This view provides some explanation for the court?s decision. Indeed, as Walker notes, Blackwood?s response demonstrates the way …British justice? and Pakeha notions of law and order have always treated with contempt assertions of Maori cultural and political integrity. ```````````````````

5. CASE TWO:MAIR V WANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL

Another revealing instance of the way …the law? has typicall y taken the assertion of Maori law and custom as a threat is Mair v Wanganui District Court (1996). While not concerning any straightforward examples of violence, this case involved an act the

presiding Judge chose to interpret as an attack on the authority of the law. Moreover, this particular case foregrounds the manner in which the Court, both as a physical and symbolic space, is a spatial and architectural embodiment of the relations of domination. The incident happened on 31 October 1995, when Ken Mair, a well-known Maori activist, was in court assisting a friend, who was the defendant on an assault charge. Mair indicated to the judge that he would like to undertake a karakia, or traditional Maori prayer before court proceedings were underway. Judge Ade ane said: “it is not appropriate in my view for a Judge to be present in these particular circumstances during a karakia”.27 The problem with what Mair proposed was, not the saying of a karakia itself, but the attempt to “have a karakia, within [the Judge?s] ::. presence.”28

```````````````````

The Judge?s ruling was thus not merely a response to Mair?s utterance, but a reaction to what he saw as “a warning”, a threat or challenge to which the law had to respond. Given the timing and location of the incident, in the Wanganui District Court in October 1995, few would have been unaware of Mair?s participation in the MoutoaGardens? occupation earlier that year in that very town. Given the frequent media portrayal of Mair as a …Maori radical?, who continually a nd strenuously campaigned against the Crown on matters of Maori sovereignty, many may indeed have doubted his respect for the law. Nevertheless, Mair did not openly challenge it: in Court, he followed the directions of the Judge in every respect except where it contravened Maori law. Mair?s actions in Court were consistent with his culture and his laws: this was the real threat. Mair did not merely break with or refuse to follow procedure, he instead chose to act according to Maori law. The Judge?s ruling, in response, reveals and exposes the violence of the law.

`````````````````````

This establishment of …presences and absences?, understood as the activation of space through the creation of differences (ordering and classification) that make …hearing? possible, might best be analysed in terms of the definition of what can be presented or said and what must, according to the law, remain unsaid. ······

The operation of foreclosure is tacitly referenced in those instances in which we ask: what must remain unspeakable for contemporary regimes of discourse to continue to exercise their power? How is the “subject” before the law produced through the exclusion of other possible sites of enunciation within the law? To the extent that such a constitutive exclusion provides the condition of possibility for any act of speech, it follows that “uncensoring the text is necessarily incomplete” ::. Understood as foreclosure, censorship produces discursive regimes through the production of the unspeakable.38

6. THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE

As with the …Haka Party? case, it is not simply the figure of …the Maori? that threatens the law, but rather that which is not contained by the order, the marginal or repressed within the order itself. Like Walker?s description of the radic al potential of violence, the threat of disorder associated with Mair?s attempts to say the karakia offers some explanation for the way the law responded. For, as the Judges themselves make clear, the threat here is not so much the crime as the notion of a crime organised or motivated by another law and against …the law?. Such a threat is a crime that acts in the name of justice. If, as Foucault observes, “[t]he role of political power ::. is perpetually to reinscribe [disequilibrium] ::. through a form of unspoken warfare; to reinscribe it in social institutions, in economic inequalities, in language, in the bodies themselves”,39 then such acts can be read as a form of insurgency aimed at (re)establishing their own order. By evoking their unjust exclusion against a similarly unjust history, such acts can be considered both archaeological in so far as they seek to expose how they have been inscribed and subjected within the hierarchical order or power; and genealogical, in so far as they seek to struggle against unitary and totalising discourses through the “reactivation of local knowledges”.40 ```````````` Thus, the aim of anti-colonial …violence? need not be merely to overthrow the settler, but to displace the system of oppression itself; it is, as Sartre no tes, “to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy the oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time: there remain a dead man and a free man.”45 Through such appeals to another order,

these …violent? acts threaten the present system, by the way in wh ich they make visible the repressions or exclusions which give …the law? authority. Through recourse to past and present injustice, they attempt to draw attention to the relationship between the authority of the law and the repression or exclusion of difference. For the law loses it legitimacy if is seen to be exercised or applied excessively or unfairly. By saying what the law requires to be forgotten, radicalism makes it possible that the law may be made to appear unjust, illegitimate and unfair. It is in this way that the figure of the past returns to haunt the law, returning not as the savage, but as the innocent, the oppressed and the persecuted. The law, in order to be law, must always conceal this figure by repressing it as the body of the criminal, as violence or the antithesis of order. And yet, in its efforts to do so, especially when confronted or challenged, it must be careful not to respond excessively or violently. ``````````````````

````````````

Perhaps more powerfully than any physical attack on the system itself, the act of exposing the law, of challenging it in the name of justice, makes it possible for the law to be seen both as a reflection of a particular cultural interest and hence as co-opt-able, …take-able? and able to be made to serve another end, that of the other in the name of justice. The important difference between this use of law and the way the law has operated in the current system would be the belief that judgment is never final or universal, but always partial, positioned and incomplete. In other words, justice would never be in the present, but only ever in the future, never done but always to be done.