Glanert, Simone (2008) Speaking Language to Law: The Case of Europe. Legal Studies, 28 (2). pp. 161-171. ISSN 1748-121X. (doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2008.00084.x) (The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided)
|The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided. (Contact us about this Publication)|
No legal integration project can circumvent the matter of language. Yet, lawyers advocating one form or other of Europeanisation of law, apparently basing themselves on the unexamined view that everything is adequately translatable, do not seem prepared to address linguistic issues. But a move beyond law’s disciplinary barriers – in particular, a foray into translation studies (or ‘translatology’) – compels one to challenge the effectivity of the uniformisation agenda. First, it shows that the inherently local character of language resists the establishment of uniform law. Second, it demonstrates that no uniform law, irrespective of the language in which it is written, can account for local legal experience. Both claims suggest that language simply cannot be made subservient to the lawyer’s agenda and that the assumption that it can be ignored is mistaken.
|Divisions:||Faculties > Social Sciences > Kent Law School|
|Depositing User:||Simone Glanert|
|Date Deposited:||06 Jun 2008 13:38 UTC|
|Last Modified:||11 Oct 2016 13:49 UTC|
|Resource URI:||https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/6363 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|