美国最高法院肯尼迪大法官在北大国际法学院创院典礼上发表演讲

Law professors, of course, have their own set of serious obligations.  Among these are a willingness to undertake a constant reexamination of the substance and the techniques they are to teach so they are not themselves trapped in forms and methods that are too rigid and ineffective.

当然，法学教授有他们自己的一套严格的职责。其中一条就是愿意不断地自我检视他们教给学生的，不管是从内容上还是方法上，使得他们自己不至于陷入严苛的和无效率的形式主义。

In our law school tradition one teaching style is the so called Socratic Method. The usual form of the technique encourages the professor to challenge his or her students and the students to challenge the professors to promote a rational dialogue and to illuminate the benefits and drawbacks of particular points of view.  My assessment is that most teachers in American law schools no longer use the method.  There are some reasons for this.  One is simply the desire of the professor to move more quickly in order to cover a subject which becomes more and more complex as the law becomes more refined.  The other is that students tend to resist it.  Some students think a Socratic inquiry is a game in which professors know the rules better than they do so the student is sure to lose.  Some students tend to opt out.  It was interesting for me to teach a course in Europe that included foreign students from Asia, Western European nations, Russia, and Eastern Central Europe. I found that the non-American students were more willing to engage in the Socratic Method than the American students were.  That set a good competitive example for the American students. 

在我们的法学院的传统中，有一种教学方法称之为苏格拉底式教学法。这种教学法的最通常的形式就是鼓励教授去挑战他的或她的学生和鼓励学生去挑战教授，激发出一种理性的对话，揭示出一种特定观点的优点和缺陷。我的估计是，美国法学院的大部分教师已经不再使用这种方法了。有这样几点原因。一是由于法律越来越精致，法律的课程也变得越来越复杂，教授们就想让课程进度快一些，以覆盖更多的知识点。再一个原因就是学生们的抗拒。一些学生认为苏格拉底式的询问是一种游戏，教
授们比他们更好地了解法律，因此，学生注定要输。一些学生倾向于退出。我在欧洲教过一门课程，很有趣，学生包括外国学生，他们来自亚洲，西欧，俄罗斯，中欧和东欧。我发现非美国的学生比美国学生更愿意参与到苏格拉底式教学法中。这对美国学生是一个富有挑战性的例子。

Teachers must be aware, though, that there are various forms of the Socratic Method.  There are at least three. The first is that the professor knows, or thinks he or she knows, what the answer is.  The professor’s questions are designed to bring the student around to the professor's point of view.  This is an abuse of the Socratic Method although I suppose that it can be forgiven in part because Socrates himself sometimes used it. The second variation is this: whatever the student says, the professor will take the opposite position. If this method is not respectful and professional, it can tend to make the professor captious and tiresome and discourage the expression of views.  But when properly used this method teaches the skills of rhetoric. The third variation is this: the professor and students ask each other a series of questions designed to form a partnership in pursuit of the right answer.  This is the classic, the beautiful, the elegant form of the Socratic Method.

尽管如此，老师们必须意识到，苏格拉底式教学法有各种不同的形式。至少有三种形式。第一种形式是教授知道，或者他们自以为他们知道答案是什么。教授设计好了问题引导学生围绕着他自己的观点打转。这是一种对苏格拉底式教学法的滥用，尽管我认为这在某种程度上可以被原谅，因为苏格拉底本人有时候也这样做。第二种形式是：无论学生们说什么，教授将持相反的观点。如果这种方法使用得不得当，不那么尊敬人，不那么专业的的话，会使教授显得吹毛求疵，令人厌倦，打击了表达观点的积极性。但是如果使用得当的话，会教给学生们修辞的技巧。第三种形式是：教授和学生们互相问对方一系列问题，以期能够形成一种对话的关系，共同去寻求正确的答案。这是苏格拉底式教学法的经典的，美丽的，高雅的形式。

For many years my message to law school teachers has been that each of these variations in the Socratic Method may have a certain utility.  And it is probably not necessary for the student to know which variation the professor is using.  It is of immense importance, though, for the professor to know the objective of Socratic dialogue. Professors must never cease to ask, and to formulate with considerable precision, what their goal is.

这么多年来，我一直向法学院教师们传达的就是，苏格拉底式教学法的每一种形式都具有一定的实用性。学生们可能没有必要去知道老师使用的是哪一种形式。但是教授们必须不停地去问，并且是相当精确地，问他们的目标到底是什么。

The law, perhaps to a greater extent than other disciplines, does concentrate on the rules and precedents announced in the past.  My own son attended law school.  It was thrilling to find that he had to learn everything I learned and about all that has happened since my time as a student.  The system of teaching about the past means that we have a formal system for transmitting our whole legal culture from one generation to the next.  This is of immense importance.  You cannot transmit what you do not understand.  You cannot preserve what you do not revere.  You cannot defend what you do not know.

法律，在更大的程度上比其他的学科都更注重规则和先例。我自己的儿子也加入了法学院。我发现他得学习我曾经学过的一切，他得学习从我的学生时代开始发生的一切。教先例的传统意味着我们有一个正式的制度向下一代传承我们整个的法律文化。这是至关重要的。你不能传授你不理解的东西。你不会保存你不尊敬的东西。你不可能去捍卫你自己都不知道的东西。

In the Anglo-American system, of course, precedent is a fundamental precept.The Doctrine of Stare Decisis is the rule binding us to earlier precedents unless a powerful reason is shown to reject them.  In my first year as a judge, it seemed this doctrine had special appeal because it was historical, ordered, and disciplined.Stare Decisis appeared at first to be something of an antiquarian function, and this was easy enough to accept. Though it does not sound exciting to be prepared to devote your life to looking at the dusty books of an ancient time, or listening to the creaky joints in the old bones of the law, there is an undoubted fascination with this method.

当然，在英美法系中，先例是基本的规则。照先例办事的规则使得我们要受到先例的约束，除非有强大的理由可以拒绝它们。在我刚刚做法官的那几年，似乎这种规则有着独特的吸引力，因为它是历史的，有条理的，遵守纪律的。遵循先例初看起来有点像考古，这是很容易被接受的。你得将你的生命投入到故纸堆中去，听法律的老骨头里发出的吱吱嘎嘎的声音，尽管这听起来不那么让人兴奋，但这种方法无疑是具有魅力的。

After I spent a few years on the bench it became apparent this was a far too narrow, a most inaccurate view, of the meaning of Stare Decisis.  Stare Decisis has a forward thrust.  It means that when judges have a new case to decide they must be prepared to be bound by the consequences and the principles of their own decision. So Stare Decisis has a powerful, forward looking momentum. And it makes our task as lawyers, judges, and law professors all the more fascinating.

在我做了几年的法官之后，我越来越意识到，对于遵循先例，这是一种太狭隘，太不准确的观点。遵循先例有一种向前的推动力。它意味着当法官要决定一个新的案件的时候，他们必须要受到他们自己的决定的结果和原则的束缚。因此，遵循先例有一种有力的，向前看的动力。这使得作为律师，法官和法学教授的我们的工作变得更加迷人。

Robert Louis Stevenson was one of the West’s great poets, though not a lawyer.  He once said this:  "Life is learned looking backwards.  Life is lived going forwards."  Since the law never hesitates to borrow wisdom from other disciplines, Stevenson's quote is an apt summation of the doctrine of Stare Decisis.  It teaches the importance of precedent but cautions that it will not always suffice for a new era.

罗伯特 路易斯 史蒂文森是西方一位伟大的诗人，尽管不是一位律师。他曾经这样说：“向后看，我们学习生活。向前，我们过生活。”法律从来都很愿意向其他的学科汲取智慧，史蒂文森的话是对遵循先例的一种概括。它告诉我们遵循先例的重要性，同时告诫我们先例不会永远满足新的时代。

The civilization of China, and its philosophy, its learning, its arts, its sciences, and the lessons it teaches us about human dignity are admired by Americans.  Indeed, Americans are sometimes surprised to hear that our friends the Chinese do not understand the admiration that we have for your great civilization.  In the western tradition, Plato was Socrates’s student and interpreter.  Your philosopher, Mencius, lived about the same time.  Although you could explain it better than I, my understanding is that, like Plato, Mencius was a principal interpreter and disciple of Confucius.

