Cross-jurisdiction appropriation of the equal authenticity principle

Abstract

This paper investigates how the equal authenticity principle, commonly adopted by balanced bilingual or multilingual jurisdictions, changes in meaning, value and function as it travels across jurisdictions with different sociopolitical realities. I illustrate how the framing of the concept has subtly shifted in the process of statutory drafting and interpretation when it was appropriated by the Hong Kong judiciary, in contrast with the way the idea was first conceived and applied in Canada and later in international treaties, especially in situations where discrepancies between two language texts are alleged. I argue that the surface similarity between the equal authenticity principle applied in international treaties, Canada and Hong Kong can be misleading, and that subtle shifts in the meaning of equal authenticity can critically affect the outcome of a case. The paper highlights legal bilingualism/multilingualism as an important but often overlooked facet of legal pluralism and draws attention to how the use of linguistic approaches may add to the existing literature in legal pluralism.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.