Legal Translation in the European Union

Welcome to the Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal Podcast, where we discuss the law and its relationships with our society and its implications on our everyday lives. I'm Chen. I'm Dorithia and we are your podcast editants. Hello everyone. We hope that you enjoyed the Easter vacation and that you are ready for some more engaging legal discussion. Over the vacation I spoke to two professors about a variety of aspects within EU translation. In particular, I wanted to know how it was shaped by Europe's post-World War II history and how it has involved since. The challenge is involved, but also promising current and future developments. Professor Alice Leo is head of the Translation and Interpretation Studies Department at the University of Whittwater's Rand in South Africa. Alice has written prolifically on the epistemology, politics and philosophy of legal translation, both in journals and through book publications. Her most recent book, Language Policy and the Future of Europe, Corritten with Sean Orion, will be published in June of this year by Rutledge. Professor Martina Bouchic is the head of the Department of Foreign Languages at the University of Rehaker and an Associate Professor of the Law Faculty at the University. Her research and teaching interests are in the areas of legal terminology, multilingual aspects of EU law and institutional translation and interpretation, on which she has published an impressive plethora of books and articles in journals including perspectives and the international journal of language and law. The books include new insights into the semantics of legal concepts and legal dictionary and the co-edited volumes, the role of language and translation in EU competition law and towards the professionalisation of legal translators and court interpreters in the EU. Perhaps surprisingly, despite being an international organisation between countries in which different languages are naturally used, there was little in the EU's original policies on translation within the EU, Professor Alice Leo on this. Well, good afternoon, actually from South Africa and it's a pleasure. Thank you so much for having me. Well translation and interpretation, so these services were actually not such an explicit aspect of the formation of what we today call the European Union until much later. If we look at the treaty establishing the European coal and steel community from the 1950s, it's interesting to note that three clusters of reasons are put forth to justify the creation of this supernatural block and the first and most pronounced of these reasons revolves around peace. So the text mentioned, for example, to safeguard world peace or to organise Europe to maintain peaceful relations, to further the works of peace and to substitute age-old rivalries. So this is the first cluster of reasons. The second cluster of reasons is centered on unity and shared destiny. So we mentioned, for example, the aim to create real solidarity, to merge essential interests, to create the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples and also to establish institutions which will give direction to a destiny henceforth shared. This is second cluster of reasons. And the third cluster of reasons has to do with the economy. So he mentions, for example, the objective to establish common basis for economic development, to expand basic production to raise the standard of living. And yet, the remaining 300 pages of the treaty focus almost exclusively on this third cluster of reasons around economic development. The common market is showcased in every section. The words language and translation are completely and entirely absent from the document. Now I guess here, the obvious question is, how can we achieve peace and in general a sense of shared destiny and unity among different peoples without giving any thought to their languages? Subsequent treaties and regulations then did and do still, of course, address language and translation more explicitly. There's one famous EEC regulation, regulation number one of April 1958, which lists the official and working languages of the institutions of the then community. Right. Today we've got 24 languages in this list, it was most recently added when Croatia exceeded and Croatia was added to the list of official EU languages. But then this very regulation, regulation number one, is relativized significantly in the fine print, so to speak. So in the end, institutions have a lot of autonomy in determining their working languages. But still, this regulation is extremely important because it establishes two key points. The first one is that all official EU languages are official and working languages. So there's this common misconception that English French and German are the working languages of the EU. This is not true. These three languages are often informally referred to as procedural languages, but this is no legal status, no legal backing whatsoever, and arguably constituted breach of EU legislation. Multies is a working language on the exact same level and on a par with, for example, English. Now, this takes us to the second important point stipulated by regulation number one of 1958, namely that of the packing order among EU languages. So at least officially, all 24 languages enjoy the exact same status. The regulation precludes the possibility of any one language being elevated to a different status. In fact, there were attempts to introduce the notion of an official language, which is not a working language. For example, there was this discussion. I think it was when Ireland acceded to the EU in 1973, or at the time it was the EDC. But then there was fierce opposition from speakers of Danish and Dutch, for instance, because they felt that this move might set a dangerous precedent and might ultimately culminate in an official language hierarchy within the European Union. So this notion of official languages, which are also working languages, has been enshrined in EU primary law from the very beginning, and it's pretty much uncontested. And the