Main Article Content



The aim of this paper is to examine translation of the European arrest warrant in the lightof intercultural communication. The paper consists of three parts. The first part addresses majoraspects of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the territory of the European Union (EU)and introduces the European arrest warrant (EAW) as one of the major legal instruments of suchcooperation. The second part focuses on the notion of legal translation as an act of interculturalcommunication. The third part illustrates, via translation of the European arrest warrant, howcertain differences between the two most important legal families of the world, the Common Lawand the Civil Law, influence the process of intercultural communication.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite


  1. Baker, J.H. 2002. An Introduction to English Legal History. Fourth Edition. London:Butterworths.
  2. Cao, D. 2007. Translating Law. Clevedon, [etc.]: Multilingual Matters, cop.
  3. Curran, V. 2006. Comparative Law and Language. in: M. Reimann and R. Zimmermann(Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford & New York: OxfordUniversity Press. pp.675-709.
  4. Doczekalska, A. 2009. Drafting or Translation – Production of Multilingual Legal F. Olsen, A. Lorz, & D. Stein (Eds.) Translation Issues in Language andLaw. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: PALGRAVE & MacMillan.
  5. Gilmore, B. 2002. The EU Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant: AnOverview from the Perspective of International Criminal Law. ERA-Forum, No.3, pp. 144-147.
  6. Górski, A., Sakowicz A. 2004. Prawo Karne Procesowe: Europejski nakaz aresztowania– nowy instrument Unii europejskiej w walce z przestępczością. EdukacjaPrawnicza, Nr 4(61), kwiecień 2004.
  7. Groot, G.-R. de. 1987. Problems of Legal translation from the Point of View of aComparative Lawyer. in: Netherlands Reports to the Twelfth InternationalCongress of Comparative Law. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Institute. pp.1-19.
  8. Groot, G.-R. de, 2006. Legal Translation. In: Smits, J.M. (Ed.), Elgar Encyclopedia ofComparative Law. Cheltenham.UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. pp. 423-434.
  9. Großfeld, B. 1996. Kernfragen der Rechtsvergleichung. in: V. Grosswald Curran (Ed.)Comparative Law: An Introduction. Durham North Carolina: CarolinaAcademic Press. pp. 118-122; 106-115.
  10. Hofmański, P., et al. (Eds.) 2008. Europejski Nakaz Aresztowania w teorii i praktycepaństw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Warszawa: Wolter Kluwer Polska Sp.z o.o.
  11. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture‟s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutionsand Organizations Across Nations, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: SagePublications International Educational and Professional Publisher.
  12. Holliday, A., et al., (Eds.) 2004. Intercultural Communication: an Advanced ResourceBook. London and New York: Routledge.
  13. Jandt, F.E. 2007. An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a GlobalCommunity. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: SAGEPublications, Inc.
  14. Jopek-Bosiacka, A. 2006. Przekład prawny i sądowy. Warszawa: WydawnictwoNaukowe PWN.
  15. Joseph, E. J.. 1995. Indeterminacy, Translation and the Law in Translation and the Law.
  16. In: M. Morris (Ed.) Translation and the Law. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Publishing Company.
  17. Kielar, B. 1977. Language of the Law in the Aspect of Translation. Warszawa:Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
  18. Kierzkowska, D. 2002. Tłumaczenie prawnicze. Warszawa: TEPIS.
  19. Lyons, J. 1981. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
  20. Mellinkoff, D., 1963. The language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
  21. Munday, J. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. Londonand New York: Routledge
  22. Nord, Ch. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approach Explained.
  23. Manchester, UK & Northampton MA: St. Jerome Publishing.
  24. Nord, Ch. 2005. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and DidacticApplication of Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis” second edition.Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi B. V.
  25. Pérignon, I., Bauc C. 2007. The European Arrest Warrant: a Growing Success Academy of European Law, No. 8: pp. 203-214.
  26. Pisarska, A., Tomaszkiewicz T. 1996. Współczesne tendencje przekładoznawcze. Poznań:Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza.
  27. Sager, J.C. 1994. Language Engineering and Translation Consequences of Automation.
  28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  29. Sapir, E. 1966. Culture, Language and Personality. in: D.G. Mandelbaum, (Ed.):
  30. Selected Essays. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  31. Ńarčević S. 1997. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer LawInternational.
  32. Snell-Hornby, M. 1988. Translation Studies An Integrated Approach.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  33. Scollon R. and Wong Scollon S. 2001. Intercultural Communication A DiscourseApproach Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  34. Snell-Hornby, M. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies New paradigms or shiftingviewpoints. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  35. Tiersma, P.M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  36. Vermeer, H.J. 1996. A Skopos Theory of Translation (Some arguments for and against).Heildelberg: TextconText.
  37. Wagner, E., Bech, S., and Martínez, J.M. 2002. Translating for the European UnionInstitutions. Manchester, UK and Northampton MA: St. Jerome Publishing.
  38. Whorf, B. 1966. Language, Thought, and Reality. in: J.B. Carroll (Ed.) Selected Writingsof Benjamin Lee Whorf. The United States of America: The MassachusettsInstitute of Technology.
  39. Zweigert, K. and Kötz, H. 1992. An Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford:Clarendon Press.