English as common legal language: Its expansion and the effects on civil law and common law lawyers

English has become the common language in a globalized legal world. However, the far-reaching consequences of the domination of key areas of the international practice of law by legal English are not yet fully understood and analysed. This article is concerned with an analysis of the expansion of legal English in global legal practice. This area has also been described as the ‘Law Market’, i.e. the area of activities of global lawyers in coping with the regulatory and legal frameworks in which international businesses function.’2 Much of the existing research into legal English as a common language is concerned with the development of legal English as a vehicle language for non-native English speakers in the sense of a lingua franca.3 The discussion is divided into either promoting the use of legal English as global language4 or pointing to its limitations ‘in that its legal terminology is premised on the tools of the (minority) common law system’5. This article aims to assess the interface and dynamics between lawyers using legal English as a common language as well as foreign languages in their legal work. This includes lawyers trained in the common law and/or civil law. Its aim is to gain a better understanding of global lawyering and communication in law and business relationships and to develop strategies for the internationalization of legal education and training in the UK

English as common legal language: Its expansion and the effects on civil law and common law lawyers

English has become the common language in a globalized legal world. However, the far-reaching consequences of the domination of key areas of the international practice of law by legal English are not yet fully understood and analysed. This article is concerned with an analysis of the expansion of legal English in global legal practice. This area has also been described as the ‘Law Market’, i.e. the area of activities of global lawyers in coping with the regulatory and legal frameworks in which international businesses function.’2 Much of the existing research into legal English as a common language is concerned with the development of legal English as a vehicle language for non-native English speakers in the sense of a lingua franca.3 The discussion is divided into either promoting the use of legal English as global language4 or pointing to its limitations ‘in that its legal terminology is premised on the tools of the (minority) common law system’5. This article aims to assess the interface and dynamics between lawyers using legal English as a common language as well as foreign languages in their legal work. This includes lawyers trained in the common law and/or civil law. Its aim is to gain a better understanding of global lawyering and communication in law and business relationships and to develop strategies for the internationalization of legal education and training in the UK

Towards similar standards of judicial protection against administrative action in England and Germany? : a comparison of judicial review of administrative action and the liability of public authorities under the influence of European laws

This comparison has shown that the traditionally divergent positions, which are taken in the control of administrative action in England and Germany, display some common ground in very general terms on which decisions are being taken. The formulation of these general observations is valuable in the preparation of a transnational approximation of judicial review mechanism for the establishment of comparable levels of judicial protection in Europe. These results may be useful for future developments of a common system of judicial review across Europe, even though these results may only represent two pieces in the jigsaw. The comparison has also identified major differences and assessed the reasons for the diverging developments in a historical perspective. The identification of these differences is equally important because of the need to find compromises between divergent systems.Secondly, the thesis was concerned with an analysis of the degree of Europeanisation of the national judicial review systems and the concept of public liability as it is currently emerging. Here, some changes can be noted in both legal systems, which have led to a slow convergence of the systems. The changes in England are marked by an increasing openness for more transparency in the decision-making and the development of a more rights based culture. The substantive review of administrative decision through the application of sharper tools such as proportionality and substantive legitimate expectation mark a new era. Germany, on the other hand displays very high standards of review. The changes in Germany which were provoked mainly by case law of the European Court of Justice indicate the need to reduce the standard of review in some areas, such as the protection of substantive legitimate expectation in the context of the recovery of, state aid. The neglect of procedural protection which is illustrated by generous provisions which allow the in-trial curing of procedural effects displays an approach in Germany which is very focused on the substantive correctness of decisions. This attitude might, in the future lead to controversies in the context of European laws. Nevertheless, limitations to a convergence are inherently set by each national systems constitutional framework. The reasons for the different developments of both legal systems in the nineteenth and early twentieth century can not be ignored and will remain to an extent to preserve the national character of both systems.The variety of results, which have been identified in the four main chapters of this thesis were concerned with issues dealing with the institutional aspects as well as systematic aspects of judicial review and public liability in England and Germany. However, the nature of this comparison required the analysis of institutional contexts as well of the substantive and procedural judicial review mechanisms. The questions asked were concerned with identification of common principles and differences in a historical context, the degree of Europeanisation, which has led to an approximation of nationally divergent positions and the limitations, which are provided by each system's constitutional framework in which judicial review operates. The comparison focused on the development of a system of judicial review of administrative action in a historical perspective, the judicial control of the exercise of discretionary powers, fair procedures and their judicial review and the liability of public authorities in tort

