Advertisement

(Re)translations of the European Convention on Human Rights in Turkish

  • Deniz Koçak Kurmel
Chapter
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)

Abstract

In the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, the act of translation has an important place. As the official languages of the Convention are English and French, it is mandatory to translate the Convention into the languages of the various state parties. The Convention in question was officially translated into Turkish in 1954 for the first time in the process of Turkey becoming a party to the Convention (Official Gazette, 19 March, 1954, no. 8662). In the following years, many non-official retranslations of the Convention have been carried out. The objective of this study is to examine the role the Turkish translation and retranslations of the Convention play in the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This study explores the role of the official translation and retranslations of the Convention into Turkish (retranslations by Mehmet Semih Gemalmaz and Osman Doğru) with reference to the translation of the specific terms “detention” and “arrest”, which are the key terms of Article 5 of the Convention “Right to liberty and security”. This study analyzes the transfer of these terms into Turkish via the official translation and the retranslations by using a socioterminological (Gambier Y, Meta 32(3):314–320, 1987; Delavigne V, Meta 40(2):308–318, 1995; Gaudin F, Socioterminologie. Une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie. Editions Duculot, Bruxelles, 2003) method, which deals with terms in their social context and examines their use within this specific discourse.

References

  1. Aperçu 1959 – 2016 CEDH. (2017). ECHR. The Court General Presentation. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592016_FRA.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2017.
  2. Berk Albachten, Ö. (2015). The Turkish language reform and interlingual translation. In Ş. T. Gürçağlar, S. Paker, & J. Milton (Eds.), Tradition, tension and translation in Turkey (pp. 165–180). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman, A. (1990). La Retraduction comme espace de la traduction. Palimpsestes, 4, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowker, L. (2009). Terminology. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha (Eds.), Routledge encylopedia of translation studies (2nd ed., pp. 286–290). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cortese, G. (2005). Indeterminacy in ‘Rainbow’ legislation: The convention on the rights of the child. In V. K. Bhatia et al. (Eds.), Vagueness in normative texts (pp. 255–285). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Delavigne, V. (1995). Approche socioterminologique des discours du nucléaire. Meta, 40(2), 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doğru, O. (2012). Sanık Öğüten Çarklar: İnsan Hakları Açısından Türkiye’de Ceza Adalet Sistemi. Istanbul: Tesev Yayınları.Google Scholar
  8. Doğru, O., & Nalbant, A. (2012). İnsan Hakları Avrupa Sözleşmesi-Açıklama ve Önemli Kararlar (1.cilt). Istanbul: Legal Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  9. European Convention on Human Rights. (1950). ECHR. official texts. http://www.echr.coe.int. Accessed 1 Feb 2017.
  10. Gambier, Y. (1987). Problèmes terminologiques des pluies acides: pour une socio-terminologie. Meta, 32(3), 314–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gambier, Y. (2011). La Retraduction: Ambiguïtés et défis. In E. Monti & P. Schnyder (Eds.), Autour de la retraduction. Perspectives littéraires européennes (pp. 49–66). Paris: Orizons.Google Scholar
  12. Garre, M. (1999). Human rights in translation, legal concepts in different languages. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gaudin, F. (2003). Socioterminologie. Une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie. Bruxelles: Editions Duculot.Google Scholar
  14. Gemalmaz, M. S. (2003). İnsan Hakları Belgeleri I. Istanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  15. Gémar, J.-C. (1995). Traduire ou l’art d’interpréter 2. Langue, droit et société: éléments de jurilinguistique. Application. Québéc: Presses de l’Université de Québec.Google Scholar
  16. Gözübüyük, Ş., & Gölcüklü, F. (2007). Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi ve Uygulaması (7th ed.). Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi.Google Scholar
  17. Haba, E. P. (1984). Droits de l’homme, concepts mouvants, idéologies. Archives de la philosophie du droit, 29, 323–339.Google Scholar
  18. Humbley, J. (2011). Terminologie et traduction une complémentarité oubliée ?. Tralogy [En Ligne], Session1- Terminology and translation/Terminologie et Traduction, Tralogy http://lodel.irevues.inist.fr/tralogy/index.php?id=63. Accessed 5 May 2018.
  19. İnsan Hakları Hukuku Projesi. İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi İçtihatları (Human Rights Law Project. Case Law of European Court of Human Rights). http://ihami.anadolu.edu.tr. Accessed 2 Jan 2017.
  20. Kurmel, D. (2014). Les droits de l’homme en turc: aménagement ou développement spontané? Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Paris Diderot, Paris.Google Scholar
  21. Macovei, M. (2003). Libérté et sûreté de la personne. Un guide sur la mise en oeuvre de l’article 5 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l’Homme. Conseil de l’Europe.Google Scholar
  22. Mowbray, A. (2005). The creativity of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 5(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Özdemir, H. (2006). Cumhuriyet Tarihinde Hukuk Dilindeki Değişmeler ve Gelişmeler Unpublished PhD dissertation, Ankara University, Ankara.Google Scholar
  24. Peshkov, K. (2012). Le discours juridique en russe et en français: une approche typologique Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université d’Aix-Marseille, Marseille.Google Scholar
  25. Pic, E. (2007a). Caractérisation de l’anglais des droits de l’homme en tant que langage de spécialité. Un essai de méthodologie terminologique Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université Paris Diderot, Paris.Google Scholar
  26. Pic, E. (2007b). Comprendre les concepts des droits de l’homme: où terminologie et traductologie se rejoignent-elles? Une évaluation des théories cognitives. LA TILV, 43, 62–75.Google Scholar
  27. Pym, A. (1998). Method in translation history. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Rainey, B., Wicks, E., & Ovey, C. (2017). Jacobs, white & ovey: The European convention on human rights (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  30. Schroth, P. W. (1986). Legal translation. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 34, 47–65.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/34.suppl1.47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sudre, F. (1998). Le recours aux ‘notions autonomes’. In dir. F. Sudre, L’interprétation de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (pp. 93–131). Bruxelles: Bruylant, coll. Droit et justice.Google Scholar
  32. Sudre, F. (2006). Droit européen et international des droits de l’homme (8ème edition revue et augmenté). Paris: Puf.Google Scholar
  33. TC. Resmi Gazete. 19/03/1954, no. 8662. www.resmigazete.gov.tr. Accessed 2 Nov 2013.
  34. TC. Resmi Gazete. 20/06/1997, no. 23025. www.resmigazete.gov.tr. Accessed 2 Nov 2013.
  35. TDK Büyük Türkçe Sözlük. http://www.tdk.gov.tr. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.
  36. Tessuto, G. (2005). Ambiguity and Vagueness in human rights discourse. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Engberg, M. Gotti, & D. Heller (Eds.), Vagueness in normative texts (pp. 287–311). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  37. Yılmaz, E. (2005). Hukuk Sözlüğü. Ankara: Yetkin Yayınları.Google Scholar
  38. Zülfikar, H. (2006). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Terim Çalışmalarına Bir Bakış ve Varılan Son Durum. In G. Gülsevin & E. Boz (Eds.), Türkçenin Çağdaş Sorunları (pp. 311–331). Istanbul: Divan Yayınevi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deniz Koçak Kurmel
    • 1
  1. 1.Yıldız Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations