Article body

Language and Law make a natural combination, the latter is inextricably bound to the former in a monolingual context, and all the more so in a multilingual setting. This monograph looks at multilingual law. Although published some time ago, the book’s relevance has endured. Its primary purpose is to “describe fields and activities that have a bearing on the practice and theory of mulitilingual law and to link them together conceptually within a frame of reference that can be used as a tool of enquiry” (p. 3.). A secondary purpose is to “reflect on the language(s) of law and the law of language(s).” The idea is to “find a means to identify and place in a pattern the different branches of activity that come together with a multilingual legal system, with a focus on practical matters” (p. 203). Activities addressed include translation, terminology, revision and training. This pattern unfolds over 15 chapters that are enlarged upon in the eight appendices which also point to future areas of research. The viewpoints of language and law are presented starting with the latter. This jurilinguistic tapestry has a semiotic strand at its core as do its individual elements (see for example the discussion of law and semiotics (p. 129), semiotics and translation (p. 133-134) and semiotics and terminology (p. 148-149). The chapters are all part of a progression towards the framework set out in chapter 14 and Appendix VIII. Thus, for example the following guidance regarding terminology is given in chapter 9:

In multilingual texts one needs to examine other language versions to see if they use different terms or the same ones in a similar way. It is possible for terms to be the same in one language in different text and different in other language versions and still be functionally accurate. However, one needs to be aware that by virtue of being placed in a legal text, for ‘construction’ by lawyers as to legal effects there may be a subtle shift in meaning from the same terms used in non-legal contexts

p. 147

This is then fleshed out in the framework in Appendix VIII in the form of questions (p. 243):

Core meanings match?
Penumbral meanings overlap sufficiently?
Effects of using the terms: same results (effet utile)
Have the terms become linked as equivalent through constant practice or judicial interpretation?
Do the texts define the terms as equivalent in meaning?
Are all the language versions within the same or a different legal system/order?
[…]

The primary focus is on the EU context with its 24 authentic languages. The flexibility and constraints inherent in translation in that specific mechanism of law are illustrated neatly with the example of three language versions of a preliminary question from the Bundesfinanzhof to the EU Court of Justice (p. 157):

DE:
Ist Art. 13 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 Buchst. a der VO Nr. 1408/71 dahin auszulegen, dass er der Gewährung von (Differenz-)Kindergeld durch einen Wohnmitgliedstaat in den Fällen entgegensteht, in denen ein Kindergeldberechtigter —ebenso wie der andere Elternteil— in der Schweiz als Grenzgänger einer nichtselbständigen Beschäftigung nachgeht und dort Familienleistungen für seine im Wohnmitgliedstaat lebenden Kinder bezieht, die geringer sind als das im Wohnmitgliedstaat vorgesehene Kindergeld?

FR:
L’article 13, paragraphes 1, et 2, sous a), du règlement no 1408/71 (1) doit-il être interprété en ce sens qu’il s’oppose à l’octroi d’allocations familiales (différentielles) par l’État membre du domicile dans les cas où une personne ayant droit aux allocations familiales allemandes exerce (de même que l’autre parent) une activité salariée en Suisse en tant que frontalier et où elle y perçoit, du chef de ses enfants vivant dans l’État membre de résidence, des prestations familiales d’un montant inférieur à celui des allocations familiales qui sont prévues dans l’État membre de résidence?

EN:
Are Article 13(1) and Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) to be interpreted as precluding the granting of (differential) child benefit by a Member State of residence, in cases where a person entitled to child benefit — like the other parent — is a cross-border commuter employed in Switzerland and draws family benefits there in respect of his children living in the Member State of residence which are lower than the child benefit provided for in the Member State of residence?

The flexibility is evident in the addition in the French version of the interpretative element allemandes after the words allocations familiales. Some of the constraints imposed by the process are reflected in the single sentence structure with a question mark.

Examples from other jurisdictions are also adduced including Belgium, Switzerland, Scotland and Ireland. Thus, in connection with the drafting languages in Ireland it is noted that English is the drafting language and that the texts are then translated into Irish, “a situation that places a target language at a relative disadvantage as it must follow the source language and concepts as best it can and it is moulded by the source language in terminology. In cases of doubt as to meaning, the source text is likely to carry the most prestige” (p. 64). It should be pointed out here that any perceived loss of prestige in this context is offset by the privileged position afforded to Irish under the Constitution. As regards bills passed and signed in the bilingual format, Article 25.4.6˚ provides that in case of conflict between the texts, the text in the national language (Irish) shall prevail.[1]

The geographic scope of the work is impressive. It is surprising, however, that Canada, with its two legal systems and four legal languages (common law in English, common law in French, civil law in French and civil law in English), an ideal laboratory to study multilingual law in vitro, does not receive more attention. Its influence on the EU model is evident in IATE, for example, which draws heavily on Canadian sources to populate its database. This neglect is also evident in the bibliography with the omission of works from Canadian authors such as Jean-Claude Gémar (1982, 2005), one of the pioneers in the field of jurilinguistics.

Another minor criticism is the unequal treatment certain topics receive. Thus, an entire chapter is devoted to legal-linguistic revision, a topic of narrow interest for non-practitioners, whilst the merits of multilingualism are discussed in a single paragraph. The author points to the costs of multilingualism as the main drawback (p. 207). However, the disadvantages extend far beyond the mundane. For example, in the context of regulatory linguistic arrangements for product labelling, one author has called for a “comprehensive overhaul in order to standardize and simplify the existing patchwork of different solutions and wordings’ to increase both consumer protection and legal certainty for producers, importers and distributors” (van der Jeught 2022, 51-52). More generally, McAuliffe, in her analysis of the functioning of the Court of Justice, a microcosm of the EU legal order, writes:

The concept of a single EU legal language that allows EU law to be uniformly applied throughout the Union is, in fact, necessarily based on a legal fiction. That fiction is a workable one since EU law does function reasonably effectively. It is nonetheless a fiction, and an awareness of the problems of language and translation should therefore condition our understanding of the multilingual EU legal order.

McAuliffe 2013: 23-34

In a recent book on the topic, Nils Ringe (2022), whilst pointing to the merits of multilingualism in the EU, such as the depoliticization of politics which eliminates the potential for conflict, also identifies that same depoliticization as an issue: “divisive political problems may become unduly depoliticised, which is undesirable from a representational perspective” (Ringe 2022)[2]. He further points out that a depoliticised language of politics is problematic for the EU as its “overly rationalised nature will likely be perceived by the general public as bland, abstract, and distant, which undermines the quality of representation and weakens the link between the EU and its citizens” (Ringe 2022).

These, however, are minor quibbles. This elegantly written impressive tome is a fine contribution to the field of jurilinguistics. The author’s fascination with the interaction between language and law, which was stimulated by studying the linguistic changes in Scottish law over the centuries, has led him on a jurilinguistic journey for which we are the richer.