Guest Editors’ Introduction to Symposium on ‘The Language of Comparative Constitutional Law – Questioning Hegemonies’

Erika Arban, Jeong-In Yun & Maartje De Visser

Erika Arban is Senior Research Associate (Hon.), Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School.
Jeong-In Yun is a Research Professor, Legal Research Institute of Korea University and  Distinguished Senior Research Fellow, Constitutional Studies Program, University of Texas at Austin.
Maartje De Visser is a Professor of Law at the Yong Pung How School of Law and College of Integrative Studies, Singapore Management University.

Law and language are inextricably intertwined. The State and its officials rely on language to create, communicate, establish the meaning of, and enforce rules, policies, and principles – including those incorporated in the Constitution. As students of those rules, policies, and principles, scholars cannot avoid dealing with language either: they must critically analyse and reflect on the ‘correct’ interpretation of the words and phrases used by constitutional framers, politicians, judges, and others, while their academic ideas in this regard are in turn also communicated and made concrete through particular linguistic expressions. Language, then, matters for constitutional law and, by implication, for comparative constitutional discourse. Indeed, because comparisons by their very nature involve the examination of more than one legal system – and thus cut across borders, cultures, and legal traditions – our field can be said to be punctuated by considerations of language. This is because it is axiomatic that different linguistic understandings may be ascribed to concepts, institutions and values across systems, even those that have the same working language.

However, as a matter of scholarly practice, language is often overlooked as a relevant consideration in ‘doing’ comparative constitutional law. At its core, our recently published volume entitled The Language of Comparative Constitutional Law – Questioning Hegemonies aims to remedy this situation. It makes the role of language in conducting comparisons explicit. This is important to ensure that those engaged in this enterprise – from academics to drafters of constitutions and related legislation to courts and other practitioners – can be more deliberate in their consideration of particular foreign materials for guidance or inspiration. More particularly, these users need to recognise that the selection of those foreign materials may depend heavily on linguistic abilities and the availability of good translations, as well as be more conscious of the limitations of their findings as a result of language barriers. We intend for our book to be a constructive resource in this regard, in that it hopes not only to raise awareness of how language shapes the approach taken to constitutional comparisons and may influence the outcomes thereof, but also identify promising tools and techniques to navigate linguistic challenges.

In addition, as the subtitle of the volume – Questioning Hegemonies – underscores, we also aim to critically reflect on the epistemological and conceptual implications of English as the lingua franca, and the related global influence of Anglophone jurisdictions in orienting the comparative constitutional discourse. While the use of English as a shared medium of communication facilitates scholarly engagement and the exchange of ideas across jurisdictions, the reality is that it may also give rise to imperialistic tendencies and exclusions that we need to be sensible of. The current conceptual toolbox overwhelmingly consists of notions, doctrines, and principles that are formulated in English and often find their origins in the experiences of certain (large) common law jurisdictions that are treated as emblematic and germane to the general development of the discourse. This in turn produces an expectation (which may be silent or even subconscious) that such conceptual frames are, or should be, the preferred lens through which to explore, evaluate, and guide constitutional law and practice elsewhere. By the same token, the legal traditions, doctrinal approaches, and terminology adopted by non-Anglophone jurisdictions, including those in the Global South or those belonging to the civil law family, do not tend to be infused in mainstream theory-building and concept-formation efforts. This both stymies our collective constitutional outlook and detracts from its supposedly global or universal character. Our ambition is for the book to highlight blind spots in the current discourse on account of the dominance of English and draw attention to the rich constitutional vocabulary that non-Anglophone jurisdictions have to offer, thus contributing to rectifying existing inequities in the creation of knowledge.

Alongside this introduction, this symposium features six contributions written by a selection of participating authors that showcase the role and impact of language, drawing on insights from a diverse range of examples that deliberately encompass countries that are not regularly in the academic limelight. In making the selection, we have sought to feature chapters drawn from each of the three parts of the book. These are, first, language barriers and epistemic imbalances, which addresses questions of participation and representation in the discourse and the exclusionary effect that language may produce in this regard. The second part concerns language biases and contextual dilemmas, which demonstrates how language in general, and English in particular, is neither neutral nor homogenous across jurisdictions, but may generate significant complexities, distortions and marginalisation that can only be fully appreciated if the local political, social, legal, and historical context is taken into account. The final part is devoted to legal translation, multilingualism, and the discursive way, and adopts a forward-looking approach to canvass possible solutions to address linguistic challenges in a productive manner.

Against that backdrop, the contributions that make up this symposium are:

● Masahiko Kinoshita, ‘Language barriers in the global constitutional dialogue’;

● Odile Ammann, ‘Les biais linguistiques (notamment anglophones) : un angle mort de la recherche en droit constitutionnel comparé’

● Elisa Bertoloni and Graziella Romeo, ‘Why translating Forma di Stato is almost impossible – and why it matters for comparative constitutional law’;

● Nomfundo Ramalekana, ‘The uses of Ubuntu under the South African constitution’

● Claudia Marchese, ‘En defensa del multilingüismo. Reflexiones sobre el multilingüismo, la lingüística jurídica y el derecho comparado’;

● Lucja Biel, Hanem Al Farahaty and Francesca Seracini, ‘How Can Linguistics Be of Use to Comparative Constitutional Law?’

We are deeply appreciative of the IACL editors’ willingness to host this symposium, which allows us to share our interest in the role of language, and implications of linguistic choices and uses, for the comparative constitutional discourse. We hope you find the contributions that will be published in the coming days and weeks both informative and thought-provoking. Thanks so much for reading.

Erika Arban is Senior Research Associate (Hon.), Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School.

Maartje De Visser is a Professor of Law at the Yong Pung How School of Law and College of Integrative Studies, Singapore Management University.

Jeong-In Yun is a Research Professor, Legal Research Institute of Korea University and Distinguished Senior Research Fellow, Constitutional Studies Program, University of Texas at Austin.

Information on how to purchase The Language of Comparative Constitutional Law: Questioning Hegemonies (Hart Publishing, 2025) can be found here, along with a discount code for purchase.

Suggested Citation: Erika Arban, Maartje De Visser and Jeong-In Yun, ‘Guest Editors’ Introduction to Symposium on ‘The Language of Comparative Constitutional Law – Questioning Hegemonies’ IACL-AIDC Blog (2 March 2026) Guest Editors’ Introduction to Symposium on ‘The Language of Comparative Constitutional Law – Questioning Hegemonies’ — IACL-IADC Blog