Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Almost three years ago I blogged here on the ever-vexing subject of citation of Chinese sources in English. That sparked a good discussion in the comments section. The other day, another commenter (Stian Håklev) happened across this post and added some very helpful remarks, which I reproduce below.
I absolutely agree with you, this is a huge problem. The absolutely worst is articles that only have translated versions, there is not even anything to tell you that the original is not in English (The Journal of Higher Education in China could be an English language journal - but it isn't, how are we to know though?). Pinyin is better, but still not ideal. And especially with the atrocious preference in APA for only using the autors initials. If I see a person cited as 李生桥, I might say "Oh, that's the person whose paper I was reading the other day", but if I see a reference to "Li, X.", it's quite useless. [Comment from DC: Bravo!]
I struggled with this when I was writing my MA thesis about China, and I did quite a bit of research (weird that nobody have really addressed this problem). I finally found that Chicago allowed me to include both the characters, the pinyin and the English translation, which to me was ideal. I wrote about this solution here: http://reganmian.net/blog/2010/05/06/how-to-cite-chinese-sources-in-chicago-style/
I used this in my MA thesis, which is available for download from here: http://reganmian.net/top-level-courses. This practice also served me well when I had the thesis translated to Chinese (I will release it on that blog in a few days) - I could just take out the pinyin and English, and I had a Chinese source list.
Thank you for raising this issue. We should try to push for these practices to change. In regular journals that do not specialize in China, we will probably have to settle for Pinyin, but never only English, and ideally the full name rather than just initials. But in journals and monographs dealing specifically with China, written by sinologists, I think we should expect characters as well!
Stian / 侯爽
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
From Chinageeks, an admittedly incomplete list of those recently arrested, detained, and disappeared.
Monday, March 14, 2011
I have received the following announcement. Note that the application deadline is very soon: March 25th.
Post Doctoral Fellows
Clarke Program in East Asian Law and Culture, Law School
Meridian 180, a new community of prominent intellectuals and policy makers in Asia, the United States and around the world interested in new ways of thinking about law and markets broadly conceived, seeks to hire two Fellows at its center of operations at Cornell University, in Ithaca New York. The aim of Meridian 180 is to generate the new paradigms and solutions for the next generation of transpacific relations. Fellows will play an integral part in this mission through translation, research, and outreach to wider public and policy communities.
Meridian 180 is a project of the Clarke Program in East Asian Law and Culture at the Cornell Law School. It is a non-profit, non-political project funded through private donations and with support from Cornell Law School. It is comprised of Senior Fellows and of Members in law, the academy, private practice and policy circles who meet regularly via an on-line platform supporting multilingual conversation, as well as periodically in face to face conferences. Ideas that emerge from these conversations are then incubated and developed, with the help of the Fellows, into forms in which they can make a difference in each individual society—ranging from policy papers to academic books, blog entries, and individual conversations with policy makers.
Fellows will be responsible for the day to day maintenance and translation of on-line dialogues. They will also work with Senior Fellows to produce the white papers, books, op-eds and other forms of output that may emerge from the on-line conversations. Other responsibilities will include working with the Director and Assistant Director on strategic planning, project development, and conducting their own research.
Duties and responsibilities (with approximate % of work time):
• Day to day maintenance and translation of on-line dialogues on meridian-180.org (30%): Using the meridian-180.org translator interface, the Fellows will be providing on-line translations from and to English of Senior Fellows’ interventions on the website. So that conversations are translated as they unfold, this will be a daily task for the Fellows.
• Work with Senior Fellows to produce publications emerging from on-line conversations (25%): Once an on-line conversation is closed, the Fellows will work with the Senior Fellows to write/edit/research/produce the final versions of conversations that will be made publicly available, either on meridian-180.org or in other venues (in electronic format or in print – policy papers, books, op-eds, etc.).
• Work with the Director and Assistant Director on strategic planning (10%): The Fellows will help developing new research directions and new outreach initiatives for both meridian-180.org and the Clarke Program. The Fellow will help identify emerging scholars whose work should be promoted and/or included on meridian-180.org and more generally via the Clarke Program.
• Project development (15%): Fellows will work on larger Clarke Program projects, related or not to meridian180.org. In particular, they will help with the organization of the conferences which, each year, will convene Senior Fellows to further and promote the ideas developed in on-line conversations.
• Fellows will be given time (20%, i.e. 8h/week) to pursue their own academic research and interests. While considered a plus, their research topics do not have to be related to or part of Clarke Program projects.
• law degree (LLB) or PhD in the humanities or social sciences
• fluency in English and either Chinese or Japanese
• professional experience as translator/interpreter is strongly preferred
• other preferred skills/qualities: entrepreneurial initiative; independence, ability to work in teams, maturity, writing skills, research/scholarly experience, organization, focus, interest in the future of the East Asia-US relationship
Interested applicants should submit a resume, cover letter and writing sample by March 25 to Donna Hastings at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Here are the details in brief; links below.
