Law Council of Australia

International Law Section

Navigating the complexities of language and cultural interpretation in international law

4 September 2024

The 31st annual Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law Conference was held at the University of Melbourne Law School between 3 and 5 July 2024. The conference theme, Crisis, Conflict and Cooperation, was drawn from sentiments expressed by Judge Hilary Charlesworth.

A piece that sparked great interest was that by a UN interpreter who discussed the impact of language and culture on international law. Language and culture clearly hold great weight in the efficacy and consistency of international law, however translational difficulties ultimately arise. So, how does international law solve the challenge that different languages impose on interpretations of conventions and treaties, and which gaps persist?

In treaties, the tension between language and interpretive consistency is recognised in Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (see below). Article 33 outlines that where a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language. Article 33(3) outlines that terms are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text, and when they do not, they must be reconciled with respect to the object and purpose of the treaty (Article 33(4)).

Article 33 VCLT - Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages

  1. When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail.
     
  2. A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree.
     
  3. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text. 4. Except where a particular text prevails in accordance with paragraph 1, when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning which the application of articles 31 and 32 does not remove, the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted. A fascinating example of international law’s approach to varying linguistic interpretations of a treaty is evident in the case of Laurent Semanza.1

In Semanza, the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda were forced to reconcile linguistic differences in the English and French versions of the Tribunal’s statute in order to determine whether the accused was indictable. In the case, the English word ‘murder’ encompassed ideas of intent, premeditation, and recklessness, whereas the French equivalent, ‘assassinat’, referred exclusively to the premeditated form of murder. Premeditation goes a step further than mere intent or recklessness, requiring the person to have planned or thought about the crime beforehand.

Fortunately, it was possible to harmonise the two under article 33(4) VCLT to only entail premeditated forms of murder, which resulted in the accused being deemed guilty. However, their honours noted that the French word ‘assassinat’ is far more precise than the English reference to ‘murder’, meaning the harmonised definition alters English conceptions of the word, which could lead to the exclusion of other cases.

The implication of this linguistic difference results in the restriction of the article. In light of the competing, yet harmonised French and English interpretations, the article becomes restricted to crimes that were committed with a deliberate plan to kill prior to the act, rather than simultaneously forming the intent with the act. This case presents an interesting example of the difficulties faced by courts and tribunals to reconcile linguistic differences, in spite of the operation of the VCLT Article 33. It becomes clear that in international law, navigating the complexities of language and cultural interpretation is both a critical and challenging task. The intricacies of translation, culture, and varying legal traditions can all influence how legal texts are understood and applied across different jurisdictions.

1 Prosecutor v Laurent Semanza (Judgment and Sentence) [2003] ICTR-97-20-T

Disclaimer: This communication presents a spotlight on the VCLT and some of the translational and linguistic issues facing International legal interpretation. However, it does not constitute legal advice. It does not represent the position of the ILS or the Law Council of Australia. Please consult wider legal commentary to inform yourself on the subject.

Last Updated on 24/03/2025

Share

Tags

Most recent items in International Law Section


Trending Items in International Law Section