THE TRANSPOSITION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW CONCEPTS INTO NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS: THE CASE OF GENOCIDE

Main Article Content

Marie-Hélène GIRARD

Abstract

This article discusses preliminary findings of a study on the transposition of the legal concept of genocide into 131 national jurisdictions. The specificities of this transposition into national criminal systems, as well as those related to the international legal definition of genocide, are described in the first part. The communicative situations in which the concept of genocide has been transposed are then examined in order to show their scope and breadth, and to which extent they contribute to the transformation of the concept of genocide. Trends related to the object of transformation in the definition and their effect on meaning are subsequently outlined. The findings point to a situation where, despite having been the object of multiple consensus at the international level, the concept of genocide has been transformed by the vast array of domestic legal languages and legal systems into which it has been transposed and thereby reinforce the relation between the configuration of the language and law, and the difficulty of translation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
GIRARD, M.-H. (2019). THE TRANSPOSITION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW CONCEPTS INTO NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS: THE CASE OF GENOCIDE. Comparative Legilinguistics, 41, 71-96. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2020.41.4
Section
Articles

References

  1. Amnesty International. 2012. Universal Jurisdiction: A Preliminary Survey of Legislation Around the World – 2012 Update. IOR 53/019/2012 (retrieved from: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/24000/ior530192012en.pdf, accessed 13 February 2019).
  2. Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  3. Chesterman, Andrew. 2005. “Problems with strategies.” in New trends in Translation Studies: In honour of Kinga Klaudy, eds. K. Károly and Á. Fóris. pp. 17–28. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó,
  4. Cornu, Gérard. 2005. Linguistique juridique. 3rd ed. Paris: Montchrestien.
  5. Dullion, Valérie. 2007. Traduire les lois. Un éclairage culturel. Cortil-Wodon: E.M.E.
  6. Gémar, Jean-Claude. 1995a. Traduire ou l’art d’interpréter. Fonctions, statut et esthérique de la traduction. Tome 1 : Principes. Sainte-Foy, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
  7. Gémar, Jean-Claude. 1995b. Traduire ou l’art d’interpréter. Langue, droit et société : Éléments de jurilinguistique. Tome 2 : Application. Sainte-Foy, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
  8. Gémar, Jean-Claude. 2002a. “Le plus et le moins-disant culturel du texte juridique. Langue, culture et équivalence”. Meta 47(2):163–76.
  9. Gémar, Jean-Claude. 2002b. “Traduire le texte pragmatique: Texte juridique, culture et traduction”. ILCEA 3:11–38.
  10. Gémar, Jean-Claude. 2008. “Forme et sens du message juridique en traduction”. Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 21(4):323–35.
  11. de Groot, Gérard-René. 1987. “The Point of View of a Comparative Lawyer”. Les Cahiers de droit 28(4):793–812.
  12. Harvey, Malcolm. 2002. “What’s so special about legal translation?”. Meta 47(2):177–85.
  13. Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On linguistic aspects of translation.” In On translation, ed. R. A. Brower. pp. 232–39. Harvard University Press.
  14. Lemkin, Raphael. 1944. Axis rule in occupied Europe : Laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress. Carnegie Endowment for World Peace, Washington D.C. (retrieved from: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9443228, accessed 12 January 2019.)
  15. Mattila, Heikki E. S. 2012. Jurilinguistique comparée : Langage du droit, latin et langues modernes. Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais.
  16. Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Method, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, III.
  17. Öner, Senem and Ayşe Banu Karadağ. 2016. “Lawmaking through Translation: ‘Translating’ Crimes and Punishments.” In Perspectives 24(2):319–38.
  18. Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2011. “El Traductor Como Redactor de Instrumentos Jurídicos: El Caso de Los Tratados Internacionales”. Journal of Specialized Translation 15:200–214.
  19. Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2014a. “Legal Translation Studies as Interdiscipline : Scope and Evolution”. Meta 59 (2):260–77.
  20. Prieto Ramos, Fernando. 2014b. “Parameters for Problem-Solving in Legal Translation: Implications for Legal Lexicography and Institutional Terminology Management.”. In The Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, eds. Anne Wagner, Le Cheng, and King Kui Sin. pp. 121–34. UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
  21. Rikhof, Joseph. 2009. “Fewer Places to Hide? The Impact of Domestic War Crimes Prosecutions on International Impunity”. Criminal Law Forum 20(1):1–51.
  22. Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague-London-Boston: Kluwer Law International
  23. Scassa, Teresa. 1997. “Langue et justice: La transformation du droit”. Revue de la common law en français 1(2):247–59.
  24. Schabas, William A. 2010. “Defining Genocide.” in The diversity of international law : essays in honour of professor Kalliopi K. Koufa, eds. A. Constantinides, K. Koufa, and N. Zaikos. pp. 533–46. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
  25. Sirois, André. 2000. “La traduction et l’interprétation devant les tribunaux pénaux internationaux.” In La traduction juridique: Histoire, théorie(s) et pratique, actes du colloque du GREJUT de l’École de traduction et interprétation de l’Université de Genève, pp. 537–57.
  26. Van Sliedregt, Elies. 2012. “Pluralism in International Criminal Law”. Leiden Journal of International Law 25 (04):847–55.
  27. Tabory, Mala. 1980. Multilingualism in International Law and Institutions. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands; Rockville, Md., U.S.A.: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.
  28. Wagner, Anne and Jean-Claude Gémar. 2015. “Les enjeux de la jurilinguistique et de la juritraductologie”. Revue internationale de sémiotique juridique 28:1–8.