result of this principle of authenticity is the need for multilingual judicial reasoning. So in a nutshell, this means that no single legal text can be taken in isolation. Technically, when it comes to EU law, all 24 versions of any given text must be considered. Now, there have been cases in which one single language version clearly differed from the other 23 suggesting a possible translation error, and still the court of justice of the EU ruled that no single text may be taken in isolation. So what we have is the inherent and inevitable multiplicity that these EU member states bring with them, that their languages entail. And these languages come with their own dynamics and hierarchies and packing orders. And having primary law announcing the illusory equality of these languages, as well as the illusory authenticity of all language versions. So these two measures are a clear attempt and a necessary attempt, if you ask me, to curb this multiplicity a little and to establish some kind of unity. It is a union after all. But does she in need for these measures demonstrates that this multiplicity cannot be flattened or done away with? So we're living in eternal double bind. It is interesting that both of our guests spoke about disparity between the fundamental principle that the languages of the member states are equine status and the situation in practice. Professor Balcic, good morning. Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting me. Well indeed, yes, multilingualism is not only the most important feature of the EU law, but also of the EU translation, as EU law is operationalized through translation. First of all, the EU is known for its unprecedented number of languages. While comparisons may be drawn to, for example, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is authentic, authoritative in different languages, or bilingual countries, practicing bilingual legislative crafting, there are no international organizations, no legal systems, drafting, practicing, applying the law in 24 official languages. Second, we can speak of different legal categories of multilingualism, which manifest in the following categories of languages, equally authentic working in the official language. Sometimes these different categories are misconceived, for instance, in the bread's referendum. Some politicians may have blinds by fake news that English would no longer be a working language. But as long as it remains an official language, we know that it's, of course, may be an is used as a working language. The distinction between official and working language would not explicitly at rest in any multilingual instruments, most notably the so-called language regulation or regulation number one determining the languages to be used in the European economic community. So in simple terms, we could say official languages are used in external communication between EU institutions and member states, or between EU institutions and citizens, whereas working languages are used internally within an institution. Equally authentic language, on the other hand, implies that the treaty for legal instruments can be interpreted in that respective version. Now turning to the everyday practice of drafting and applying the law in multiple languages. The most far-reaching implication of multilingualism may be that it is impossible that all languages always say one and the same thing. Legal translation is imperfect, right, so all linguists agree on this. But what happens in cases of differences between the language versions? And I mean here linguistic differences. How are such differences resolved? This remains a treaty. Now all of the described aspects of the immunoglobulism manifest in the EU translation as well. They make a difference from legal translation in the narrow sense. The EU translation can be described as institutional translation. It is provided by the institutions for the institutions. It is therefore very much standardized, right? Likewise, we cannot say it's intersystemic, like legal translation between monolingual systems, nor is it's intersystemic between a bilingual jurisdiction or a multilingual jurisdiction within one legal system. So it is not national but supernational, going to the special relationship between EU law and national laws of the number states. In that regard, different translation strategies are used for all languages are equally authentic. We cannot speak often original, source text and target text. Instead we use the term draft text or based text from which one translates. There has been a controversial debate on multilingual interpretation of the EU law. On the one hand, the Court of Justice has claimed in its cases there is no rely on the terminology used in one language version. On many occasions, it refers to the so-called duty to compare language versions and not rely on a single language version when interpreting EU law. So not just when in doubt that the meaning of a provision of EU law. And this was first stated in what I call a signature case on language divergences, so a so-called language phase, which concerns differences between the language versions. And to briefly sketch the main facts of this case, Shlouda, the decision in question concerned of purchasing a butter at a reduced price by certain beneficiaries, these included, for example, disabled war veterans. Unlike the French and the Italian language version, and the man just clarified that the case was adjudicated in the '60s when there were only four official languages, namely French, Italian, German and Dutch. So unlike the French and Italian language version, according to which the recipients, the beneficiaries of these welfare schemes, only needed a coupon, an individualized coupon to purchase butter at a reduced price, in line with the German language version, it was necessary to display a coupon issued in one's name. So the beneficiary from Germany actually initiated proceedings before the local court in Germany, and that court made a request for a preliminary ruling to the court of justice, then called the European Court of Justice, to interpret the