Robertson, Colin (2016): Mulltilingual Law: A Framework for Analysis and Understanding. London: Routledge, 273 p.

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