Language Barriers in the Global Constitutional Dialogue

Masahiko Kinoshita

Masahiko Kinoshita is Professor of Constitutional Law at the Graduate School of Law, Kobe University, Japan.

Over the last two decades, constitutional scholars around the world have witnessed an unprecedented academic dynamism – the “renaissance” of comparative constitutional law. Traditionally, studies of foreign constitutions were undertaken by individual researchers examining the practices of one or two jurisdictions to gain insight into their own domestic systems. However, since 2000, there has been a notable emergence of collaborative efforts, in which researchers from multiple jurisdictions now analyze the constitutional practices of numerous countries to address shared global issues, such as the limits of constitutional amendments and judicial backlash. This surge signifies the rise of comparative constitutional studies as a global academic project.

The Linguistically Driven Core-Periphery Structure

Nevertheless, as a global project, comparative constitutional studies remain in their infancy and face significant challenges. One such hurdle is the linguistically driven core-periphery structure within the academic community: a framework that fosters systemic inequities and distortions in representation, effectively silencing exceptional researchers whose primary language remains outside the dominant center.

Although countless languages are spoken worldwide, this field’s globally influential books and journals are predominantly published in English. Similarly, international conferences and panel discussions are conducted primarily in English, making it the lingua franca of global constitutional dialogue. The benefits of this shared medium are undeniable; without it, international scholarly exchange would be severely limited.

However, English is not a neutral medium. Unlike a constructed language like Esperanto, English creates a clear divide between native and non-native speakers. While the former enjoys effortless fluency, the latter must invest immense time and resources to master the language. Furthermore, the burden of acquisition is not distributed equally among non-native speakers; the difficulty of mastering English varies considerably based on one’s native linguistic background.

This dominance of English may be distorting academic activities and skewing the research landscape. For example, data from Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports 2023 hints at serious linguistic and regional biases within the International Journal of Constitutional Law (I·CON)—the highest-ranked international peer-reviewed journal in this field. Between 2021 and 2023, I·CON featured 417 contributors from 46 countries and regions. However, 115 of these contributions – representing 27.5% of the total – came from just two nations: the United States (68) and the United Kingdom (47). When these figures are combined with other predominantly English-speaking jurisdictions with strong historical ties to the United Kingdom – namely Australia (29), Canada (13), New Zealand (6), and Ireland (6) – this group’s share rises to 40%.

This pattern suggests that scholars who are native English speakers, or those with near-native proficiency, disproportionately occupy the pages of I·CON. While contributions from German, Italian, and Spanish-speaking jurisdictions are substantial, these languages belong to Western European linguistic groups that are closely related to English. Ultimately, just seven jurisdictions dominated by Western European languages – the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany (38), Australia, Italy (21), Chile (20), and Spain (18) – account for over 60% of the journal’s total output.

In contrast, East Asian jurisdictions have made only a modest contribution. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan possess linguistic systems fundamentally distinct from English. Among these, Taiwan fared relatively well with seven contributors, whereas Japan had only two, and South Korea had none. Despite exceeding the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand in both economic scale and population, the combined contribution from Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan was less than one-tenth that of the aforementioned English-speaking group.

In this way, comparative constitutional studies as a global project has a concentric hierarchical structure, with a central leading core of native English speakers, intermediate groups speaking other major Western European languages, and peripheral minority groups from regions where non-Western European languages are spoken.

Consequences of Structural Bias in Global Academia

This biased structure within the global academic community has led to several critical problems. The first is the underrepresentation of peripheral jurisdictions. Due to the dominance of English, English-speaking jurisdictions enjoy structural leverage: they possess a far greater number of researchers capable of directly analyzing and publishing on these legal systems. In contrast, jurisdictions with languages that are linguistically distant from English have fewer native-speaking researchers represented within the global academic community. Consequently, scholarly references to these jurisdictions are frequently either indirect – relying on secondary English-language translations – or omitted entirely.

Second, perspectives on constitutionalism developed in underrepresented jurisdictions may fail to be sufficiently incorporated into global discourse. The concepts of constitutionalism and democracy are not the exclusive province of jurisdictions where English or other dominant Western European languages are spoken. The value of comparative legal research lies in relativizing one’s own legal system: critically examining the biases and assumptions that emerge from a single-country perspective by incorporating diverse global viewpoints. However, such endeavors are fundamentally hindered by a linguistically biased global academic community.

