I love this article. I think a lot about duality and how it works. This article explains that very well. I have a request for the author. That is, the last paragraph mentions that “from the moment you call to balance what you want to balance … This is something I have a hard time understanding clearly. Can someone please bring some light into the darkness? Thank you very much. I love this article. I think more about duality and what it really means. However, I ask for clarification regarding the last paragraph, which says, “At the moment you want to call it, you are trying to balance yourself … ». What does that mean? If someone explains that it is more of a secular term, then I would be grateful. It is also important to note that there is a perception problem when it comes to the development of instruments such as LDPC and its supplements. These instruments must be able to meet the legal requirements of legal dualism and therefore differ from those specific to the official languages. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the Interpretative Act illustrate this, where the bisysemic aspect of relations with the provinces, in particular Quebec, takes precedence over the linguistic aspect because of its civil law system and the federal process of harmonizing statutory laws with the Civil Code of 1994.
“Doctrine of Dual Sovereignty,” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/dual%20sovereignty%20doctrine. Accessed October 11, 2022. The monists accept that the domestic and international legal systems form a single entity. National legal norms and international rules that a State has accepted, for example through a treaty, determine whether the actions are legal or illegal.  In most so-called “monist” states, a distinction is made between international law in the form of treaties and other international rights, for example .dem customary international law or ius cogens; Such states can therefore be partly monistic and partly dualistic. Each of the two morgan laws can be derived from the other by duality. The distinction is made according to the communication contexts observed and their relationship to the separation of powers between the federal and provincial levels of government within the Canadian legal framework, that is: “In Canada, federal law is expressed with equal authority in both official languages – English and French. In addition to this already complex situation, there are two legal systems and norms in private law: civil law and customary law. The value of this dictionary comes from this dualism, as anyone who needs to interpret federal laws can benefit from using a dictionary that offers bilingual and bisysemic equivalents. More specifically, this dictionary aims to facilitate the interpretation of the vocabulary of property in the context of legal dualism and bilingualism.
“LESSARD, Jean-Marie, Legal Bilingual and Bisystemic Dictionary of Property in Canada appeared at the Symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive Studies and Translation Studies (UCCTS) at Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom, july 27-29, 2010. Unlike legal dualism, legislative bijuralism is an attempt to harmonize federal legal texts – from a judicial perspective – which promotes the complementarity of federal law with the private law of the provinces, in particular Quebec civil law. In the case of section 8.2, it is clear that “terminology” refers to institutions that belong to the legal system in force in a province. This is a great article and I had just heard about the law of duality, but I never knew what it meant. In my research on this law, I came across this section and I became aware of this law. Keep publishing. 🙂 Thank you very much! In fact, the principles of legal interpretation contained in §§ 8.1 and 8.2 of the Interpretative Act are a complement to the linguistic principles of interpretation resulting from the official bilingualism of federal law texts. Footnote 2 The distinction we would like to make here is intended to clarify the relationship between language law and the linguistics of law (such as “law”), where the latter discipline is sometimes opposed to legal linguistics and otherwise to legal linguistics, which in Canada is more oriented towards legal translation. Both a monist state and a dualistic state can comply with international law. All that can be said is that a monist state is less likely to violate international rules because its judges can directly apply international law.  Negligence or reluctance to transpose international law into national law can only be a problem in dualistic states. States are free to choose how they want to respect international law, but they are always responsible if they do not adapt their national legal systems to be able to respect international law.
Either they adopt a constitution that implements a monistic system so that international law can be applied directly and without transformation, or they do not. But then they have to translate all international law into national law. In a monistic state, we rely only on judges and not on legislators, but judges can also make mistakes. If a judge of a monist State makes mistakes in the application of international law, then the country violates international law just as much as a dualistic country which, for one reason or another, does not allow its judges to apply international law directly and not to translate it correctly and effectively or not correctly and effectively.  One of the reasons for the preference for dualism is precisely the fear that national judges are not familiar with international law – a very complex area of law – and may therefore make mistakes. The use of private law concepts in the federal legislative context plays an important role in the process of resolving the interpretative dilemma of private law. Therefore, judicial interpretation must be based primarily on the definition of the legal concept of private law and not on official languages as a vehicle for bilingual communication.