中国的文明，它的哲学，它的知识，它的艺术，它的科学，都为美国人所钦佩。事实上，美国人有时候会惊讶于我们的中国朋友说他们不理解我们对你们的伟大文明的钦佩。在西方的传统中，柏拉图是苏格拉底的学生和解释者。你们的哲学家，孟子，生活在几乎同一时代。可能你们会有更好的解释，我的理解是，孟子是孔子最重要的解释者和门徒。

Mencius put to his time─and puts to our time─the problem of the traveler and the child at the well.  The traveler is walking in a distant region, far from his own home.  He sees a child about to fall from the little wall surrounding a well. Must the traveler go to the rescue? 

孟子向他的时代——也向我们的时代——提出了这样一个问题，一个关于旅行者和井上的小孩的问题。旅行者行走在一个遥远的地方，远离他的故乡。他看到一个小孩快要从井边的小墙上掉下来。这位旅行者必须去营救吗？

The problem Mencius requires us to answer raises a number of fundamental questions, but we can simply ask whether the traveler should rush to rescue the child. This is one question to which the law provides one answer, and our moral sense another. My understanding of the general rule in the Anglo-American tradition is that there is no legal duty to rescue the child.  Other countries take a different position. 

孟子要我们回答的这个问题引出了许多基本的问题，但我们可以简单地就问是否旅行者应该跑过去救小孩。对于这个问题，法律给的是一个答案，我们的道德感给的是另一个答案。在我所理解的英美法系的普遍规则中，旅行者没有法律上的义务去救那个小孩。其他的国家持相反的立场。

Yet quite apart from the law, is there not an overriding moral command to go to the rescue?  If the law does not impose a duty, that does not mean that morality should not control.

撇开法律不说，有没有一个压倒一切的道义上的命令去营救孩子？如果法律不施加责任，那也不意味着道德上不可以控制。

My assumption is both in the time when Mencius lived and still today all decent people would say there is an answer.  Whether or not the law requires the rescue, morality does.  If the traveler who rushes to the rescue seeks to gain friendship with the child's parents or to gain the approval of neighbors and friends to enhance his own reputation, his motives come down to self interest. Perhaps that is not all bad, for many societies reward actions they approve.  But there is another explanation for the moral duty to rescue.  Mencius tells us the duty to rescue exists in part because the failure to do so would cause shame.  And a sense of shame is the beginning of righteousness.  A sense of decorum is the beginning of propriety; a sense of righting a wrong is the beginning of justice; a sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity.

我的假定是，不管是在孟子的时代，还是在今天，所有体面正直的人都会说这个问题只有一个答案。不管法律要求不要求，道德要求我们去营救。如果旅行者跑去营救是为了获取同小孩父母的友谊，或者是为了获取邻居们和朋友们的赞许，或者是为了加强他自己的声誉，他的动机就降到了自我利益的层面。但这或许不坏，许多社会奖励它们赞许的行为。孟子告诉我们，营救的义务存在部分是因为如果不这样做就会导致羞耻。羞耻感是正直的开端。得体感是礼仪的开端。矫枉感是正义的开端。同情感是人性的开端。

A law student's first reaction to the problem might be to say, that because it is a puzzle that has been around for so many years, why try to explain it now?  Since we might not reach a definitive answer, the student would say, why should we not go on to something more useful and timely?

一个法科生对这个问题的第一反应，他们会说，因为这个问题这么多年来都是一个难题，为什么现在要来解释它？由于我们不可能寻找到一个确定的答案，他们会说，为什么我们不去解决一些更有用、更及时的问题？

But this anxious statement is too hasty. It is as urgent to discuss the problem now as it was when Mencius lived and taught.  The fact that for centuries we have not agreed upon, or even discovered, certain universal truths is not cause for detachment and indifference.  By throwing ourselves into these philosophical inquiries and debate, we can establish that link with the past that is essential to our identity with members of human kind.  It shows that we care about the definitions of morality and decency, definitions that should shape our future.

但是这种焦虑的陈述实在是太轻率了。现在讨论这个问题同在孟子生活和授课的时代讨论这个问题一样紧迫。几个世纪以来，我们对一些普遍的真理没有达成共识不是置身事外和冷漠的理由。将我们抛向这些哲理的质询和论辩中，我们可以建立起同过去的联系，而这对我们作为人类的成员的身份认同是必要的。它表明我们在意道德与尊严的定义，这些定义塑造我们的未来。

If we find in the reaches of higher philosophy, in the depths of the law and its teaching, a discipline of thought and an elegance of meaning then we can find ways to strengthen the human bond between us. For one scholar the law can begin as a deeply personal undertaking.  Some scholars reflect in lonely quiet to find universal ideas that relate to our existence and to discover a higher purpose within the classic traditions of philosophy, the arts, and the sciences.  Judges work this way sometimes at the outset of deciding a case. Holmes called it "the secret joy of isolated thought." 

