The Language of International Law; Monologue or Polyphonic Test

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Author

Department of Public Law, College of law, Assistant Professor, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran

Abstract

The encounter of a publicist with language is not similar to a linguist, literate, philosopher and logician. Limitations and ambiguities of the natural language in formulation of legal concepts and explanation of realities and values of international law cause the publicist to exceed the real boundaries of law knowledge. Therefore, in a context of logics, linguistics, and linguistic analytic philosophy, the publicist presents concepts, propositions, texts, rationalism models, and legal theories and attempts to recognize nature, type, and rational implications of them. This means that legal language must have phenomenal expressiveness capacity, exploration of meaning and decoding of legal texts for the exact description of realities and facts of collective life and should also represent and codify legal necessities and values. Legal language that is a special type of natural languages, just like any other natural language and even more than others, does not have degrees of certainty, precision level, and transparency that is found in symbolic and formal languages that logicians have used it in order to explain relations in context of mathematics, logics, and modern physics based on formal rationalism. However, international law faces a more difficult test that recognizes dialogism, multiplicity of readings, and diversity of meanings, it gets degraded through the suppressive language of arrogant speakers

Keywords

References

1 Werner Heisenberg, Joz & Kol, Translated by Masoumi Hamedani, Tehran, University Publication Center, 1990, p.88
2 Vakio Del, The Philosophy of Law; Translated by Javad Vaahedi, Tehran, Mizan Publications, 1982, P.17. (About Relation between Value and Reality and Basic Unity Theory of These Constructs in Context of Social Science; See: N.R. Poolanzas; Philosophy of Law; Translated by Nedjat Ali Almasi; Mizan Publication; First Edition; Tehran, 2007, pp. 11-22.)
3 Mojtahedi. Karim, Philosophy of Kant, Tehran, Samt Publications, 1990 p. 24.
4 Nabavi, The Basics of Logics, Tehran, Samt Puplications, 2001, p.1 and for a New View See: Cf Tidman P. & H. Kahane, Logics & Philosophy, Wadsworth Publishing, 1999, pp. 12–37; the; Barker S.F. 1989. Elements of Logics. York, MC Graw-Hill.
5 Haizenberg Werner- Joz&Kol, p. 136 and also See; John Watt Kinz, New Attitude about Critical Rationalism; Translated by Dr. Hassan Miandari; Enghelab University, 1996, N. 107; pp. 241-252.
6 Haizenberg, Op.Cit., p. 136
7 Sharif, Mohammad, Unlimitation of Security Council Discretion Doctrine, Teharan, Etelaaat Publications; 1996, p.137.
8 Sharif, Mohammad, Op.Cit., pp. 137-138; Quoted by Falsafi, Hedaiatollah;, Basics of International Law Textbook, 1996, p.64.
9 Domain Grant, Realism, translated by Hassan Afshar; 1980, Footnote; p.20.
10 Ibid, p. 22.
11 Ibid, p. 78.
12 Ibid, p. 23.
13 Ibid, p. 24.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics