Volume 8, Issue 1

“Political correctness” and “cancel culture” are two concepts frequently invoked to control speech and influence debates with a view to establishing greater equality across the globe. Even though their usage has also been met with criticism, there is a strong merit in these attempts, as language change is indicative of wider cognitive changes that are eventually also transformed into changes in the law and society. Based on the wider trend of a rise in so-called “essentially oxymoronic concepts” in public discourses in general and equality debates in particular, this article proposes to analyse the present linguistic trends in order to better understand the deeper causes and related challenges to legal reasoning posed by “political correctness”, “cancel culture” and other terms that have been qualified as oxymora or paradoxes. Based on the view that oxymora and paradoxes are not mere aspects of language but also expressions of deeper layers of human cognition, the article ponders the need not merely to control the external aspects of language use but also to inquire more deeply into the inner workings of the brain and its underlying cognitive processes. In this endeavour it critically examines the dominant modes of dualistic or dichotomized thinking and binary logic, which – when regarded in isolation – appear to cause most discriminatory acts and violations of the principle of equality.

The ascendancy and ubiquity of generative AI technology, exemplified by ChatGPT, has resulted in a transformative shift in the conventional human–AI interaction paradigm, leading to substantial alterations in societal modes of production. Drawing on CDA approach, this study conducts a thematic intertextuality analysis of 29 AI ethical documents, and delves into the restructuring of the human–AI relations catalysed by ChatGPT, as well as the complex ethical and legal challenges it presents. The findings indicate that the thematic intertextuality between AI ethical discourse and legal discourse promotes the connection and convergence of narrative-ideological structures, which in turn primarily creates new meaningful texts and ethical frameworks that promote a holistic approach to a good AI society. This research also identifies the importance of integrating law-making efforts with substantive ethical analysis and appropriate discursive strategies to promote the responsible and ethical development of generative AI that benefits society as a whole.

The present study examines the implications of judicial translation in the context of international migration and its relationship with the law of the host country. In this context, judicial translation involves highly sensitive documents that can be as varied as family registers and statutory declarations. It also refers to specific legal instances of interaction with judicial authorities in which the observance of certain communication norms is of paramount importance. This is particularly true in the strict setting of a judicial interview. This paper describes how translation is performed in a pre-trial police interview in which the communication of certain basic legal obligations becomes challenging for a migrant person, due to differences in legal backgrounds. In such a situation, the main question is as follows: how can differences in basic legal notions be dealt with in the particularly strict setting of a judicial interview with the assistance of a translator? To answer this question, the study focuses on a threefold challenge for the translator, who must be equipped to handle language, translation and legal/ethical norms. It proposes a translation framework based on these norms and the way in which they are applied in a real interview. It seeks to guide the translation task and serve as a tool for judicial translation training. With regard to the translation norm, the study shows that discursive creation is to be the most relevant technique to represent concepts that do not have counterparts in the target language. Although the foreign element in the new terminology may Ahighlight the boundary between the foreign law and the target legal institution, this technique also leads to the creation of new concepts in the target institution.

Antonin Scalia’s theory of judicial interpretation remains highly relevant in the legal landscape. This paper proposes three problems with Scalia’s textualism-originalism that have yet to be adequately addressed in the legal philosophical literature. The problems are consecutively introduced as the Madisonian Problem , the Promulgation Problem , and the Fairness Problem . To explain these problems, I rely upon an understanding of coherent justification conceptualized by Keith Lehrer, and I utilize Feinbergian and Hobbesian modes of analysis. Key components of Scalia’s textualism-originalism will be developed using Scalia’s public discourse as well as Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v Olsen . Following the three problems, to be proposed in the style of the Lehrerian Critic, I will counter objections to my arguments as well as argue against an alternative form of criticizing Scalia.

Unilateral economic sanctions are increasingly utilized as a tool for strategic competition among states. The lack of stringent regulations in international law has encouraged states to counter such sanctions by enacting domestic legislatures such as blocking and anti-sanction laws. The complex network of sanctions, blocking statutes, and anti-sanctions has rendered cross-border trade and investment activities more challenging. Sustainable development has a competitive dimension, which requires states and entities to be commercially competitive and to pursue sustainable development goals. Unfortunately, the abuse of sanctions and anti-sanctions, as prognosticated by the Hawk-Dove game theory, has promoted lawfare instead of healthy competition among states. Research has shown that the abuse of these sanctions and anti-sanctions has worsened competitive patterns among nations, leading to a decrease in their resilience ability and severely damaging sustainable development goals. In recent years, China has faced increased pressure from economic sanctions due to trade frictions with other regions, particularly the United States. This paper aims to examine China’s approach in responding to unilateral economic sanctions, supplemented by an analysis of China’s recently enacted anti-sanction and blocking laws. This paper will also further the understanding of how states should respond to and apply unilateral economic sanctions through international law based on China’s experience.

This paper analyzes the ambiguities in a Republic Act (RA) promulgated in the Philippines as its way of contributing to the gradually growing number of forensic and legal linguistics research in the country. In particular, it aims to disambiguate the different categories of ambiguities, e.g., lexical, semantic, syntactic, referential, cross-textual and pragmatic, in Republic Act 10913 or the Anti-Distracted Driving Act enacted in 2016. Following a purely qualitative design and a predominantly theoretical approach in the analysis of the ambiguities in the said Republic Act, this paper hopes to offer a potential source of guidance to minimize difficult issues pertinent to the interpretation of the law. This paper also attempts to discuss the basic rationale behind the choice or presence of ambiguous language in a setting such as the drafting of RA 10913 and proposes that there be a ‘cross-fertilization’ between the readings of legal drafters and linguists.