Linguistic precision and legal clarity : a study of multilingual legal systems and their interpretative challenges

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between the principle of equal authenticity and the requirement of legal certainty within multilingual legal systems. The central issue is whether legal certainty can be maintained where multiple language versions of a legal text are treated as equally authoritative, and how such systems respond to the divergence which arises between them. The analysis begins by situating multilingualism within its broader legal and linguistic context, highlighting the structural difficulties involved in expressing legal norms across different languages. It then considers the principle of equal authenticity and the extent to which it creates an inherent risk of divergence between authentic texts. Particular attention is given to how such divergence arises in practice, especially through differences in wording, terminology, and conceptual framing. A comparative approach is adopted, focusing on the Canadian bilingual model and the multilingual legal order of the European Union. The interpretative approaches developed in each system are examined, with emphasis on the shared meaning rule in Canada and the teleological method employed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. While both systems rely on judicial interpretation to reconcile divergence, they do so in fundamentally different ways. The findings show that legal certainty is not undermined by multilingualism itself, but is structurally limited by it. Legal meaning cannot be derived from a single linguistic formulation, and certainty must in turn be achieved through interpretative mechanisms rather than textual precision alone. The Canadian model provides a more predictable and textually constrained framework, whereas the European Union prioritises uniformity at the cost of reduced predictability.