11 Oct International Law Professors and Foreign Language Proficiency
Quick story. A friend of mine who teaches at a prestigious law school in Israel said to me recently that he experiences tremendous pressure to publish law review articles in English rather than Hebrew. He said for reputational reasons his academic peers in Israel strongly prefer English-language publications over Hebrew-language publications.
That makes sense to me for a “minority” language like Hebrew. It is hard to develop an international reputation if you are only writing in languages that have currency for a narrow segment of the market. But should the same logic apply to major languages? Is there pressure at law schools in South America or continental Europe or Asia for law professors to publish (or teach) in English? I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that increasingly there is. It seems fairly obvious that in the near future we will be moving in the direction of English as the dominant language for legal academic discourse. Developments such as Westlaw, Lexis, the Internet and SSRN all dramatically enhance this trend.
Which raises a related issue of the importance for native English-speaking law professors to be conversant in foreign languages. Having studied several languages, I am somewhat old school in thinking that knowledge of other languages is important and culturally enriching. I can certainly give numerous examples in which facility in a second language was a distinct advantage in international law practice. But is it critical for legal academics? Must every international law professor have facility in a language other than English? When I was in law school the answer was not in dispute. But I’m not sure what the answer is today. I would suspect that it largely depends if one’s emphasis is on comparative law rather than international law. But I would welcome the thoughts of others. How important is it for an international law professor to be fluent in a language other English?
I think it is wonderful. One reason is that multilateral instruments such as the Geneva Conventions or the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards read differently in different languages. I think insight into how the other languages say it helps one understand wjat os at stake in a paragraph or phrase. Also, knowing the meaning of a phrase used in another language for something in English is wonderful. For example, I saw that the Military Commissions just approved were described as “tribunal d’exception” in a Le Monde article. The notion of the “tribunal d’exception” in French history connotes the opposite of “regularly constituted”. That choice of translation opened a world of meaning to me. Also, we should encourage our students to learn other and more languages. To hear someone in their language helps us so much in understanding what they are saying. In internatioanl commercial arbitration the publications in the Revue de l’arbitrage, the Clunet, and the Revue Suisse de l’arbitrage are magnificent and only partially captured in the english. Read Frederic Eisemann, la clause d’arbitrage pathologique in French and one reads a magnificent document. So YES YES YES YES YES on languages. Best,… Read more »
I have to agree with Mr. Davis. Despite the fact that English is quickly becoming (or perhaps already has become) the lingua franca in most contexts, knowledge of other languages will always be beneficial for academics and researchers.
Even within the “majority” languages, to build on Prof. Alford’s post, there are simply some concepts and phrases that cannot be properly translated into English without something being lost in translation. With respect to international law professors, if we treat international treaties and other documents created under the auspices of the UN or the EU as primary sources of international law, then a fortiori they should have some knowledge of at least one of the languages that those documents are translated into. Seems to me to be common sense.
the equally big question is, how in the hell do you keep your language *up*? in my life i’ve been fluent in one foreign language, and near-fluent in another, and i’m *so* not close to that now. in a world with so much going on, i don’t understand how anyone legitimately keeps their language at a level of true fluency without either being married to someone who speaks that language or working frequently in it.
a major frustration.
We’ve had a running debate at TLB about whether a young lawyer should immediately start his or her career abroad or if it is better to get a few years of legal experience in their home jurisdiction first (see here). A related debate is the shift in legal education from the domestic microcosm of USA law to the macrocosm of transnational law, requiring students to take courses in transnational law AND learn a foreign language. Anyone that refuses to learn a foreign language is greatly limiting their options in a job market that is increasingly more globalized everyday. For more information, please see our post entitled, “The Future of Law is International.”
I’d like to second Mr. Davis’s enthusiasm for learning foreign languages, and also add that, not only is a second/third language useful in helping to understand linguistic nuances, but it’s also a good way to forge stronger relationships with foreign clients/associates. Here’s a question for those of you willing to offer advice to someone about to begin her legal career: I have a minimal level of competence in Mandarin, so I’m entertaining the possibility of partaking in a language immersion program after graduation. I’ve already spent one summer in China, working for a Chinese firm (an interesting, and highly educational, experience, I must say). I’ve read the posts on TLB regarding whether new attorneys should begin in China or the US, and can say right now that those issues don’t apply to me: I plan to begin my career in the US. The question: is it even prudent to spend a few months doing intensive language training, if my career will be based in the US? How provident is it to possess a skill that may/may not ever be used, but which might serve as a selling point to US firms (and, perhaps, to prospective clients)? Much thanks for any… Read more »
LM–
First, thanks for reading my posts on TLB. Second, based on my personal experiences living and working in China it seems there are two types of attorneys in China: (1) The foreign attorneys who are fluent in Mandarin (speaking, reading, and writing) and (2) the foreign attorneys who were sent to China because they possess a particular skillset but know very little of the language. If you’re not planning to practice in China, then your basic knowledge of Mandarin should be sufficient to handle incoming transactions and an immersion program would be a waste of your time.
I know several people that were either raised speaking Mandarin or have devoted a number of years to the study of the langauge, and they all plan to begin their careers with firms here in the USA. Their knowledge of Mandarin makes them marketable because the big law firm will probably send them to China as part of a two year rotation. If you don’t want to live in China, then an advanced understanding of the language is not going to benefit you. I’d suggest generating inertia in a different direction.
–Travis Hodgkins