一、英譯中（25 分） Negotiation is highly situational; what is effective in one context can be disastrous in another. The question of whether negotiation and bargaining will be effective as a tool in conflict resolution is also very much connected to its context. William Zartman, Professor Emeritus of Johns Hopkins University, postulates that we need a push and a pull in order to start any negotiation process and to create an outcome. The push is the “mutual hurting stalemate” (MHS): a status quo that is painful for all the involved parties, to the extent that they prefer a change, through negotiation, over the situation into which they are locked. At the same time there should be a perceived way out of the deadlock: the pull in the form of a “mutual enticing opportunity” (MEO). We should note here that not everything is negotiable, but in cases where there are structural problems instead of situational problems to be solved, we might at least hope for mutual respect, such as the (in)famous “Peaceful Coexistence” at the time of the Cold War, which might be called a “mutual beneficial stalemate” (MBS) – beneficial and satisfactory as it ensures a peaceful situation in such a way that the major powers can use the stand-off to control their own “allies.” Moreover, it has been suggested that it is the pre-negotiations period which “enables parties to move from conflicting perceptions and behaviors to co-operative perceptions and behaviors.” Indeed, pre-negotiations are a necessary prerequisite for successful diplomatic negotiations; “not just a definitional construct but a preparatory phase without which the negotiation would not have taken place,” Zartman cautioned.