Maria Meladaki
In most cases, international law conventions are drafted in one (or more) official languages, and then are translated to the official language of the state that has ratified the convention. The translated texts of international law conventions reflect the legal consequences that the states shall respect by ratifying an international legal instrument.
The present paper compares the translations, from English into Greek, of the Council of Europe convention entitled “Convention of the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine” (Oviedo Convention). One translation served for the integration of the convention into Greece’s legal order and the other served for the integration of the convention into Cyprus’s legal order.
The paper analyses the translation choices made in each of the above-mentioned translations, taking into consideration the already formed structural and terminological differences in the legal discourse of the two states. In addition, the paper indicates how terminological choices during the translation process of such documents could have a strong impact on future internal legislation on the same matter. Moreover, the paper analyses translation choices that could lead to a different meaning and therefore, to different legal consequences than the ones intended when drafting the original text. The legal translator of international law should be properly trained, in a multidisciplinary level, and given access to all crucial resources to form into the translated text the true meaning of each convention, so that all beneficiaries from it, in a global level, can have access to the international protection it entails.
Keywords: legal translation, international law, legal order, bioethics, accessibility.