ABSTRACT

Jordan does not have a legal framework specifically designed to regulate legal interpreting at court. This gap results in precluding litigants’ attempts to make convincing appeals before apex courts, which rely on generalised provisions in the Experts Regulations, the Civil Procedure Law and the Criminal Procedure Law as well as their discretion in answering appeals based on interpreting issues. This study aimed to examine the grounds on which litigants invoke interpreting issues in their cases and the courts’ response to such claims. The exploratory study employed a content analysis method to analyse and categorise areas of interest in the Jordanian court judgments on cases involving interpreting issues. The analysis of the cases was matched to the court procedures and decisions made for the cases challenged for interpreting misrepresentation. The findings revealed that in deciding an appeal, Jordanian courts weigh other sorts of evidence than the alleged interpreting issue, and that they would accept such appeals only in the case of proven violations of formalistic procedures of interpreter appointment. The study is significant and holds implication for researchers, stakeholders, lawmakers and interpreters, for the legalisation and professionalisation of court interpreters in Jordan.

摘要

约旦没有专门用于规范法庭法律解释的法律框架。这种差距导致当事人无法根据《专家条例》、《民事诉讼法》和《刑事诉讼法》中的一般性规定以及他们根据解释问题回答上诉的自由裁量权，试图向最高人民法院提出令人信服的上诉。本研究旨在审查诉讼当事人在其案件中援引口译问题的理由以及法院对此类主张的回应。探索性研究采用内容分析方法对约旦法院对涉及口译问题的案件的判决中感兴趣的领域进行分析和分类。对案件的分析与法院程序和因解释虚假陈述而受到质疑的案件的决定相匹配。调查结果显示，在决定上诉时，约旦法院会权衡除所谓的口译问题之外的其他类型的证据，并且只有在被证明违反正式的口译任命程序的情况下，他们才会接受此类上诉。该研究对研究人员、利益相关者、立法者和口译员具有重要意义，对约旦法庭口译员的合法化和专业化具有重要意义。