Charles Jencks und das Prinzip der Doppel-, Mehr- und Überkodierung. Kommunikation und Interpretation der postmodernen Architektur

Der 1977 von dem amerikanischen Architekturhistoriker und -kritiker Charles Jencks vorgestellte Definitionsansatz zur postmodernen Architektur hat sich bis heute international etabliert. Kerngedanke ist, dass die Verwendung mehrerer Architektursprachen – sog. »Bedeutungskodes« – in einem postmodernen Gebäude dieses für den Benutzer oder Rezipienten kommunikationsfähig macht. Dieses Gestaltungsprinzip ist von Jencks als »Doppel-, Mehr- oder Überkodierung« bezeichnet worden. In der Entwicklung der postmodernen Architektur hat dieses Kodierungsprinzip aber weniger zu einer neuen Form der Kommunikation, als vielmehr zu einer Wahllosigkeit in der jeweiligen Anwendung unterschiedlicher Architektursprachen geführt.

Multilingualism, Legal Drafting and Interpretation of Bilingual Law in Italy

The article begins with a short history of the current Italian language, as an example of a dialect evolving and becoming elevated to the status of a national language. Next, an overview of Italy as characterized by multilingualism and of the different minority languages is offered. A third part is devoted to the different legal languages of Italian law and particularly to the consequences of multilingualism in Italy, which refers to the obligation to draft some local laws in two or tree languages. Multilingual drafting concerns institutions – and therefore concepts – of Italian law which are applied within one single legal system, namely the Italian one, and are merely expressed in a legal language which is not only Italian, but German, French or Ladin. This part is discussed more in deep. The article underlines that legal multilingualism in Italy is a rather unexplored research field. As in Europe there is a clear need for studies inquiring the problem of intepretation and application of mulitlingual law, the praxis and the operative reality of the “regional” legal languages in Italy would probably deserve more attention.

The Benefits of Multilingualism for Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation in South Africa

Taking the South African experience as an example, this article considers the interpretive benefits to be reaped from having access to bi- and multilingual versions of a statutory text. The discussion takes place against the backdrop of a history of statutory bi- and multilingualism in the said jurisdiction as well as, at present, constitutional guarantees of language rights and the “parity of esteem” of eleven official languages. It is argued that, if invoked with due discretion and in a non-rigid way, statutory multilingualism can be a boon to statutory and constitutional interpretation. The South African courts – whose traditional approach to statutory inter-pretation has tended to be literalist, formalistic and formulaic – are, generally speaking, to be commended for their supple use of bilingualism as an aid to interpretation over the years. The advent of constitutional multilingualism and the (potential) availability of statutory texts (and the Constitution) in more than two languages, have moreover created conditions conducive to the further development and refinement of reliance on multilingualism in statutory and constitutional interpretation – certain challenges notwithstanding.

Plurilingual Interpretation in WTO Panel and Appellate Body Reports

This article analyzes the extent to which the Appellate Body and WTO panels compare the authentic texts in their examination of the WTO Agreements and the extent to which the parties themselves do so in their arguments. The texts of the WTO Agreements are authentic in English, French and Spanish. Article 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties governs the interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages. WTO practice diverges significantly from the rules set out in Article 33 and the travaux préparatoires of the International Law Commission. The terms of a plurilingual treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text, which means that a treaty interpreter need not compare the authentic texts as a routine matter as a matter of law. Nevertheless, routine comparison of authentic texts would be good practice in the WTO context, since there are several discrepancies that could affect the interpretation of WTO provisions.