本論文昌在探討法律翻譯中的文化轉移問題，並以香港的普通法中譯作為個案研究O香港于1842年成為英國建民地，英文即成為官方語言，也是法律用語O在英國帶給香港的所有特定文化事物中，普通法為其中之一O因所有成文法規僅以英文制定，法官和律師只運用英文進行法律程序O隨著社會漸趨開放，市民在法律方面使用中文的要求與日俱增，加上香港回歸中國，必須使用中文制定法律o1987年香港制定了 《法定語文(修訂)條例�'規定所有新法例必須以中英文兩種法定語文制定O自此，所有新立法均以雙語草擬和制定，而所有僅以英文制定的舊有法例亦於同年開始翻譯為中文O經十年時間，於1997年初完成翻譯，所有的中文譯本亦陸續經立法程序獲確認O
由於法律規定中英文本的法例享有同等地位，所載條文亦其有同等意義，故此香港法例的中文本不只是普通譯本，而是其有法律效力的立法文本，它的文義和效力須與英文原文完全相同，亦須正確傳達與英文原文完全一致的精神和概念O本文拍出法律翻譯，尤其是在普通法中譯的過程中，為將普通法的法律文化概念轉移到中文，同他的翻譯策略不可取O本文探討了普通法術語及其所代表的法律概念之間的理論關係O通過分析普通法術語的翻譯，論文拍出翻譯作為語際交流的活動與翻譯作為文化轉移之活動分屬兩個不同層面的語言操作O在法律翻譯中，必須建立後設語言機制及超翻譯機制，方可成功實現文化轉移之目的O

This paper addresses the question of cultural transfer in legislative translation in the case of Hong Kong. When Hong Kong became a British colony in 1842， the British brought along a whole lot of “culture-specific"things， both tangible and intangible， of which the common law was one. Whenthe Official Languages Ordinance was amended in 1987 to stipulate that the laws of Hong Kong be available in both Chinese and English， the translation of the English legislation enacted before 1987 into Chinese in Hong Kong was clearly a mammoth legal translation project. The translation was completed before the handover of the sovereignty of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997. Under the bilingual legislation system of Hong Kong， the English text and its Chinese counterpart must fulfill two conditions. First， they must have equal legal status. Second， they must convey the same legal meaning. The first condition must be， and was in fact， met by legislative measures. However， how the second condition can be met is still not clear to many translation scholars， students and practising law translators. This paper argues that law translation in the context of Hong Kong cannot be a case of domestication in transferring the legal culture of the common law into the Chinese language. Itinvestigates the theoretical aspects of the terminology and the relationship between the common law terminology and the legal concepts they stand for. By analyzing selected translations of translated common law terminology， it shows that translation as an act of interlingual communication and translation as an act of cultural transfer belong to two different levels of linguistic operation. Meta-linguistic and extra-translational mechanisms are required in order to effect successful cultural transfer in legislative translation.