Culture in Transfer: Translation and Transcultural Communication International Conference

It is widely acknowledged that interpreters need to have knowledge of the cultures represented by the languages they work with (e.g. Roy 2002, Angelelli 2004, Wadensjŏ 2008). However, it is not clear what interpreters are expected to do with this knowledge. Some scholars recommend that interpreters be cultural mediators (e.g. Katan 2004 & 2014). As an attempt to examine existing guidelines on interpreters’ roles in the face of cultures/cultural issues, the research reported in this paper compares and contrasts the codes of conduct for interpreters from a number of associations and institutions in the UK, the US and China. The research has collected three different sets of data and has sought to investigate (1) in what ways interpreters are expected to do with their knowledge of cultures; (2) to what extent interpreters’ role as cultural mediators is referred to or defined in these codes of conduct; and (3) whether or not relevant guidelines are practically helpful for interpreters to deal with the range of cultural issues they may encounter in interpreting. Data analysis suggests that while cultural knowledge is a requisite for interpreters, the expectation for them to be cultural mediators may depend on the types of interpreting setting they work with and further guidelines are needed so that interpreters are clear on what they are required to do in dealing with cultural issues. The paper then discusses the implications of these findings and points to some directions for future research. Key references Brunette, L., G Bastin, I. Hemlin and H. Clarke (ed.). The Critical Link 3: Interpreters in the Community. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. Hale, S. 2007. Community Interpreting. Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. The International Association of Conference Interpreting, 2015. Interpreting Explained. Available from: http://aiic.net/; accessed on 24 June 2015 Katan, David, --- 2004. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators. St Jerome. --- 2014. Workshop: Translation at the cross-roads: time for the transcreational turn? University College London. Martín, Mayte C. & Mary Phelan, 2009. Interpreters and Cultural Mediators – different but complementary roles. In: Translocations: Migration and Social Change. ISSN Number: 2009-0420 (online) McDonough Dolmaya, Julie, (2011. Moral ambiguity: Some shortcomings of professional codes of ethics for translators. In: The Journal of Specialised Translation. Issue 15, January 2011 (online). Pöchhacker, F., 2008. Interpreting as Mediation. In: (ed.) Valero Garcés, C. and Martin, A, Crossing Borders in Community Interpreting: definitions and dilemmas, pp. 9-26. John Benjamins Amsterdam and Philadelphia. Roy, Cynthia B., 2002. The Problem with Definitions, Descriptions, and the Role Metaphors of Interpreters. In: (ed.) Pöchhacker, Franz & Miriam Shlesinger, The Interpreting Studies Reader. Routledge. Wadensjö 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman Inc.

Capital 2.0 capital formation and legal risk in a new global economic order from fiat to exit: including case studies of the proposed transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the United States and the European Union and the financing relation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China