U.S.-China Partnership for Environmental Law LLM Fellowship
The U.S. - China Partnership for Environmental Law ("China Program") at Vermont Law School invites applications for a two-year graduate fellowship starting in August 2011. The fellowship combines the opportunity to obtain an LLM in Environmental Law from one of the leading environmental law programs in the nation with the opportunity to gain practical international environmental law experience on a variety of policy coordination, research, and educational outreach projects. The fellowship includes a full tuition waiver and a stipend of $35,000 per year.
Nature of the Fellowship
The LLM fellow will work closely with the director and other team members of the China Program to help coordinate and implement the range of projects being carried out. In addition to pursuing an LLM in environmental law, the fellow will work closely with China Program faculty and will take the lead role in at least one major project.
The goal of the China Program is to strengthen the rule of law in environmental protection and to build capacity among individuals and academic, government, and private-sector institutions to solve pollution and energy problems. The program has three main objectives:
•strengthen the capacity of the Chinese educational, governmental, nonprofit, and business sectors to become effective environmental and energy problem solvers
•improve China's policies, systems, laws, and regulations to advance the development and enforcement of environmental and energy law and to help develop the rule of law
•enhance municipal, provincial, national, and international networks in China to advance best practices in environmental protection and energy regulation
These objectives are being pursued through environmental and energy law workshops and conferences in China and the U.S., through efforts to build the institutional capacity of law schools, NGOs, courts, and government agencies, and through student and faculty-led research and policy development projects.
For more information about the U.S. -China Partnership for Environmental Law, please visit the program's homepage, http://www.vermontlaw.edu/china/.
Here's what it's all about:
The National Committee on United States-China Relations is pleased to announce the third round of its Public Intellectuals Program (PIP). The first two rounds (2005-07 and 2008-10) were generously funded by The Henry Luce Foundation and The Starr Foundation, both of which continue as the funders for PIP III. This ambitious, multi-year program is designed to identify outstanding members of the next generation of American China scholars and specialists, enrich their understanding of policymaking processes in both the United States and China, help them establish useful relationships with their academic colleagues and with policy practitioners, and nurture their ability to engage in public policy debates on a national, regional and local level. PIP is implemented through a series of workshops in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, study tours of China, participation in National Committee delegations as scholar escorts and support for public education initiatives.
We are looking for China specialists in the academic, professional or policymaking spheres with the interest and potential to play significant roles as public intellectuals. We will select twenty young American China scholars who, in the tradition of earlier China hands, wish to venture outside of academia into areas relevant to foreign policy and public education.
I have received the following email:
PILnet: The Global Network for Public Interest Law, formerly the Public Interest Law Institute (PILI), is pleased to invite applications for its 2011-2012 International Public Interest Law Fellows Program. [Call for applications | Application form] PILnet will select lawyers from Southeast Asia (special consideration will be given to applicants from Vietnam, Indonesia, and Cambodia), Nepal, China, Russia, and Nigeria for ten months of study and practical experience in New York and Budapest, Hungary. The program targets future leaders in various fields of public interest advocacy.
We are in the midst of the recruitment process and kindly ask for your help in passing along this International Fellows Program announcement and application to your colleagues, both individuals and organizations, that you think would be interested in applying or who could further disseminate the announcement. If you, or any colleagues might be able to post the announcement on relevant websites, that would also be much appreciated.
The deadline for applications HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO MARCH 28, 2011.
Please find the Fellows Program announcement and application form attached, as well as the announcement pasted below. For more information about the International Fellows Program and application process, please visit: http://www.pilnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40389&Itemid=179.
Please contact me at email@example.com if you have any questions about the International Fellows Program, or PILnet in general.
We really appreciate your support and any help you are able to offer!
With kind regards,
2011-12 International PILnet Fellows: Seeking Candidates from China, Nepal, Nigeria, Russia and Southeast Asia*
*[Special consideration will be given to candidates from Indonesia, Cambodia, and Vietnam]
DEADLINE EXTENDED TO MARCH 28, 2011
PILnet, formerly the Public Interest Law Institute (PILI), is pleased to invite applications for its International Public Interest Law Fellows Program for 2011-2012. PILnet will select lawyers from China for ten months of study and practical experience in New York and Budapest, Hungary. The program targets future leaders in various fields of public interest advocacy.
International PILnet Fellows will join other public interest lawyers from around the world. They will reside a total of eight months in the U.S. The Fellows Program begins with a semester of study at Columbia University School of Law and additional public interest advocacy training. In the spring, International Fellows will participate in a three-month period of internships at New York-based public interest law organizations and a two-month study visit based out of PILnet’s Budapest office. Fellows return to their home countries after the Fellowship, with the aim to implement the project developed during the Fellowship.
PILnet will cover the cost of a round-trip coach airfare to the U.S. and Budapest, housing in New York and Budapest, a monthly stipend and emergency medical insurance. Selected candidates for the Fellows Program are required to sign an agreement to the terms of the program, stating that they will complete it in full.
Evaluation of Candidate:
* Public interest leadership potential of the candidate in his or her country (minimum of two years working experience with the organization is required),
* The nature of the candidate's relationship with the nominating organization, and
* The candidate’s ability to communicate in English.
Evaluation of Project:
* The quality of the proposed project and its potential for promoting public interest law and human rights in the candidate’s home country, and
* The track record of the nominating organization in promoting public interest advocacy.
Applicants must submit the following documents:
* A completed program application form;
* A curriculum vitae;
* A nominating letter from the organization where they are employed, supporting their application to the program and indicating how the Fellows Program would be a benefit to the organization/institution;
* Two recommendation letters (in addition to the nominating letter), at least one from an individual outside of the nominating organization;
* A description of a project that the applicant would like to work on during the first semester of the program, ideally with practical significance to their work upon return home;** and
* A copy of the applicant's law school transcript.
Applicants are encouraged, but not required, to submit the following documents:
* A copy of the applicant's bar association membership,
* Information on the nominating organization/institution, and
* Additional recommendations.
**The project description should be a 2- to 3-page outline of a project that you would like to develop during your time as an International PILnet Fellow. This should include:
* A preliminary description of your project,
* Why it is important that this project be designed,
* How and why your project can succeed, and
* Who you will engage in your home country, and in the US and Europe, in order to increase the quality of your project.
Examples of public interest advocacy projects might include, but are certainly not limited to:
* Promoting legal reform to reduce racial discrimination,
* Improving implementation and enforcement of children’s rights law, and
* Establishing legal education clinics in universities.
Submission via e-mail of application materials is strongly encouraged, though materials may also be submitted via regular mail. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. If an application is submitted without one of the required components, it will be disqualified, unless the applicant can justify why he/she cannot obtain the required information.
The DEADLINE for receiving applications at PILnet HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO March 28, 2011. For more information and application forms, please contact Erin Carll, Program Coordinator, by e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org or by clicking here. Printed applications can be sent via mail to the address on the application.
Please note that PILnet cannot provide any financial or logistical assistance for accompanying family members, including in securing suitable family housing. Moreover, Columbia University requires evidence of financial support for accompanying family members prior to issuing official invitations to them. Providing proof of the requisite financial support for accompanying family members will be the responsibility of the applicant.
PILnet: The Global Network for Public Interest Law
333 Seventh Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Tel: +1 (212) 803-5386
Fax: +1 (212) 803-5381
Saturday, March 12, 2011
On March 11, the WTO's Appellate Body (AB) issued a decision in a dispute between China and the US. As with most decisions, some things went one party's way and some things went the other party's way, but it's basically a win for China (WSJ report here). Certainly that's how it was perceived by USTR Ron Kirk, who said he was "deeply troubled" by the AB's report. "It appears to be a clear case of overreaching by the Appellate Body."
Two of the major issues were (1) whether state-owned enterprises should be counted as "public bodies" for purposes of Article 1 of the Agreement on Subsidies, and (2) whether it was permissible to impose duties under both the Antidumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies for the same price advantage - that is, to double count, resulting in duties amounting to more than the extent of "unfair" competition.
On the first issue, the problem with the US approach was that it insisted that majority state ownership per se made an enterprise into a "public body", and that there was no need to look at any other facts. The AB rejected this per se rule, but left the door wide open to arguments that particular SOEs could be "public bodies".
On the second issue, the AB decision has been reported as saying that it’s a violation to impose both antidumping (AD) duties and countervailing (CV) (antisubsidy) duties at the same time. This is almost true, but not quite. As I read the AB decision, it’s saying that double-counting (i.e., imposing antidumping and countervailing duties that amount to more than the total unfair price advantage that is to be offset) is a violation. I think the AB decision still allows for simultaneous AD and CV duties provided they don’t present a double-counting problem, and (for reasons explained in the decision) it’s theoretically possible they wouldn’t.
I am not a trade law expert, but but the idea that the AB overreached or did something awful in finding against the US on this strikes me as absurd. The US position was not that there was no double counting; it was that double counting was quite OK because the relevant agreements didn’t specifically prohibit it. This argument, if raised by some other country to the disadvantage of the US and accepted at the WTO, would surely provoke hyperventilation in Congress. At least as far as it’s reflected in the AB report, the US made no policy-based arguments as to why its interpretation would be a good thing for the international trade regime; it just said, "Hey, the agreements don’t bar it, so we can do it." I don’t see how this argument can be defended with a straight face as anything other than protectionist in the most pejorative sense of the term. It is asking for relief for domestic industry that goes beyond any damage caused by “unfair” trade practices. (The WTO does allow this kind of relief in some cases, but there are special rules about it in the Agreement on Safeguards.) I might add that the US Court of International Trade, which is a trade law expert and can't be accused of anti-US bias, took the AB's position on the same issue in the same case in 2009 (the US government is currently appealing the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). If there's overreaching being done, it's not by the AB.
The common theme running throughout the decision seems to be a rejection of per se approaches and an insistence on looking at the particular facts of any question.