4 ms·
Third party language implies that either citizens of country 1 must learn this third party language to the proficiency needed to understand legalese; or to both
by duxat_staglatz 7y ago
Third party language implies that either citizens of country 1 must learn this third party language to the proficiency needed to understand legalese; or to both be expected to know, understand and apply the law but not be able to read it.
- dmurray 7y agoProficiency in another language is the minimum I expect of diplomats. It's not like every citizen has to speak it.
- duxat_staglatz 7y agoWhich is my second point: citizens will have to follow and vote on the law of their country, including international treaties, without understanding them since they are not written in their language.
- pdpi 7y agoAIUI, a treaty is not law unto itself. Rather, the parties to a treaty will pass laws that implement said treaty.
- duxat_staglatz 7y agoThis is not relevant for the political side of the question, e.g. it would not be possible for a citizen on its own to judge whether the merits of a treaty. Say, your senator campaigns on withdrawing from the Iran deal: how are you supposed to assess this position if the deal was in third-party-language Pashto? In addition, I can present the case of France, where judges must disregard laws that contradict treaties (the hierarchy of norms being Constitution > Treaties > Laws > Executive orders). Therefore treaties, even with no national law to implement them, have a direct effects on the law.
- gamblor956 7y agoTreaties are accorded to the power of law in the treaty signatories, below their Constitutional documents but above that of legislative laws. Once a treaty enters into effect, a nation is bound by the terms of the treaty even if they do not have implementing laws. However, in many cases treaties don't have any consequences if signatories don't pass implementing laws (see, e.g, the Kyoto Protocol).
- nguoi 7y agoI imagine most voters do not read proposed bills in their own language as it stands, instead relying on reporters' summaries as they would for foreign language versions.
- bleuarff 7y agoAgreed, but that's not a reason to write laws or treaties in a language the general population does not speak. That's too high a barrier to understand the rules of your nation, which should be easily accessible to every citizen. Legalese is complicated enough in your native tongue :).
- emiliobumachar 7y agoCould Latin perhaps fit the bill? It's already popular with lawyers
- dctoedt 7y ago> Could Latin perhaps fit the bill? It's already popular with lawyers Lawyer here — very few of us know more Latin than the odd artifact such as ejusdem generis or contra proferentem, which occasionally are relevant to contract interpretation. And those of us of a certain age who grew up Catholic will remember bits and pieces of the old Latin Mass. Otherwise, Latin is probably as dead to lawyers as to anyone else. English is now the global lingua franca; while I used to be a grammar vigilante, not long ago it occurred to me that in the linguistic "marketplace," if we native speakers want English to outcompete, e.g., Mandarin or Spanish, we need to be willing to let the language evolve so that it's easier for non-native speakers to learn and use confidently.