Важность юридического перевода в международном праве

Аннотация

В данной статье рассматривается юридический перевод и его роль в толковании международно-правовых документов как с теоретической, так и с практической точки зрения. Что касается теоретических аспектов, обсуждаются юридический перевод с точки зрения систем гражданского и общего права, статус юридического перевода в международном праве, принципы простого языка и эквивалентность юридических слов. Соответственно рассматривается взаимосвязь юридического перевода и толкования международно-правовых документов. Ключевые слова: международное право, юридический перевод, юридические термины, технические термины, международные соглашения, концептуальная основа и специальная терминология. Annotation. This article examines legal translation and its role in the interpretation of international legal documents from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Regarding the theoretical aspects, legal translation from the point of view of civil law and common law systems, the status of legal translation in international law, the principles of plain language, and the equivalence of legal words are discussed. Accordingly, the interrelationship between legal translation and interpretation of international legal documents is considered. Key words: International law, legal translation, legal terms, technical terms, international agreements, conceptual framework and special terminology. Legal translation is a very important topic in the era of globalization; it aims to make national legal systems more connected to the international standard through a comparative study of legal terms in different languages. Therefore, legal 522 “Arab tili globallashuv davrida: innovatsion yondoshuvlar va o‘qitish metodikasi” mavzusidagi xalqaro ilmiy-amaliy anjuman translation may play a vital role in globalizing local laws by encouraging the use of standard legal and technical terms. The translation of legal texts of any kind, from statute laws to contracts to courtroom testimony, is a practice that stands at the crossroads of legal theory, language theory and translation theory. It has been advocated that the demand for legal translation is on the increase around the world owing to globalization and the increased contact and exchange between peoples and states. The public sector of international law is very different from the private sector where multinational corporations are the primary actors. In the public sphere, theprimary actors are states themselves; but a number of important international organizations also exist. The United Nations obviously remains the most notable, but it is certainly not the only one. The World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and various international lobbying groups and non-governmental organizations could also benefit from the use of lawyer-linguists. The United Nations is one of the most well-known users of translators and interpreters in the legal world. Definitions and concepts associated with human rights, opinions and understandings vary significantly from continent to continent and even among seemingly similar countries. Consider, for example, the definition of a terrorist, which can vary drastically depending on the region. Opinions in the United States differ markedly from those in the Middle East and parts of Asia. Lawyer-linguists could help to close this gap and to achieve mutual understanding that could facilitate a stronger international legal regime in the future. Terminological problems in this context epitomize the dilemmas of articulating international or supranational legal structures for the co-ordination and harmonization of national policies and legislation. Translators must follow institutional terminology established to designate univocal shared concepts in all the official languages, including all kinds of bodies, procedures and technicalities (e.g., translations of “extended continental shelf” in the law of the sea or “tariff escalation” in international trade law). Such terms are regarded as the sacrosanct backbone of the common framework and, as a general rule, they are also considered authoritative by specialized users outside the organization. The conceptual framework and specific terminology of each shared system are reproduced in all its instruments, while other discursive conventions vary by text typology. For example, negotiated legislative texts are more likely to include vague language in order to facilitate consensus, with a high degree of hybridity as a result of multiple input sources in the drafting process. In contrast, style is generally more coherent in documents drafted by adjudicative bodies, than those submitted by litigating parties; and references to national legal realities are much more commonplace in texts of adjudication and monitoring procedures than in legislative provisions. The language of international treaties play an important role because they embody and communicate the substance of the agreement. It is not irrelevant whether a treaty is