provision of EU law. And in response, the court also addressed the difference between the language versions. And it's like something along the following lines, I will try to paraphrase, and it was reiterated in many subsequent cases. The necessity for uniform application makes it impossible to consider one version of the text in isolation. That requires it the interpreted on the basis of the intention of the aim of this decision seeks to achieve in the lives of all language versions. So this is the so-called duty to compare. So the court has held the same narrative to date, despite the fact that we have now 24 official languages as opposed to the four of fact then. On the other hand, we have for agenda in case of mistranslations, we have witnessed this insistence on neutral EU terms, which is endorsed in every style guide for each language and manuals, portraying leaders and directors of the EU legislation, signaling that language does matter in line with the motto "United in Diversity." But in the court's subtle case fall, it is evidence that due to the fact that there is no original language version, it is the court that provides a superimposed, the shared meaning of the legal norms, which are to be applied in all languages and in all member states, thus achieving conceptual autonomy. Why do these language cases, as one I sketched, matter? They matter because the courts interpretive methods applied to them, signal what it means for language versions to be uniform. And this in turn is important in light of some mistransactions about the multilingual adjudication and interpretation of the court, arising from the difference between the legal and the linguistic approach to meaning. Now the concept of equally authentic languages, for some scholars implies "equal meaning," for others the same status of languages, and one advocate general put it the same standing. But some claim it isn't reasonable to assume the authentic texts are identical in all their language properties. So the distinction between the legal status of texts as authoritative, equally valid language versions, and yet linguistically not identical, has been, by default I would say, acknowledged by the Court of Justice, when confronted with cases of discrepancies between the language versions. It seems thus that lawyers have no difficulty with the concept of people authenticity as opposed to linguists endorsing a different perception of meaning. Therefore, the debate on multilingual interpretation of a law could be resolved in the following way. What matters is conceptual calmments or conceptual uniformity, and not terminological or linguistic. Likewise linguistic divergence does not correspond to conceptual divergence, which, by the way, is more detrimental to the goal of the utilization. The goal of the utilization is achieving uniform application and interpretation of the law, while at the same time maintaining linguistic diversity. I also ask Professor Boucher, about the implications of the European Court of Justice's practice, of giving judgments in French, and of translation of the often seminal judgments. French has been the procedural language at the court since it was established, and today with 24 official languages, the language regime at the court is truly complex. It's very difficult to even grasp all the possible language combinations. What happened with the so-called Big Bang enlargement of the EU in 2004, when 10 new member states joined, they introduced a system with so-called pivot languages. These are languages from which it is translated into other languages. This was introduced mainly for cost benefits and to simplify translation, which, with otherwise, require an immense number of translators working in all these number of language combinations. The judgment is first drafted in French, as you said, and sometimes this is by non-legal speakers, and by a host of different authors, and these are the procedures in place. By the way, I think this is one of the reasons why opinions of Advocate's General read more naturally, and they provide for a better understanding of the case in hand, because there's no dissonance, there are words of individuals, clear in argument, and style. As regards the judgements of the Court of Justice being drafted by non-legal speakers sometimes, there were also empirical studies conducted, including interviews with Advocate's General and with clerks. What's interesting is that many of them highlight the fact that, if they don't draft in their mother tongue, it sometimes results in perhaps shorter sentences, perhaps, clear arguments. This probably has to do with the fact that, sometimes, non-natives are more concerned with the linguistic form than native speakers, who will focus, perhaps, more on the legal issue, and the legal case, and the facts of the case, and on praising legal arguments. It would be interesting to conduct further analysis into this. If you're turning to Pivot Languages, they were an necessity that made things easier. However, the flip side is that we are not translating. People are not translating from the original term we avoid any translation, but we are not translating from the draft, but it's a different layer. Despite the fact that the judgment is drafted in French first, it is authentic only in one language, namely the language of the case. In cases of preliminary preferences, like the shoulder case, for example, we mentioned, the language of the case is the language of the referring court, or it can be the language of the plaintiff, for example. So only in this one language is the judgment, authentic, and not in all the other language versions. Therefore, bearing in mind all these different types of procedures, and the special role of national law, also, the judgments are a product of a blame. Lending of different legal languages, because all of the people who work on them, they come from different legal backgrounds, different legal cultures, and different legal languages. So it's a sort of a hybrid. And it's not surprising that the judgments of the Court of Justice have been researched a lot by linguists in terms of the language and the uniquely linguistic style. There were some corpus-based studies, some studies using empirical data from corpera, multilingual corpera, comparing the judgments of national courts, for example, in French, Italian, German, and English, with the judgments of the Court of Justice in the same languages, so French, Italian, German, English. And the results showed that the judgments of the Court of Justice are more formulaic. And this has to do with all of the reasons we mentioned, being drafted by, sometimes, non-nagous speakers by several authors. And all of this results in a higher level of hybridity, I would say. But this, again, is the case, or is difficult at all to you all, because of this strong need for conceptual autonomy, for uniform application of the you all. And sometimes the result is that we have this need for variance of legal languages. These are described as urelects, Europeanized variants, so that eotex are marked by a high visibility of the translativeness, and they depart from certain conventions of national legal languages. I would definitely say that this is the case with judgments, and maybe it's more noticeable in languages with smaller number of speakers. Professor Lille. So translation is such an interesting concept in this discussion, because it's far more than a mere practice to bridge languages and coaches. Translation is also this primordial metaphor, for example, in the humanities as a whole, but also in political institutions, like the EU. What does it mean to say that something is translatable, or that I can translate something into another language? It means that I can derive some kind of truth or meaning from a certain text, and then transfer it to another language. But organizations like the EU show how illusory this notion of translation is, how impossible it is to simply obtain the meaning of an utterance in a given language, and to rephrase it in a new language without change, without loss, without gain, for that matter. If we look at translation as a metaphor of our relation with the other, of our contacts, of our conflicts, it becomes clear that there's a lot more complexity at stake than meets the eye. In my works on the EU, I often write about the conflict or the dynamic between unity versus multiplicity. This is something I took from Jacques Derrida's works. So if you take any grouping, any community, how much unity must that be, in order for that to be a grouping at all, how much unity would be oppressive today, inherent and inevitable multiplicity of the members of this group? And how much multiplicity is permissible before this unity is threatened? Therefore, translatability means pure unity, for untranslatability means pure multiplicity. But as Derrida reminds us, pure unity and pure multiplicity are both synonyms of death. So to bring this political, philosophical question to a more concrete level, let us consider, for example, the ongoing route between Poland and Hungary and the EU, chiefly around the rule of law. Can we speak of a European identity or of core European values? As many of us may have heard in the media recently, is respect for the rule of law something that entails or stipulates that it must be pure unity among all 27 EU states. Again, how much unity and how much multiplicity? If we look at translation and interpreting, so if we look at language services, we also find an interesting dynamic between unity and multiplicity. What we have here is translation, both as this primordial metaphor and as a practice that enables the EU's moteling role functioning. I mentioned earlier that all EU languages enjoy the same status as official and working languages, as well as that effectively, there are no translations, only language versions. This is because all versions of given document must be equally authentic. This means that we never speak of one original, most likely in English today, and 23 translations, but rather we speak of 24 language versions. This is a clear attempt to engender unity. This is a way of establishing a posteriori equivalence, which is nothing more than unity in meaning, equality in meaning. This is a way of saying, look, all these language versions are the exact same. However, both professors seem to be of the view that a midway can be found, a solution that does not sacrifice or disrupt too much on either side. Professor Balchich. I don't think, however, that political importance of balancing between linguistic diversity and achieving uniform application and uniform interpretation of the law will be diminished, so this is the main objective of the translation. In case of further enlargement, it's who only gained importance. And if and when some of the countries that have candidate cultural status at the moment succeeds to the EU, there will be discussions on language and translation and the future of multilingualism, but primarily political discussions, because if we learned anything from the past 70 years of the integration, it is that multilingualism is possible. There have been proposals, academic proposals, to reduce the number of official languages, and I would like to refer to two of them now. One proposal was made by James Bergen Weber, who addressed the issue of multilingualism from an economic perspective. They argued it would be justified to disenfranchise speakers of smaller languages, so speakers of languages with a smaller number of population, and just keep six official languages on account of the cost of translation. And in this context, I think perhaps another argument could become more prominent in the future, namely the environmental argument. We will have to consider the ecological side of translation, most notably energy costs embedded in the production of translation, so cycling won't last up, for example, in the safe way. Another proposal was made a few years ago by a Dutch legal scholar, Yappahey. The advocated English should be institutionalized, that is, it should be formalized as the only authentic language. The reasons why, because most Europeans speak English have their second language, because it is the main