Finally, there is the endurance of academic language barriers. It is often difficult for native English-speaking leaders within academic societies to fully grasp the linguistic hurdles faced by those whose native languages diverge from English. Consequently, the linguistically shaped center-periphery divide is likely to persist unless there is a conscious and thorough examination of these underlying power dynamics.

Strategies to Mitigate Language Barriers

For comparative constitutional studies to advance, it is essential to dismantle the linguistically driven core-periphery structure. Historically, language barriers have been treated as personal obstacles to be overcome through individual diligence. However, as demonstrated by the empirical research of Amano et al. regarding language barriers in the natural sciences, the disadvantage faced by non-native English speakers is “far beyond the level that can be overcome with individuals’ efforts” alone. We need community-wide structural solutions. I propose strategies to mitigate these barriers within academic journals and international conferences.

(1) Academic Journals

Building on the precedent set by I•CON’s publication of a Spanish-language issue, similar initiatives to release editions in languages other than English would represent an important step toward mitigating the core-periphery divide.

However, creating issues in peripheral languages, such as Japanese, may not be the most advantageous path for advancing global discourse. Unlike English or Spanish, Japanese is not a pluricentric language; its readers are primarily concentrated within a single jurisdiction. A more effective solution might be the periodic publication of special issues written in English but featuring researchers from historically underrepresented linguistic backgrounds, such as East Asian or Arabic-speaking scholars. While not without flaws, this approach represents a viable compromise: it fosters participation from diverse researchers while maintaining English as a common vehicle for global scholarly exchange.

Furthermore, recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) are undoubtedly revolutionizing academic writing for non-native speakers. Tasks that formerly required considerable time, specialized linguistic expertise, and high proofreading costs can now be carried out almost instantaneously. While the deployment of LLMs in academic writing necessitates caution regarding plagiarism and hallucination, their utility in translation and linguistic refinement should be championed as a vital means of dismantling language barriers. Therefore, editorial guidelines on LLMs integration should not be dictated solely by the perspectives of native English speakers. Instead, priority must be given to the voices of non-native researchers.

(2) International Conferences

Even in the era of LLMs, for non-native English speakers, meaningful participation in international conferences remains a formidable hurdle. While it is possible to publish in English without attending such events, conference participation offers unique advantages: immediate peer feedback, the establishment of collaborative networks, and renewed professional motivation. Native English speakers often take these benefits for granted; speakers of peripheral languages encounter language barriers not only in joining scholarly discourse but also in accessing conferences, effectively isolating them from the essential benefits of academic exchange. Indeed, I know numerous distinguished Japanese researchers who have no choice but to give up on attending international conferences due to their English speaking and listening proficiency. This disparity stifles the diversification of comparative constitutional scholarships.

To address these inequities, international conferences should implement practical countermeasures. Organizers and panel chairs should consider allocating extended presentation slots to non-native English speakers. Since information density and delivery speed are contingent upon linguistic fluency, these scholars often require additional time to convey the same depth and complexity as their native-speaking counterparts. Furthermore, during Q&A sessions, allowing a brief interval for presenters to formulate their responses can significantly alleviate the cognitive pressure of immediate oral translation.

To support non-native English-speaking audiences, presenters should be encouraged to use comprehensive visual aids, such as detailed slides or written outlines, as comprehending complex legal arguments through listening alone is exceptionally challenging. Moreover, since rapid-fire exchanges led by native speakers can be intimidating, implementing a dedicated question period for participants from diverse linguistic backgrounds would foster a more inclusive and equitable academic dialogue.

Conclusion

The linguistic and regional diversity of global constitutional dialogue is essential for the future development of this field. First and foremost, the global academic community should recognize that countless researchers across different jurisdictions aspire to engage in dialogue but are structurally hindered by linguistic obstacles. This article has proposed several strategies to address existing challenges; however, this is merely the beginning of the conversation. Effective measures must be subject to ongoing deliberation and refinement.

Masahiko Kinoshita is Professor of Constitutional Law at the Graduate School of Law, Kobe University, Japan.

Suggested citation: Masahiko Kinoshita, ‘Language Barriers in the Global Constitutional Dialogue’ IACL-AIDC Blog (10 March 2026) Language Barriers in the Global Constitutional Dialogue — IACL-IADC Blog

※This post is a revised summary of Masahiko Kinoshita, Causes, Consequences and Mitigation of Language Barriers in the Global Constitutional Dialogue: Insights from Japan in Language of Comparative Constitutional Law (Erika Arban, Maartje De Visser, and Jeong-In Yun eds Hart Publishing 2025).