Legal Translation Versus Legal Interpretation. A Legal-Theoretical Perspective

Abstract

In this article we investigate the relationship between legal translation and legal interpretation. The common wisdom is that these activities are closely related, but the nature of that relationship remains disputable. We adopt the perspective of legal theory—as opposed to the perspective of translation studies—which seems to be underrepresented in the literature of the subject. We start with distinguishing between the two notions of legal interpretation: the wide sense (interpretation as understanding) and the narrow sense (interpretation as problem solving). We argue that the relationship between legal translation and legal interpretation changes significantly depending on the notion of legal interpretation that is assumed. The wide sense is often assumed by translation scholars and it renders legal interpretation as a necessary prerequisite for legal translation. Jurists, on the other hand, usually assume the narrow sense which renders legal interpretation and legal translation as two distinct activities with some shared features. We then focus on four issues of legal interpretation in the narrow sense: the types of legal interpretive problems, the creation of legal interpretive problems, the methods of legal interpretation, the resolution of legal interpretive problems. We conclude with a detailed comparison of legal translation and legal interpretation in the context of those four issues.

The craft of translation: documentary practices within immigration advocacy in the United States

“…In contrast, scholars of translation have highlighted non‐equivalence, that is, the fact that there often is not an equivalent term in another language (Gal, 2015; Jiang and Zhuang, 2019), and also partial equivalence, that is, that it “will normally be necessary in legal translation to make formulation and word choices in accordance with an interpretation of the needs of the receiver” (Engberg, 2020, 269). These problems are exacerbated in legal translation, which may require translating not only between languages but also between legal systems (El Ghazi and Bnini, 2019; Zeifert and Tobor, 2021). There are debates over whether a translation should follow conventions of the source language or change syntax to meet expectations of the target language (see also Biel, 2017; Gal, 2015; El Ghazi and Bnini, 2019; Sorgoni, 2019).…”

“…As noted above, to be efficacious, documents had to translate not only languages but legal systems (El Ghazi and Bnini, 2019; Engberg, 2020; Zeifert and Tobor, 2021). The multilayered nature of legal translation was evident in Susan's experience translating the equivalent of a restraining order issued by a court in El Salvador.…”

“…In contexts of legal advocacy, translating documents is a craft that requires careful decision‐making. As practitioners of a craft, translators actively produce new texts or discourses even as they try to keep meaning the same (Clappe, 2019; Gal, 2015; Glenn‐Levin Rodriguez, 2016; Pian, 2017; Schwittay, 2014; Tipton, 2008; Zeifert and Tobor, 2021). Documentation, including translations, can support immigrants’ legalization claims but can also pose insurmountable obstacles for those who lack key pieces of evidence, are recorded in undesirable ways, cannot afford translators, do not know how they appear in government files or have discrepancies in their records (Mitchell and Coutin, 2019).…”

“…These problems are exacerbated in legal translation, which may require translating not only between languages but also between legal systems (El Ghazi and Bnini, 2019;Zeifert and Tobor, 2021). There are debates over whether a translation should follow conventions of the source language or change syntax to meet expectations of the target language (see also Biel, 2017;Gal, 2015;El Ghazi and Bnini, 2019;Sorgoni, 2019).…”

Untitled

“…БМТ Бош Ассамблеяси томонидан ҳам турли соҳаларда оммавий иштирок этиш ҳуқуқини таъминлашга оид резолюциялар қабул қилинган. Масалан, Бош Ассамблеянинг A/RES/67/218-сонли резолюциясида [38] фискал шаффофлик буйича глобал ташаббус ҳамда унинг 2012 йилдаги фискал шаффофлик, оммавий иштирок ва ҳисобдорлик буйича юқори даражадаги принциплари [39] қайд этилган ва аъзо давлатларнинг ушбу принципларни ихтие-рий равишда куриб чиқишни рағбатлантириши курсатилган. Мазкур принциплар асосида Халқаро Валюта Жамғармасининг Фискал шаффофлик туғрисидаги кодекси, Иқтисодий Ҳамкорлик ва Ривожланиш Ташкилотининг бюджет шаффофлиги буйича йуриқномаси ҳамда Очиқ бюджет тадқиқотлари суровномаларида бюджет ҳужжатларидаги маълумотларни ошкор қилиш буйича курсатмаларига У� збекистонда ҳам риоя қилинади [40, 46-б.…”