drafting language in the EU, and it's also very important for the court. But I repeat, these proposals and there were more are only academic. At this point, it doesn't seem that the status of English will change, and we know that it's gained an importance after the enlargement of 2004 with 10 new member states, because it marked a need to have a common channel of communication for all of these different countries. And it seemed that English is the logical choice being the language spoken by most Europeans as their second language. So we could say rather than the United University, we are all united in English today. Another reason why the prominent role of English will not change, has to do with the fact that English has been most resourced, it has been most resourced in terms of data in terms of language tools, language technology. Other European languages, perhaps with the exception of German, French, other European languages remain under resourced. And this is why achieving full digital language equality in Europe is one of the goals for EU policy makers or the future. To end on a positive note and returning to my initial remarks on the importance of mock or lingualism for EU law. In light of the fact that translation makes EU law operate in 24 languages, the EU will continue to be the leading employer of translators. But it could also be at the forefront of language-centric artificial intelligence. As a matter of fact, the European Commission recently published a 20 million euro call for proposals on natural language understanding and interaction in the beliefs of English technologies. Legal translation is imperfect and of course there are sometimes divergences between the language versions. This is why the role of the Court of Justice is the more important and the goal of achieving conceptual autonomy so that we have, for example, one EU concept with one European meeting. You can call it the shared meaning of the EU norm. This meaning, as interpreted by the Court, as defined, if it is defined in EU legislation, has to be the same across all languages. Irrespective of the term, so for linguists, we make a distinction between term and concept. So we could explain this using these categories, having one EU concept, but 24 legal terms. This is not to say that language is less important and it's the court that has the plan to say. But in such cases, imperfect translations, as you said, the practice being different on the principle. In such cases, there is a solution because the court gives this uniform interpretation. And if we look back at the settled case law, we can definitely see that this was used as a way to resolve language as frequencies. And what more, this insistence on comparing language versions, the so-called duty to compare language versions. In my opinion, it's less important. So what is important is that the provision is interpreted in line with EU law, in line with the objective of this provision, in line with the aim of the regulation or decision with directed questions, so teleological interpretation and conceptual autonomy. Prof. Leo. If we agree with Dirida that pure unity and pure multiplicity are a synonym of death, the question is not really which one we should privilege. Of course, Dirida himself would always have favored multiplicity, probably, even if he have so slightly in certain cases. But what we need, and here I agree with Dirida, is to invent gestures, discourses, political institutional practices that inscribe the alliance of these two imperatives of unity and multiplicity. And here I am quoting Dirida directly in part of what I just said. So now is a mere combination of the two, not as a mere halfway house, so to speak, but truly new innovative gestures, discourses, and practices that take stock of the complexity of the European Union. The future of the EU can look uncertain, including the future of legal translation in the professors' views, there certainly are challenges, but also promising development. There was a lot of controversy in the wake of the Brexit referendum, there was one MEP who famously declared that English would be stripped off its official status, and even the Commission President at the time, Junca, made some fiery allegations that English was losing its importance in the block, et cetera. But the fact remains that unanimity would be required to strip English of its official status, and this is extremely unlikely. Still, despite the legal aspect of this question being quite straightforward, the more fundamental question of the role of English becomes more urgent and more complex in the wake of Brexit. English became a new official language, an official EU language, because the UK exceeded, but now the UK is gone, and English is by far the most used language in the EU institutions, bodies, and agencies. Even though there has been an increase actually in the number of, for instance, press conferences held in French and German, especially right after the Brexit referendum that was quite noticeable, still there is no sign of the dominance of English decreasing on the contrary. Brexit will, however, lead to a decrease in the number of British citizens working in the EU. Those British nationals currently working, they may continue to do so until they retire. Of course, depending on their post, they may be left out or they may have their tasks and responsibilities significantly reduced because their country is no longer a member of the club, so to speak. But as these British citizens gradually retire and no new British nationals are hired, we are looking at a sharp decrease in the number of native English speakers working in the EU. It's interesting here to think of what's happening in Ireland post Brexit. So I'm saying that the future of the EU seems to be multilingual and not really going down the lingua franca route. And Ireland, since the Brexit referendum, they have undertaken a number of measures to sort of distance themselves from the UK stance when it comes to multilingualism. And in many ways, relationships with the relations with the continent, really, so in this new book I