The First Presentation of the Unified Foreign Jurisdiction Notation Plan

As international disputes become increasingly diverse and complex, sitting judges have presented guidelines for the first time to standardize the Korean transliteration of foreign courts and international organizations. In reality, where the names of foreign courts vary across academic papers, legal documents, and news articles, the need for standardization is emphasized, and there is a strong positive response to the introduction of such criteria. The guidelines also include an introduction to the systems of overseas courts and international organizations, reinforcing that the guidelines are based on a thorough understanding of these institutions.

The International Dispute Resolution System Research Association (Chairman: Supreme Court Justice No Tae-ak) held a seminar titled “Building a New International Intellectual Property (IP) Dispute Resolution System” on the 7th at the Ruby Hall of EL Tower in Yangjae-dong, Seoul, where they distributed the Translation Guidelines for Foreign Courts and Judicial International Organizations. The 2024 edition of the guidelines was produced with the participation of 14 judges, including Chairman No Tae-ak as the chief writer, Kim Kwang-nam (44, Judicial Research and Training Institute Class 36), a presiding judge at the Seoul High Court and head of the writing team, along with 12 other writers and one editor.

[Image source=Beomryul Newspaper]

원본보기 아이콘

Germany’s highest court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) is often translated as the “German Federal Constitutional Court,” which is sometimes interpreted as having the same meaning as Korea’s Constitutional Court. However, since Korea’s Constitutional Court is not defined as exercising judicial power, its role differs from that of the German court. The research association suggests translating Germany’s highest court as the “German Federal Constitutional Court” and explains that this term should be used to reduce misunderstandings arising from translation and to emphasize that the Bundesverfassungsgericht belongs to the judiciary by using “court” (법원) instead of “tribunal” (재판소).

Additionally, in the case of the United States, the “U.S. Supreme Court” should be translated as “United States Federal Supreme Court,” but New York State’s “The Supreme Court” should be translated as “District Court.” Although both contain the term “Supreme Court,” the translations differ completely.

For Japan’s three-tier court system, the “最高裁判所” is proposed to be translated as “Saik? Saibansho” (Supreme Court). While some translate Japan’s highest court as “Japan Supreme Court,” the guideline suggests that a direct translation of the kanji reduces confusion. However, the “知的財産高等裁判所,” known as the Intellectual Property High Court in Japan, is proposed to be translated as “Jisik Jaesan Godeung Jaepanso” (Intellectual Property High Court), reflecting the commonly used Korean term “Jisik Jaesan-gwon” (Intellectual Property Rights) rather than “Jijeok Jaesan-gwon.”

Within the courts themselves, there is no unified standard for the transliteration of foreign courts, leading to inconsistent usage in documents. For example, China’s “地方各級人民法院” was translated as “Local People’s Courts at Various Levels” by the Court Administration Office in 2010 in the publication “Courts and Judicial Systems of the World.” However, the Judicial Research and Training Institute has used varying translations such as “Local People’s Courts at Various Levels,” “Local Various-Level People’s Courts,” and “People’s Courts at Various Levels” depending on the page. The research association proposes standardizing this as “Local Various-Level People’s Courts.”

Given the growing importance of proper understanding and translation of foreign court systems, the research association introduced translation guidelines along with system descriptions for the United States, China, the United Kingdom, the EU, international organizations, France, Germany, Japan, Singapore, the Unified Patent Court (UPC), international arbitration institutions, and international commercial courts.

Chairman No Tae-ak stated, “As the establishment of new courts or international dispute resolution bodies around the world accelerates to resolve international disputes, properly understanding and accurately translating foreign court systems is a task that must be addressed first. In domestic legal literature, foreign courts and international organizations are translated in various ways, and some translations use Japanese-style expressions without critical awareness, which can mislead readers about the actual roles of these courts.” He added, “We published these guidelines to help prevent confusion caused by incorrect translations to some extent.”

Park Su-yeon, Hong Yoon-ji, Legal Times Reporters

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.