Oksana Rudenko
The unification of
a legal terminology of private law as an official politics of the European
Union
Nowadays, there are 23 official languages in the EU, but taking into
account a particular status of an Irish language, legal documents are
translated into 24 languages. Despite the tendency of giving the advantage from
those 24 languages to three of them − English, German and French, −
none of them could be considered a language that might pretend for the status
of a legal European language. That could be explained by such a historical fact
that English language was not used at the time of the establishment of the
European Community in the 50-s, since
The topic of the article is the European private law terminology.
The objective of the research concerns the systematization of juridical
glossary in order to avoid the variety with may cause misunderstanding and
misinterpretation. The data are retrieved from the European private law of the
European Union legal documents.
The statement concerning the unsettlement of a language problem in the
European private law could be explained by such an example as the translation
by different European languages such an important (in the context of the
formation of a common European contract law, general private law, including
international private law) term “coherent” that is officially used for instance
in the title and the text of the Council Resolution on “A More Coherent
European Contract Law” (2003)[1].
Thus, in French, English, Spanish, Italian and other languages that term spells
in such a way: “coherent” (French), “coherent” (German), “coherent” (Spanish)
but “consistent” and “coherent” (English). Thus, that is paradoxical that in a field
of law which is known for its logicality, stability, consistency and constancy,
similar meanings are represented by different terms. As a result, leaning on a
general analysis of the practice of translation of the texts of European
international private law a common coherent European juridical terminology
doesn’t exist.
Above-stated divergences’ problem in the usage of terms “coherent” and
“consistent” in different languages for the designation of the same meaning
would be solved by means of agreement concerning the usage of the term on our
mind “coherent”.
In other words the problem could be solved conventionally on the basis
of one term with a Latin base. That also concerns the formation of a modern
Ukrainian juridical science, where the term “coherent” should rank high,
especially in the interpretation of the European private law by Ukrainian investigators.
The word “coherent” is the most modern juridical term in the context of
the unification of the European international private law but not the only one.
In the process of a legal reform which orients on the formation of a common
European space, lots of other words with a foreign origin are also actively
used, for instance: adaptation, approximation, assimilation, harmonization,
directive, implementation, codification, conform, coordination, modernization,
resolution, regulation, simplification, unification, uniform. Each of these
words, which are based on their own main semantics, has already the meaning of
settled juridical terms of the European international private law. This list
might be amplified in our opinion with two more words, such as: amalgamation
and asymptote, which could also become juridical terms of that law.
Thus, before we legally characterize certain meanings with the help of a
certain juridical term, for instance approximation etc, we should first of all
make a general philological critique of the word. According to a large
explanatory dictionary of a modern Ukrainian language (2004), the word “óí³ô³êàö³ÿ”
has such a main meaning as “çâåäåííÿ ÷îãî-íåáóäü äî ºäèíî¿ ôîðìè, ñèñòåìè, ºäèíèõ íîðìàòèâ³â[2]” at
the same time Collin’s Dictionary determines “unification” as “an act, instance
or process of uniting”.
It should be also mentioned that in the Treaty establishing the European
Communities[3], you can never find the
word “unification”, instead of it three other words are used here:
“approximation”, “harmonization” and “coordination”. Large explanatory
dictionary of a modern Ukrainian language (2004) gives such interpretation of
these words: “àïðîêñèìàö³ÿ”
– “íàáëèæåíå çîáðàæåííÿ”[4], “ãàðìîí³çàö³ÿ”
– “ïðèâåäåííÿ â ñòàí â³äïîâ³äíîñò³, çëàãîäæåíîñò³; çá³ëüøåííÿ ãàðìîí³éíîñò³”,
“êîîðäèíàö³ÿ” – “1. Ïîãîäæåííÿ, çâåäåííÿ
äî â³äïîâ³äíîñò³, óñòàíîâëåííÿ
âçàºìîçâ’ÿçêó, êîíòàêòó â ä³ÿëüíîñò³
ëþäåé, ì³æ ä³ÿìè, ïîíÿòòÿìè òîùî. 2.
Óçãîäæåí³ñòü ðóõ³â, ä³é ³ ò.³í.”[5].
According to the Collin’s Dictionary of Law[6]
these terms have such an interpretation: “approximation” – “the process or
result of making a rough calculation, estimate, or guess”; “harmonization” – “the
act of harmonizing; make or form a consistent whole” and “coordination” –
“balanced and effective interaction of movement, actions, etc.”
All above-stated examples of the interpretation demonstrate that similar
terms have various explanations in different languages and that for sure cause
misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The best way out of this situation is
the formation of a single European juridical language.
Certainly such dead classical languages as Greek or Latin cannot pretend
for the status of a single European juridical language. We also cannot raise
the question of the formation of artificial European juridical language on the
basis of Esperanto etc. We must find a possible way to solve this problem in
practice.
In our view, we can solve that problem neither on the basis of choosing
one language, for instance French or German, among 24 official languages, nor
on the basis of full restoring of the usage of Latin, but due to revival of
studying the Roman law by lawyers that should be taught on a high monographic
level.
That means that it is necessary to break the existing in
Bibliography:
1.
Collin, P.H. Dictionary of Law / P.H.
Collin. – 2. ed., reprint.—Teddington (Midd’x): Collin Publishing, 1995. – 258 p.
2.
Council Resolution on “A More
Coherent European Contract Law” // Official Journal C 246,
4.
Âåëèêèé
òëóìà÷íèé ñëîâíèê ñó÷àñíî¿ óêðà¿íñüêî¿ ìîâè // Óêëàä. ³ ãîëîâ. ðåä. Â.Ò. Áóñåë. – Ê.; ²ðï³íü: ÂÒÔ «Ïåðóí», 2004. – Ñ. 1440.
5.
Ðóäåíêî Î.Â. Óí³ô³êàö³ÿ ì³æíàðîäíîãî ïðèâàòíîãî ïðàâà êðà¿í
ªÑ ÿê ïðàâîâà ðåôîðìà // Íàóê. â³ñíèê
×åðí³âåöüêîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó:
Çá³ðí. íàóê. ïðàöü. Âèï. 311: Ïðàâîçíàâñòâî. – ×åðí³âö³: Ðóòà, 2006. – Ñ. 61-65.
[1] Council
Resolution on “A More Coherent European Contract Law” // Official Journal C
246,
[2] Âåëèêèé òëóìà÷íèé ñëîâíèê ñó÷àñíî¿ óêðà¿íñüêî¿ ìîâè // Óêëàä. ³ ãîëîâ. ðåä. Â.Ò.
Áóñåë. – Ê.; ²ðï³íü: ÂÒÔ «Ïåðóí», 2004. – Ñ. 1297.
[4] [4] Âåëèêèé òëóìà÷íèé ñëîâíèê ñó÷àñíî¿ óêðà¿íñüêî¿ ìîâè // Óêëàä. ³ ãîëîâ. ðåä. Â.Ò.
Áóñåë. – Ê.; ²ðï³íü: ÂÒÔ «Ïåðóí», 2004. – Ñ. 23.
[5] Òàì ñàìî. – Ñ. 453.
[6] Collin,
P.H. Dictionary of Law / P.H. Collin. – 2. ed., reprint.—Teddington
(Midd’x): Collin Publishing, 1995. – 258 p.