Literasi Hukum – In the era of globalization, English has become the primary lingua franca in science, diplomacy, commerce, and international law. While its use facilitates cross-border communication, it also creates significant disparities for speakers of other languages. The hegemony of English fosters what is known as linguistic injustice, where non-English or non-Anglophone speakers are often marginalized in various aspects of life, including within the global justice system.
The widespread diffusion of English is inseparable from the legacy of British colonialism and the cultural and economic dominance of the United States. In 1992, Robert Phillipson introduced the concept of “linguistic imperialism,” explaining that the dominance of English is not merely a tool of communication but a form of power embedded in global systems. In this context, language becomes both a symbol and an instrument of ideological control, relegating other languages to an inferior status.
In practice, this dominance is clearly reflected at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which designates only two official languages—English and French. All legal documents and court proceedings must be conducted in these two languages, even though not all UN member states use them in their domestic legal practices. Even when treaties are drafted in multiple languages, the Court often prioritizes the English and French versions, causing potential discrepancies in meaning from other versions to be overlooked. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court (ICC), which handles serious transnational crimes, does provide interpretation services with over 70 active interpreters but is still unable to fully accommodate the linguistic and cultural diversity of defendants or victims. For instance, when victims from conflict areas like Sudan, Uganda, or Myanmar appear in court, they must rely entirely on interpreters whose number and capacity are limited.
This gap is not limited to international forums. In the United States, a multicultural nation and a center of legal and diplomatic power, data shows that out of 69 million residents who speak a language other than English at home, approximately 26.5 million are categorized as Limited English Proficient (LEP). A study by the University of California, Irvine, reveals that LEP individuals face significant barriers in accessing legal services due to a limited understanding of documents, legal terminology, and even basic communication with attorneys or law enforcement officers. When legal rights are not fully understood due to language barriers, substantive justice cannot be achieved.
Beyond legal aspects, the hegemony of English also has profound psychological and social consequences. Many minority language speakers experience linguistic inferiority when they cannot access information or participate fully in global forums. This is further exacerbated by the perception that English is a “smart” or “elite” language, sidelining native or local languages. An article in Oxford Academic notes that the pressure to speak and write in English leads many individuals to hold back in academic or legal settings, even when they possess valuable perspectives. Meanwhile, an article in The New Yorker highlights that language does not merely transmit information; it shapes thought. Thus, if only one language dominates, only one worldview dominates global discourse.
This linguistic hegemony is also evident in academia and technology. In 2022, approximately 95.9% of scientific publications indexed in Web of Science were in English. In Scopus, the figure was slightly lower, at 84%. Journals in local languages are increasingly less cited and considered, creating a linguistic feedback loop that marginalizes non-English scientific knowledge. A study in Germany found that around 30% of researchers chose not to publish their findings due to difficulties in writing academic articles in English. As a result, local-context knowledge remains regionally confined, limiting its contribution to global development.
Linguistic discrimination also manifests in national legal systems, particularly in former colonies in Africa and Asia, where English or French remain the official languages of the courts, often disregarding the local languages spoken daily by the population. In South Africa, for example, despite having eleven official languages, court practices still heavily depend on English and Afrikaans. A similar challenge occurs in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) operates only in English and French, although each member state has its own national language. This is in contrast to the Council of Europe’s policy since 1981, which emphasizes the importance of access to justice through languages understood by both defendants and victims.
Despite these challenges, some institutions have begun implementing reforms. The ICJ and ICC have expanded the use of professional interpreters and increased the number of translated documents. The European Union and Canada have developed legal mechanisms that recognize the equality of all language versions of a treaty. In the United States, the MacArthur Foundation advocates for the increase of bilingual personnel in legal institutions and public services. All of these efforts represent initial steps toward building a more linguistically inclusive legal system.
To achieve true global linguistic justice, broader structural changes are needed. International institutions must develop inclusive and flexible language policies, rather than limiting operations to two or three official languages. The right to understand and to be understood in legal proceedings must be considered a fundamental human right. AI-based legal translation technologies must be seriously developed to support more than the dominant few languages—such as English, Mandarin, or Spanish—and instead reach all of the 6,500+ languages spoken worldwide. Furthermore, scientific and academic publishing must promote bibliodiversity, the inclusion of diverse languages in knowledge production, so that local knowledge can be valued on a global scale.
