Is There a Right to Untranslatability? Asylum, Evidence and the Listening State*
Is There a Right to Untranslatability? Asylum, Evidence and the Listening State*
复制标题
是否有不可译权？
DOI：
10.1163/22112596-02201005
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Craig S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Craig S
本文重点介绍难民身份确定（rsd）程序，以了解语言，翻译/口译，证据评估和我们所说的“倾听状态”之间的关系。法律的制度只是在最近才开始考虑是否应该同时以多种语文进行裁决程序，或者理想的程序是否是先以单一语文提供证据，然后再对其进行相应的评估。由于这种矛盾心理，庇护申请人往往被留在单语和多语之间的“不确定区域”。他们的经历和证词成为一种“认识焦虑”的主题，这种焦虑在其他审判领域中很少见。因此，我们要问的是，考虑到国家有责任与庇护申请人积极合作，庇护申请人是否应该享有“不可翻译权”，还是应该由申请人承担责任，通过口译和笔译，在各自管辖区的语言中取得可信度。
This article focuses on Refugee Status Determination (rsd) procedures, in order to understand the relationships among language, translation / interpreting, evidentiary assessment, and what we call the ‘listening state’. Legal systems have only recently begun to consider whether adjudicative processes ought to take place in multiple languages concurrently, or whether the ideal procedure is to monolingualize evidence first, and then assess it accordingly. Because of this ambivalence, asylum applicants are often left in the ‘zone of uncertainty’ between monolingualism and multilingualism. Their experiences and testimonies become subject to an ‘epistemic anxiety’ only infrequently seen in other areas of adjudication. We therefore ask whether asylum applicants ought to enjoy a ‘right to untranslatability’, taking account of the State's responsibility to cooperate actively with them or whether the burden ought to remain with the applicant to achieve credibility in the language of the respective jurisdiction, through interpretation and translation.