BEYOND LINGUISTIC EQUIVALENCE: LEGAL TRANSLATION AND CONCEPTUAL COMPARABILITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL EMERGENCY REGIMES

Abstract

This article examines the conditions under which terms associated with constitutional emergency regimes may be treated as genuinely comparable across different legal systems. Its purpose is to test the widespread assumption that terminological correspondence provides sufficient evidence of legal and conceptual equivalence and to determine the level of inference that can legitimately be drawn from a translated legal term. The study combines legal translation, conceptual analysis, and comparative constitutional analysis within a qualitative comparative design covering Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, Italy, and Spain. The comparison is operationalized through each regime's normative basis, substantive activation thresholds, competent authorities, duration, redistribution of powers, restrictions on fundamental rights, and mechanisms of parliamentary and judicial oversight. The results demonstrate that similar terminology may conceal materially different constitutional arrangements, while functionally comparable mechanisms may operate under different legal designations. On this basis, the article develops and applies a three-level framework that distinguishes descriptive, functional, and conceptual-systemic equivalence. Descriptive equivalence concerns terminological correspondence; functional equivalence requires comparable institutional effects; and conceptual-systemic equivalence requires similarity in the position occupied by the relevant institution within the constitutional order as a whole. The six cases also show that exceptional legal effects may exist without a single general constitutional category of emergency and that several differentiated regimes may coexist within one constitutional system. The comparative evidence further indicates that the validity of cross-system comparison depends on preserving distinctions among legal designation, institutional competence, constitutional function, and mechanisms of control. The article concludes that legal translation should be treated as a methodologically relevant stage of comparative legal analysis rather than as a preliminary linguistic operation. The proposed framework aims to reduce both false-positive comparisons based on similar labels and false-negative comparisons caused by different terminology. Comparative studies of emergency regimes should test translated terms against their legal sources, institutional functions, effects on rights, and oversight structures before drawing broader conclusions about constitutional equivalence.