確認の権利

[Alex Kent]

Hello All,

In a legal brief, how would you render the following?

よって、請求の趣旨第1項乃至5項に記載の債務の存否につき、確認の利益を有する。

I'm having trouble with 確認の権利

Much obliged!

Alex Kent

--

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Alex Kent
Amherst, MA USA
413-896-7641
日英翻訳

[Terry Gallagher]

Hi Alex,

Isn't this "the right to verify" the aforementioned liability?

Terry Gallagher

Eastham, MA USA 

U.S. Eastern standard time (GMT -5 hours)
Phone (mobile, U.S. number): (508) 685-2043
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtgal
Skype: gallagherjt

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Honyaku Mailing list.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku?hl=en?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Alex Kent]

Terry,

That makes sense.  Thanks!

Alex

[Mark Spahn]

Uh, not that I'm helping, but the quotation refers to

確認の利益, not 確認の権利.

Do they mean the same thing?

-- Mark Spahn  (West Seneca, NY)

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Alex Kent

To: hon...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:34

Subject: Re: 確認の権利

Terry,

That makes sense.  Thanks!

Alex

Terry Gallagher <terry.g...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Alex,

Isn't this "the right to verify" the aforementioned liability?

Terry Gallagher

Eastham, MA USA 

[Herman]

On 2/6/2013 10:39, Mark Spahn wrote:
> Uh, not that I'm helping, but the quotation refers to
> 確認の利益, not 確認の権利.
> Do they mean the same thing?
> -- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

確認の利益 would be "the benefit of declaration", or more clearly, "the
benefit of declaratory relief"

確認の権利 would be "right to verify/confirm/identify"

The former seems to fit the context better.

Herman Kahn

[Joe Jones]

Herman has the right idea assuming that we are talking about the following type of 確認の利益:

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A2%BA%E8%AA%8D%E3%81%AE%E5%88%A9%E7%9B%8A

Though based on the context given above, it's possible that 確認の権利 was actually intended...

Joe Jones / Tokyo

[Mika J.]

自信はないので、間違っていたらごめんなさい。

Aさんが請求の趣旨の中（第1項乃至5項）でBさんに貸しがあると記載したことについて、ちゃんと確認した方がいいであろう。なぜなら確認の利益をAさんが有するから、という風に読めます。Hermanさんのご提案が相応しいのではないでしょうか。

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

[Dwight Van Winkle]

確認の利益 might mean "standing to seek a declaratory judgment."  "Standing" is 訴えの利益 or　原告的確.

 

Dwight Van Winkle

[Mika J.]

Dwight Van Winkle <dwig...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
確認の利益 might mean "standing to seek a declaratory judgment."

なるほど。逐語一致をめざす人のために、日英の一致部分の範囲をやや拡げてみます。
利益を有する＝standing to seek　

これは日本語話者の感覚からしてもぴったりあてはまると思います。

[Herman]

On 2/8/2013 11:06, Mika J. wrote:
> Dwight Van Winkle <dwig...@fastmail.fm <mailto:dwig...@fastmail.fm>>

> wrote:
> 確認の利益 might mean "standing to seek a declaratory judgment."
>
> なるほど。逐語一致をめざす人のために、日英の一致部分の範囲をやや拡げてみ
> ます。
> 利益を有する＝standing to seek　
>
> これは日本語話者の感覚からしてもぴったりあてはまると思います。
>
>
>

"standing to seek a declaratory judgment" can be rendered for instance
as '確認の訴えにおける原告適格'.

'確認の利益を有すること' is the main criterion for 確認の訴えにおける原
告適格, so the existence of one would imply the other, but conceptually,
the two terms are not equivalent.

Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

Very good, thank you.
So, in the interest of the translation, if the purpose of the sentence is to state a YES/NO distinction only (ある, in this case), '確認の訴えにおける原告適格' and '確認の利益を有すること' would be practically synonymous; but the context is leading towards finer distinctions between the two, then the difference matters in the translation.  Am I on the right track?

[Herman]

On 2/8/2013 13:23, Mika J. wrote:
> Very good, thank you.
> So, in the interest of the translation, if the purpose of the sentence
> is to state a YES/NO distinction only (ある, in this case), '確認の訴え
> における原告適格' and '確認の利益を有すること' would be practically
> synonymous; but the context is leading towards finer distinctions
> between the two, then the difference matters in the translation. Am I
> on the right track?
>

The expression '確認の訴えにおける原告適格' would be synonymous for
instance to '確認訴訟を起こすことができる地位'.
I would characterize '確認の訴えにおける原告適格' and '確認の利益を有す
ること' not as being ' practically synonymous' but rather as being
'pragmatically equivalent in certain contexts' - i.e. not different ways
of saying the same thing but rather different things that can, in some
situations, be said for the same purpose. If 利益 has the meaning of
'benefit' or 'interest', does that meaning go away in the phrase '確認の
利益'?

