Linguistic disparities often engender systemic misunderstandings and interpretivedeviations, a critical challenge acutely manifested in the hermeneutics of internationallegal texts. The inherent structural discrepancies between languages – particularly atthe levels of syntactic architecture, semantic conceptualization, and pragmatic reasoning – constitute fundamental sources of divergent interpretations across legal systems.
This interdisciplinary investigation employs an enhanced contrastive linguistics framework, integrating Green bergian language universals and Dryer's typological correlations, to systematically deconstruct the English-Chinese dichotomy in legaldiscourse. Focusing on three pivotal dimensions – syntactic morphology (e.g., English'sovert tense-aspect markers versus Chinese's zero-anaphoric constructions), legal terminological semantic fields (contrasting common law and civil law conceptualmatrices), and pragmatic logic (differences in illocutionary force realization) – the study elucidates how these deep-rooted linguistic asymmetries precipitate interpretative conflicts in key international instruments, including the UN Charter and theUNIDROIT Principles.
Through a tripartite analytical approach combining corpus linguistics, computational modeling, and jurisprudential discourse analysis, the research examines the landmark International Court of Justice cases (1947-2023) demonstrating Sino-Anglophone interpretive divergences. The methodological innovation lies in its development of a multidimensional corpus incorporating: 1) diachronic legal text pairsfrom pivotal conventions; 2) multimodal legislative records (negotiation minutes, judges' explanatory statements); and 3) CoNLL-U Plus annotated syntactic-semanticlayers, particularly highlighting deontic modality equivalences between "shall/must"and "应当/必须". Quantitative metrics reveal that Chinese legal texts exhibit 23% higher semantic density per lexical unit compared to their English counterparts, while English provisions demonstrate 40% greater syntactic embedding complexity.
The study pioneers two groundbreaking resolution frameworks: First, a Tree Logical Markup System (TLMS) for bilingual co-drafting, employing dependencysyntax visualization and logical operator mapping matrices to ensure topologicalequivalence across languages. Second, a Conflict Early-Warning Algorithm (CEWA) incorporating three predictive parameters – Dependency Distance Index (measuring predicate-argument linearization differences), Semantic Coverage Coefficient(quantifying terminological congruence), and Pragmatic Force Alignment Scores. Experimental validation using the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law demonstrates CEWA's 89.7% accuracy in predicting interpretation conflict hotspots.
Beyond theoretical contributions to contrastive linguistics through its "Legal Language Topological Equivalence" model, this research establishes a preventive legallinguistics paradigm with immediate practical applications. The proposed Triple-Phase Drafting Protocol (parallel generation, backward parsing verification, interpretiveprotocol annexation) has been adopted as a pilot scheme by UNCITRAL for multilateral treaty formulation. Furthermore, cognitive experiments employing eye-tracking technology reveal significant differences in legal experts' information processing patterns: English-native readers focus 35% longer on modal verbs, while Chinese interpreters prioritize contextual clauses – empirical evidence explaining crosslinguistic interpretation biases.
This research not only expands the scope of contrastive linguistics but alsoprovides empirical linguistic foundations and theoretical methodologies to resolve interpretation dilemmas in international law, offering dual significance in both theoretical and practical dimensions.
Ceves, W. J., et al. (2000). International decisions: The right to information on consular assistance in the framework of. American Journal of International Law.
Ratner, A., De Sa, C., Wu, S., Selsam, D., & Ré, C. (2016). Data programming: Creating large training sets, quickly. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (held in Barcelona, Spain).
Godbolt, A. K., Cancelliere, C., Hincapié, C. A., Marras, C., Boyle, E., Kristman, V. L., Coronado, V. G., & Cassidy, J. D. (2014). Systematic review of the risk of dementia and chronic cognitive impairment after mild traumatic brain injury: Results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 95.
Godbolt, A. K., et al. (2013). Systematic review of the risk of dementia and chronic cognitive impairment after mild traumatic brain injury: results of the International Collaboration on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Prognosis. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation.
Téllez-Nuñez, A. (2019). Countermeasures and self-help in international law: Hermeneutic and phenomenological contours. Revista de la Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Políticas, 49.
Anghie, A. (2004). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge University Press.
Armstrong, D., Farrell, T., & Lambert, H. (2012). International law and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Bieler, A., & Morton, A. D. (2001). The Gordian knot of agency—structure in international relations: A neo-Gramscian perspective. European Journal of International Relations, 7(1).
Bodansky, D., Dunoff, J. L., & Pollack, M. A. (2013). Legitimacy in international law and international relations. In Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: The state of the art.
Boege, V. (2016). Peace in the Pacific: Grounded in local custom, adapting to change. In The Palgrave Handbook of Disciplinary and Regional Approaches to Peace.
Buenos, T. (2017). The power of "genocide": International law as a dialectical progression of hard power through soft power toward legal power [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Utah].
Burley, A. M. S. (1993). International law and international relations theory: A dual agenda. American Journal of International Law, 87(2).
Byers, M. (2013). International law and the Arctic.Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1).
Venzke, I. (2011). International legal discourse: Towards a dialectical understanding of authority in international law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 24.
Makoba, J. W. (2010). International law and the African Union: The role of language and discourse in the quest for a new African order. Journal of African Law, 54.
International Court of Justice. (1952). Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (Jurisdiction). In I.C.J. Reports (p. 93).
Permanent Court of Arbitration. (n.d.). Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. United States). In Reports of International Arbitral Awards (UNRIAA) (Vol. 2, p. 845).
International Law Commission. (2018). Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventieth session (United Nations General Assembly, Doc. A/73/10, p. 67, para. 9). United Nations.
International Law Commission. (1949). Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its [Xth] session. United Nations.
International Law Commission. (2018). Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventieth session (United Nations General Assembly, Doc. A/73/10, pp. 67, para. 9). United Nations.
Orford, A. (2006). International law and its others: International law and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Orford, A. (2003). The politics of international law: The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press.
Anghie, A. (2004). Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (1999). The politics of international law. Cambridge University Press.
Tomuschat, C., & Thouvenin, J. M. (2010). International law and international relations. Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, D. (2018). A world of struggle. Princeton University Press.
Benvenisti, E. (2012). International law and the occupied territories: The contribution of the Supreme Court of Israel. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kissinger, H. (2014). World order: Reflections on the character of nations and the course of history. Allen Lane.
Hart, H. L. A., Bulloch, P. A., & Raz, J. (1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.
Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (4th ed.). Routledge.
Raz, J. (2009). Between authority and interpretation: On the theory of law and practical reason. Oxford University Press.
Koskenniemi, M. (2004). The gentle civilizer of nations: The rise and fall of international law 1870–1960. Cambridge University Press.