Separate Opinions and Declarations: The Language Choices of Judges
Abstract
Traditionally, when countries have disputes, they go to war. Today, instead of resorting to armed force, countries including member states Of ASEAN language as a dispute resolution mechanism either through diplomatic negotiation or through arbitration or adjudication mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice in The Hague, The Netherlands. This paper draws upon Harre and Davies's concept of positioning to ascertain propositions expressed implicitly or explicitly in the language choices of three Judges representing the International Court of Justice in the Philippines' request to intervene in the case between Malaysia and Indonesia concerning sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan and Ligitan. Inherent and crucial in the interpretations of the speech acts is the role of context. Here, context refers to not only the linguistic environment of the utterances but also to social and/or legal assumptions that may not be explicitly stated in the data. Data for this paper is extracted from the separate opinions and declarations of Judges Kooijmans, Koroma and Franck in the final judgement regarding the case of Philippines' intervention in Malaysia's and Indonesia's dispute over the fwo islands.
ABSTRAK
Secara tradisinya, apabila sesebuah negara menghadapi pertikaian negara itu akan mengisytiharkan perang. Sebaliknya, pada hari ini, negara tersebut temasuklah negara-negara anggota ASEAN tidak memilih kekuatan senjata tetapi menggunakan bahasa sebagai satu mekanisme untuk menyelesaikan pertikaian sama ada melalui rundingan diplomatik, timbangtara afaupun penghukuman seperti Mahkamah Pengadilan Antarabangsa (ICJ) di The Hague, The Netherlands. Makalah ini akan mengupas konsep kedudukan (concept of positioning) Harre dun Davies untuk mengenal pasti pandangan yang dikemukakan secara tersirat atau tersurat dalam bahasa pilihan tiga daripadapara Hakim ICJ yang menghakimi kes permohonan Kerajaan Filipina untuk campur tangan dalam kes antara Indonesia dan Malaysia mengenai kedaulatan ke atas Pulau Ligitan dun Pulau Sipadan. Konteks memainkan peranan yang paling menonjol dan penting dalam penafsiran lakuan bahasa sebegini. Dalam ha1 ini, konteks merujuk bukan sahaja pada persekitaran bahasa yang dilafazkan, bahkanjuga pada andaian sosial dan undang-undang yang mungkin tidak dinyatakan secara jelas di dalam data-data berkaitan. Data untuk kajian ini dipetik daripada pandangan berasingan serta pengisytiharan Hakim Kooijmans, Hakim Koroma dan Hakim Franck dalam penghakiman mereka mengenai permohonan Kerajaan Filipina untuk campur tangan dalam kes antara Indonesia dan Malaysia mengenai kedaulatan ke atas kedua-dua pulau tersebut.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Davies, B. & R. Harre. 1990. Positioning: Conversation and the Production of Selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20: 1-25.
Hafriza Burhanudeen. 2002. Reading Between the Lines: An analvsis of the Persuasive Effects and Linguistic Styles Adopted by Counsels Appearing Before the International Court of Justice in the Philippines' Request to Intervenein the Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Sipadan. In Halimah Mohd. Said and Zainab Abd Majid (eds.), Language and Empowerment. Persatuan Bahasa Malaysia Moden. pgs: 316-332.
ICJ Judgment 23 October, 2001. Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia).
Philips, S. U. 1998. Ideology in the Language of Judges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solan. L. M. 1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
Tannen, D. 1979.What's in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations. In Freedle, R. (ed), New Directions in Discourse Processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tiersma, P. M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University Chicago Press.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
ISSN: 0126-5008
eISSN: 0126-8694