mentioned, written with Sean Orion, we talk about that, and especially he talks about that as an Irish diplomat, about how Ireland is really investing in making its diplomatic service more multilingual and showing to other countries on the continent that Ireland, they don't want to have this anglophone mentality that everyone else has to speak English and has to learn English and everything has to be written in English and translated into English or interpreted into English. On the contrary, that they want to learn other languages as well. And this has been materializing not only in terms of efforts regarding language learning, but also, for example, in terms of opening new consulates in the continent or having closer ties and visits, official visits to different member states, having more sea lengths with more places in the continent, et cetera. So this general gesture that they are open to the continent and also the cultures and the languages. I think what's nice in this example is that we see that the question of language is not left out. It's not merely an economic endeavor or political endeavor. They seem to have understood that language plays a pivotal part in these economic and political endeavors. Alice, thank you so much for your time and for sharing your perspective with us. It's been really eye-opening. Thank you very much. Thank you for the interesting questions and comments and thank you for having me, for having invited me. It's been a pleasure. It is quite clear from Professor Leo's last points here that education and training of the next generation of translators and interpreters is key. Professor Balchich was keen to amplify the importance of integrating and fully utilizing the role of technology. At the beginning of my career, I worked as a legal translator. I'm still a score important interpreter for English and German. And if someone asked me this at the beginning of my career, I'd say that to be a skilled translator, one has to understand what one's translating. The regardless of the field, you have to understand whatever it is that you're translating. In the context of the field law, this would mean learning the key principles of field law, understanding the special relationship between EU law and national laws of the member states, the institutional aspects of the translation, moleculeism, EU terminology, all of this takes in the education of legal translators in the EU. But today, however, I've highlighted the skills of the 21st century, information literacy, digital literacy, and media literacy. Now, based on my experience in teaching the both law students and translation students, we should not assume students have all of these skills, all the skills necessary to retrieve the relevant information, how to critically assess the credibility of the information. This is not taught at our schools. Students today have access to all these amazing term bands, data bands, machine translation tools, many of which are enabled by large language models, but while students have heard of chat GT, they are surprisingly not familiar with all the functions of some EU term bands or all the potential of EU digital corporal. So it's important that they are aware of all of these, because translation tools are improving all the time, and it's so important that translators stay on top of their game. And I think in general, there's a need for more skills based learning in our higher education, but also in lifelong learning programs. What I have recently used with students was text-to-image transformer, which I found intriguing, and I think visualization will become more important, especially in law. For example, the right of withdrawal, so many people are aware of this, right? If they buy or purchase something online, they have 14 days to change their minds, right? They have a right to return the product, but many of them are not familiar with the legal term denoting this right, because it's expressed in so many different ways. And for example, using one image would make it so much easier and clearer. So visualization of legal information, and this has to deal with legal design, which I think is so important, so how to frame legal information in a more user-friendly way. And translators who likewise have to take this into account, and also maybe understand why legal design is important, and how it can further understand legal text. But I think we as faculty staff, we should not shy away from using technology in classrooms, or, for example, a chat G-D-T, why not, we can discuss it with our students and maybe analyze the types of mistakes made, and compare the types of mistakes made by humans and made by machines, and the so-called error culture, focusing on errors and learning from them. Not being embarrassed to talk about it. Martina, thank you so much for all of the interesting points you have raised. It has been ever so interesting to learn about this. Thank you for inviting to a pleasure. That was Professor Alice Leo and Martina Bouchic discussing legal translation, its politics, its origins, and its developments. I really hope that you have enjoyed the discussion as much as I have. Thank you so much to everyone for listening. Seeing as due to finals in the summer, this will likely be my last episode as a co-host. I would like to thank all of the wonderful guests who have shared their research and their insights with me, and I would really like to thank Dorothea who has been such an excellent co-host and co-editor. I really couldn't have produced such wonderful episodes without her, and I have so much enjoyed participating in her episodes as well. Thank you so much to both Dorothea and to everyone who's been listening. You're by for now everyone and all the best. You have been listening to the Oxford Undergraduate Law Podcast. Thank you so much for listening to this episode. For more information about our podcast, about the Oxford University Undergraduate, Lord Journal, about our past episodes and to see upcoming ones, do have a look for us on Spotify and also on our webpage on the Oxford Undergraduate Law Journal website. [BLANK_AUDIO]