Abstract

When construing multilingual Laws, the use of rules and methods generally used in the monolingual statutory interpretation becomes more complicated due to a multiplicity of texts equally authentic. Also, the pre-eminence of one language version to the other version(s) does not facilitate the interpreter because if the other language version can shade light to elucidate the first, it can also increase uncertainty about the first. This dilemma leads to the question of knowing whether there could not be another appropriate approach to moderate these two options.
The answer is derived from a comparison of the prevalence of one language version approach both adopted in Rwanda and Ireland and the equal authenticity rule adopted in Canada. The comparison is made by analysing the sequential steps of approaches used differently in the three respective multilingual jurisdictions in order to point out gaps of the two approaches.