Abstract

Translators at the European Court of Human Rights, as at other international courts, have to deal with two different types of legal terminology in judgments and decisions: on the one hand, terms that would be used by a national practitioner in the relevant language, and on the other, the supranational language that has evolved in general international law or that is specific to the Court itself, being enshrined in its basic texts or case-law. The choice of translation will often be imposed by the source text, which may be a constraint; extensive knowledge of the Court’s autonomous terms and other “linguistic precedent” is vital if they are to be used accurately and consistently. The task of devising and using supranational terms to encompass domestic realities in as many as 47 States is not only that of the drafter; the linguist also has a crucial role to play in conveying the Court’s message in a culture-neutral manner