German Constitutional Law in the UK Supreme Court

The outgoing tide of EU law will be Britain’s most significant constitutional change in recent times. In an era of uncertainties, the UK Supreme Court proved to be a guardian of the constitutional role of Parliament. The case of Miller, decided in the UK Supreme Court in 2017, proved that point. The highest court in the UK has therefore gained an important place in the global community of Constitutional Courts. This global community finds its legitimacy in the recognition of common values as well as the recognition of national variations. This article analyses to which extent common values, and in particular those found in German law, have influenced decisions in the House of Lords and UK Supreme Court. To do so, the author analyses decisions by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court and extrajudicial speeches by the Justices of the Supreme Court for references to German constitutional law. It identifies and maps the themes that have attracted the attention of the justices of the Supreme Court. More recently, the UK Supreme Court has referred to judgments and extrajudicial writing by German Constitutional Court judges. This was in the context of constitutional questions relating to the tension between membership within the EU and national identity, a theme which has occupied German judges for some time. As well as that, the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights has sparked an interest in German jurisprudence, in particular in the principle of proportionality

Translation in the EU: language and law in the EU's judicial labyrinth

The decline, even the ‘end’, of comparative law in the 21st century has recently been predicted. However, this statement overlooks the vital and continuing role of comparative law in the complex task of legal translation in an expanding EU.To ensure the protection of language rights and transparency, the Court of Justice of the European Union requires translations of national and EU law on a daily basis. The complex task of the translation of law in the Court is carried out by highly qualified Lawyer-Linguists, experts in law and language, who enter the service through rigorous selection processes.The methodology employed by these specialists, however, remains to a large extent a ‘black box’ and traditional tenets of legal translation theory appear to be of limited application. This article aims to shed light on this black box with a focus on the rarely discussed use of comparative law in the translation process in the Court, in particular in preliminary ruling procedures

Tradition and change in administrative law: An anglo-german comparison

Administrative legal systems are based on national constitutional legal traditions and cultural values. English judges have for centuries applied the common law. In Germany, judges have developed administrative legal principles for the protection of the individual against state action. However, over the last few decades’ Administrative legal systems have become less isolated. This is the result of fundamental developments in the European legal landscape and of the increasing complexity of Administrative legal problems. In the UK, the constitutional basis for judicial review, principles of judicial control and governmental liability as well as the organisation of the courts are changing. Both, the English and the German Administrative legal systems are increasingly faced with the question of how to balance the dynamics of change with the preserving forces of tradition. Here, the open attitude of judges and lawmakers in considering solutions offered elsewhere is a remarkable development in a field of law which has long been perceived as too nationally specific. There is a growing need for comparative material and analysis in Administrative law - this book provides a valuable contribution to this field of law

On divergence in European human rights laws : the European Convention on Human Rights and European community law: a claim of non-divergence

The issue of divergence in human rights protection (adjudication) between the law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Community/Union (EC/EU) law has been in the centre of academic attention for decades. The position that there are instances of divergence and there is a risk of divergence between the two legal orders has gained authority in academic discourse despite the fact that its premises were subject to challenges on numerous occasions. The claim that human rights protection in EC law is divergent from that under the ECHR appears to suffer from certain shortcomings. First, it is not clear how the divergence claim addresses the question of incommensurability that unavoidably emerges in a comparison of judgments originating from different jurisdictions. Second, the divergence claim has largely eluded to address the quality of flexibility possessed by ECHR and EC human rights law. Both legal orders operate mechanisms of flexibility that enable a treatment of differing human rights solutions other than rejection. In reaction to these problems the present thesis advances the arguments of flexibility and similarity. The flexibility argument holds that the issue of divergence is largely neutralised by the ability of ECHR law (and to a lesser extent of EC law) to react to the problem of divergence flexibly. This entails that the human rights solutions of Community courts could often be accommodated within the flexible framework of ECHR law. The similarity argument provides that the style of human rights protection in ECHR and EC law is similar. The comparison of styles is based on a general system of analysis that aims to avoid the problem of incommensurability. The two arguments are not independent - the success of each argument depends on the availability of the other. The limits of flexibility are found in the requirement of similarity and the impreciseness of the similarity argument is corrected by the potentials inherent in the flexibility argument. On this basis, the relationship between ECHR and EC law could be described as a flexible status of non-divergence.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo