Professional reasoning, legal cultures, and arbitral awards

Hafner, Christoph A.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-971x.2010.01691.x

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…common and civil law). Although highly unlikely in civil litigation, this is a distinct possibility in an international arbitration and could form the basis for an interesting study of discursive differences and the possibility of cross‐talk, (also see Bhatia 2011, and Hafner 2011).…”

Section: Discussion: Comparing the Strengths And Weaknesses Of Languamentioning

confidence: 99%

Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration

Powell¹,

Hashim²

2011

World Englishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on extensive observations of courtroom proceedings and more limited observations of arbitration practice, this study compares how each system approaches language disadvantage. In Malaysian common law the usual constraints on courtroom discourse, institutionalised by de jure rules of speaking and reinforced by professional practice, are supplemented by a language policy, enshrined in the constitution, statutes and judicial directives, which requires the use of Malay while also allowing English where deemed in the interests of justice. The result is a bilingual system, with all other languages admissible only through interpretation. In the fast-growing alternative dispute sector, however, there are few hard and fast rules governing either code choice or discourse. With most Malaysian arbitrations involving commercial disputes, English is the dominant medium, but as in the courts, English-Malay code-switching is common. Ways of speaking are generally more relaxed than in the courts, but with a majority of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) advocates coming from common law, many discursive practices are carried over. While the more relaxed atmosphere of ADR seems to encourage freer discourse than in the courts, there are some indications that current practice may be underestimating the needs of participants who are less proficient in English. The stricter rules imposed on courtroom discourse may inhibit free discussion but they do reveal a high awareness of the problems of language disadvantage.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Comparing the Strengths And Weaknesses Of Languamentioning

confidence: 99%

Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration

Powell¹,

Hashim²

2011

World Englishes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hafner (2011), for instance, examined the impact of different legal cultures in international arbitration. He emphasizes that alternative dispute resolution process of international commercial arbitration is a perfect example of the context in which the participants of the said process represent various socio-cultural backgrounds and in which diversified national, commercial and legal cultures meet.…”

Section: Cultural Dimension Of Legal Discourse In the Application Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In his study, Hafner (2011) wanted to research cultural variation in professional reasoning in arbitral awards (the reasoned decision of the arbitrator). His analysis was based on three principal sources of data:…”

Section: Cultural Dimension Of Legal Discourse In the Application Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Dimensions Of Legal Discourse

Sierocka

2014

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Despite the intention for precision and accuracy, legal discourse is oftentimes complex, archaic and ambiguous -which gives rise to contentious interpretation. Moreover, little or no attention is paid to the cultural dimension of legal discourse, which plays a critical role in the translation and interpretation of legal texts, as well as in the application of law. This paper endeavours to illustrate the impact the culture, or, more precisely, legal culture has on the way legal texts are construed or translated and to present problems which arise in the interpretation, translation and application of law as a result of cultural diversities.

show abstract

Arbitration Discourse

Corona¹

2015

The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arbitration is an independent, extrajudicial, alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The globalization of international trade has made arbitration the preferred device to solve disputes in cross‐border settings. One of the major challenges in the study of international arbitration discourse is precisely its multidisciplinary and intercultural dimension, as it has to integrate processes and procedures across legal systems (civil law and common law) and bring together a diverse range of participants, such as legal drafters of regulations, the parties in disputes, their legal counsels and witnesses, and the arbitrators, all coming from different linguistic, cultural, professional, and jurisdictional backgrounds. In other words, the international arbitration process is a sequence of complex discursive and professional practices carried out in multicultural and multilegal contexts.

show abstract

Professional reasoning, legal cultures, and arbitral awards

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration

Language disadvantage in Malaysian litigation and arbitration

Cultural Dimensions Of Legal Discourse

Arbitration Discourse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About