Following the intrinsically linked balance sheets in his Capital Formation Life Cycle, Lukas M. Stahl explains with his Triple A Model of Accounting, Allocation and Accountability the stages of the Capital Formation process from FIAT to EXIT. Based on the theoretical foundations of legal risk laid by the International Bar Association with the help of Roger McCormick and legal scholars such as Joanna Benjamin, Matthew Whalley and Tobias Mahler, and founded on the basis of Wesley Hohfeld’s category theory of jural relations, Stahl develops his mutually exclusive Four Determinants of Legal Risk of Law, Lack of Right, Liability and Limitation. Those Four Determinants of Legal Risk allow us to apply, assess, and precisely describe the respective legal risk at all stages of the Capital Formation Life Cycle as demonstrated in case studies of nine industry verticals of the proposed and currently negotiated Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States of America and the European Union, TTIP, as well as in the case of the often cited financing relation between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Having established the Four Determinants of Legal Risk and its application to the Capital Formation Life Cycle, Stahl then explores the theoretical foundations of capital formation, their historical basis in classical and neo-classical economics and its forefathers such as The Austrians around Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek and most notably and controversial, Karl Marx, and their impact on today’s exponential expansion of capital formation. Starting off with the first pillar of his Triple A Model, Accounting, Stahl then moves on to explain the Three Factors of Capital Formation, Man, Machines and Money and shows how “value-added” is created with respect to the non-monetary capital factors of human resources and industrial production. Followed by a detailed analysis discussing the roles of the Three Actors of Monetary Capital Formation, Central Banks, Commercial Banks and Citizens Stahl readily dismisses a number of myths regarding the creation of money providing in-depth insight into the workings of monetary policy makers, their institutions and ultimate beneficiaries, the corporate and consumer citizens. In his second pillar, Allocation, Stahl continues his analysis of the balance sheets of the Capital Formation Life Cycle by discussing the role of The Five Key Accounts of Monetary Capital Formation, the Sovereign, Financial, Corporate, Private and International account of Monetary Capital Formation and the associated legal risks in the allocation of capital pursuant to his Four Determinants of Legal Risk. In his third pillar, Accountability, Stahl discusses the ever recurring Crisis-Reaction-Acceleration-Sequence-History, in short: CRASH, since the beginning of the millennium starting with the dot-com crash at the turn of the millennium, followed seven years later by the financial crisis of 2008 and the dislocations in the global economy we are facing another seven years later today in 2015 with several sordid debt restructurings under way and hundred thousands of refugees on the way caused by war and increasing inequality. Together with the regulatory reactions they have caused in the form of so-called landmark legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the JOBS Act of 2012 or the introduction of the Basel Accords, Basel II in 2004 and III in 2010, the European Financial Stability Facility of 2010, the European Stability Mechanism of 2012 and the European Banking Union of 2013, Stahl analyses the acceleration in size and scope of crises that appears to find often seemingly helpless bureaucratic responses, the inherent legal risks and the complete lack of accountability on part of those responsible. Stahl argues that the order of the day requires to address the root cause of the problems in the form of two fundamental design defects of our Global Economic Order, namely our monetary and judicial order. Inspired by a 1933 plan of nine University of Chicago economists abolishing the fractional reserve system, he proposes the introduction of Sovereign Money as a prerequisite to void misallocations by way of judicial order in the course of domestic and transnational insolvency proceedings including the restructuring of sovereign debt throughout the entire monetary system back to its origin without causing domino effects of banking collapses and failed financial institutions. In recognizing Austrian-American economist Schumpeter’s Concept of Creative Destruction, as a process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one, Stahl responds to Schumpeter’s economic chemotherapy with his Concept of Equitable Default mimicking an immunotherapy that strengthens the corpus economicus own immune system by providing for the judicial authority to terminate precisely those misallocations that have proven malignant causing default perusing the century old common law concept of equity that allows for the equitable reformation, rescission or restitution of contract by way of judicial order. Following a review of the proposed mechanisms of transnational dispute resolution and current court systems with transnational jurisdiction, Stahl advocates as a first step in order to complete the Capital Formation Life Cycle from FIAT, the creation of money by way of credit, to EXIT, the termination of money by way of judicial order, the institution of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Court constituted by a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of International Trade and the European Court of Justice by following the model of the EFTA Court of the European Free Trade Association. Since the first time his proposal has been made public in June of 2014 after being discussed in academic circles since 2011, his or similar proposals have found numerous public supporters. Most notably, the former Vice President of the European Parliament, David Martin, has tabled an amendment in June 2015 in the course of the negotiations on TTIP calling for an independent judicial body and the Member of the European Commission, Cecilia Malmström, has presented her proposal of an International Investment Court on September 16, 2015. Stahl concludes, that for the first time in the history of our generation it appears that there is a real opportunity for reform of our Global Economic Order by curing the two fundamental design defects of our monetary order and judicial order with the abolition of the fractional reserve system and the introduction of Sovereign Money and the institution of a democratically elected Transatlantic Trade and Investment Court that commensurate with its jurisdiction extending to cases concerning the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may complete the Capital Formation Life Cycle resolving cases of default with the transnational judicial authority for terminal resolution of misallocations in a New Global Economic Order without the ensuing dangers of systemic collapse from FIAT to EXIT.