如果我们能在更高的哲学的高度，能够在法律以及法律教育的最深处，在思维中发现一种纪律性，在意义中发现一种优雅，那么，我们就能够找到我们与全人类之间联系的纽带。对于一个法律学者来说，法律在开始都是作为一种深深的个人的担当的。一些学者在宁静的孤独中反思，去发现与我们的存在相联系的普遍的观念，在哲学的经典传统中，在艺术中，在科学中，去寻找更高的目的。法官们有时候在决定一个案件的刚开始的时候会使用这种方法。霍姆斯称之为“孤独思索的隐秘乐趣。”

Put that way our functions may at first sound elitist, insular, perhaps even self absorbed.  But if we realize that at a fundamental level quiet and diligent study is simply a preparation for a larger conversation with our community and with the civilization around us then the study has lasting meaning.  The law becomes an expression of our shared purpose as a people, as a nation, as an era, as a generation.

用这种方式我们的功能乍一听有点精英主义，孤芳自赏，甚至自我沉醉。但是，如果我们意识到，在最基本的层面上，宁静的、勤奋的钻研就是为了同我们的群体，同我们置身于其中的文明做更广的对话，于是，这种钻研就具有了永恒的意义。法律成为了我们共同目的的表达，作为一个民族，作为一个国家，作为一个时代，作为一代人。

On entering this exciting school each new generation, each new class, each new student will have an opportunity and, at the same time, a solemn responsibility.  In this place all who study and all who teach must seek always to define and defend the Rule of Law and to insist that it is the birthright of all persons. For centuries and until the present day there have been rulers who sought to twist the idea of law and to appropriate it for themselves and their own false purposes.  In my own lifetime Hitler and Stalin thought of law simply in terms of raw power. They were willing to suppress, even to murder, those who asked for nothing more than simple justice.  Their lies were transparently false, yet the regimes founded on those lies fooled millions and were hard to defeat.  Their contempt for the Rule of Law was obvious. 

进入到这所令人兴奋的学校，每一代新人，每一个新的班级，每一个新学生都将拥有机会，同时，拥有独一无二的责任。在这个地方，学的人和教的人都必须永远去寻求定义和捍卫法治，并且坚持它是所有人与生俱来的权利。许多个世纪以来，直到今天，总有一些统治者试图去扭曲法律，试图假借法律的名义为他们自己，为他们错误的目的服务。在我生活过的时代中，希特勒和斯大林将法律视之为赤裸裸的权力。他们想去镇压，甚至去谋杀那些仅仅是要求简单的公正的人。他们的谎言是显而易见的，但是他们的政权就建立在这样的谎言之上，并且愚弄了成千上万的人，最终不可收拾。他们的反法治是明显的。

Then too there are subtle, less obvious attacks on the Rule of Law.  We must be on guard against these distortions so we do not lose confidence in law as the means to enable all of us to seek and to find justice in our own time. Your duty, your careers must be based on the idea that the Rule of Law is more than order. It is justice. It is dignity. It is freedom and compassion for all of human kind.

也有一些微妙的，不那么明显的对于法治的攻击。我们必须警惕这些对于法治的歪曲，以至于我们不至于失去了对法律的信心，将法律作为使我们大家在我们的时代能够寻找和找到正义的一种途径的信心。你们的职责，你们的事业必须建立在这样一种观念之上，即法治不只是秩序。它是正义。它是尊严。它是自由以及对全人类的同情。

These are a few thoughts from one who began law school half a century ago.  The study of law was a fascinating challenge then, and it remains so today.  All of us who are here to participate in this dedication are willing to ensure this is a place that makes a lasting contribution to preserving the Rule of Law.  And then this law school will take its place among the fine law schools of the world. 

这是半个世纪以前一个初次踏入法学院的学生的想法，学习法律是迷人的挑战，到今天，这种情怀仍未改变。在座的我们所有参加典礼的人都相信这是一个可以为法治的道路做出持续的贡献的地方。并且，这所法学院将会跻身于世界最优秀的法学院之列。

http://stl.szpku.edu.cn/en/article.asp?articleid=62