In the case of legal translation, I would also consider not just how a
term is used in a particular instance, but also other reasonably
possible instances of how it could be used in the same or similar
context, and if a given translation would hold up in all those instances
- in this case, for example, could somebody say something like 'Xは確認
の利益を有するから原告適格を有する' and would 'standing...' as a
translation of 確認の利益 work in such an instance.

As a general rule, I would say that only when the possibilities of
conceptual equivalence have been exhausted should pragmatic equivalence
be considered.

Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

>As a general rule, I would say that only when the possibilities of conceptual equivalence have been exhausted should pragmatic equivalence be considered.

I see.
pragmatic にとらえれば「確認の利益を有する（から原告適格を有することになる）と短縮できることもある、よって訳も場合によっては短縮可能となる。ただし、
conceptualには「確認の利益を有する」と「原告適格を有する」は異なっているため、訳し分けが必要となろうというわけですね。

source:よって、請求の趣旨第1項乃至5項に記載の債務の存否につき、確認の利益を有する。
質問：What's the verb for 有する in this translation?

P.S.
' synonymous' な例としては「6個」と「半ダース」などがあると思いますが、
「地位」の用法として '確認訴訟を起こすことができる地位' という使い方は、ないのでは？

[Herman]

> source:よって、請求の趣旨第1項乃至5項に記載の債務の存否につき、確認の利
> 益を有する。

> 質問：What's the verb for 有する in this translation?

There is
There exists
There would be

It depends on the surrounding text.

Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

Ah, this is interesting.  I never thought of them as options, as I'm pretty certain that there exists an implicit subject in this sentence, which happens to be 原告は or その訴えは, or their conceptual equivalence.  It'll be interesting to find out whether I'm mistaken, but I wonder if Dwight was on the same page with me on this.

source:よって、請求の趣旨第1項乃至5項に記載の債務の存否につき、（原告は）確認の利益を有する。

[Herman]

On 2/9/2013 15:51, Mika J. wrote:
> Ah, this is interesting. I never thought of them as options, as I'm
> pretty certain that there exists an implicit subject in this sentence,
> which happens to be 原告は or その訴えは, or their conceptual
> equivalence. It'll be interesting to find out whether I'm mistaken, but
> I wonder if Dwight was on the same page with me on this.
>
> source:よって、請求の趣旨第1項乃至5項に記載の債務の存否につき、（原告
> は）確認の利益を有する。
>

Going from the legal meaning, this is saying 当該債務の存否については確
認の利益がある, where 確認 = 当該債務の存否を裁判に確認してもらうこと
and 利益 = 当該債務の存否不明に因る、当事者間の不安・紛争の恐れ等を解消
できること. It is not implying that the suit will benefit the plaintiff
*as opposed to* the defendant, but rather that it will effectively
settle a certain legally significant issue between them, i.e. it will
not be a waste of the court's time.

Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

Herman <sl...@lmi.net> wrote:

Going from the legal meaning, this is saying 当該債務の存否については確
認の利益がある, where 確認 = 当該債務の存否を裁判に確認してもらうこと
and 利益 = 当該債務の存否不明に因る、当事者間の不安・紛争の恐れ等を解消
できること. It is not implying that the suit will benefit the plaintiff

Yes indeed.  My understanding was not different from how you put it, so the way you parsed the source text is just right.  Thank you for your patience with me on this.  Hope I wasn't the only one who benefited from this exchange.

[Dwight Van Winkle]

I still think that the 利益　in question is the interest of the plaintiff in bringing the

declaratory action, analyzed in the context of limited judicial resources, limited relief

provided by declaratory actions, and endless potential for declaratory actions if stringent

limits are not set. 

 

The elements of 確認[の訴え]の利益 stated in the Wikipedia article are similar to the elements of

injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability in U.S. standing law, and my understanding is

that showing 確認の利益 is generally sufficient to show 原告適格.  But I agree with Herman that

the word "standing" should be avoided here. 

 

The 訴えの利益　in Japanese law sounds like the "interest to act" in French and Italian law. So I

think 確認の利益を有する　(short for 確認の訴えの利益を有する)　means "there is interest to bring

declaratory action" or "the requirement of interest to bring declaratory action is satisfied." Or "interest

in bringing declaratory action" rather than "interest to bring declaratory action" (which sounds more

natural as "sufficient interest to bring declaratory action").

 

Here is an article on an Italian law on petitions for preliminary declaration of non-

infringement, which states the requirement of "interest to act." This sounds similar, at

least in part, to 確認の利益 as stated in the Wikipedia article.

 

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e05ef592-0a20-40e7-9ea8-4c0d518326c9

 

A comment here gets right to Herman's point, saying "Whilst sufficient interest might be an

indicator of locus standi, the former stands on its own as a separate test." 

 

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/italian_to_english/law_general/3113293-difetto_di_legittimazione_e_di_interesse.html

 

These may also be useful:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Int%C3%A9r%C3%AAt_%C3%A0_agir

http://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais/traduction/int%E9r%EAt+pour+agir.html

http://www.linguee.fr/francais-anglais?query=int%E9r%EAt+a+agir&source=french

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesse_ad_agire

 

Thank you all for an interesting discussion.

 

Dwight Van Winkle