——评联合国《civil 权利和政治权利国际公约》

——A Comment about International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

　　According to the spirit of strengthening the protection of human rights in the whole world that promoted by the Charter of the United Nations and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN General Assembly Meeting passed two international covenants on human rights in December 1966. One was to ensure that people can enjoy all kinds of rights on aspects of economics social and culture and it was named as International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, the other which was titled as International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aimed at ensuring people’s political and personal rights. However, the author has been considering that the name of the latter is inaccurate. The reasons are as follows:

　　Ⅰ。 Civil Rights can not be comprehended and translated

　　“Civil Rights”， one of the particular vocabularies originated from the specific historic period in ancient Rome, could only be applied to the specific condition in particular era. If it is used in the modern world, it is difficult to be comprehended and even more difficult to be translated.

　　If we regard Civil Rights as rights of duke-subject（公民权利）， in that case, in the countries that only have king and subject but without duke-subject （such as Britain）， it could not be translated into their native language. With regard to the countries that only have national but without duke-subject （such as Japan）， it is also difficult to be translated.

　　If we comprehend Civil Rights as rights of citizen（市民权利）， it is not suitable for the low civilized countries and it also goes against the aim of the legislation about the covenant that is to protect the human beings all over the world.　If the translation should not only embody that aim of the legislation about the covenant, but also express the original meaning of the word, then how should the title of the covenant be translated in the countries both have citizens and bumpkin（乡巴佬）？