If so, it is obviously very important to make sure you know your audience and provide messages to potential clients and consumers in a language that will both be understood and that your prospective audience will embrace.

Even the Indian government itself has encountered confusion in determining what language to use in the densely populated and diverse nation. This is clearly illustrated in a recent Gujarati High Court legal opinion that held that Hindi, one of the “national languages of India,” was essentially a “foreign language” to Gujaratis.

Law Requires Notices in “Main Language”

The case involved published notices of land acquisitions by the National Highways Authority of India (“NHAI”) for expansion of a national highway in the Junagrah district of Gujarat. The notices were given in newspapers in both English and Hindi, both of which are considered “official languages” of India.

These notices, however, angered a group of Gujarati farmers whose land was directly affected by the planned government acquisitions and who did not understand either Hindi or English. The farmers took the matter to court and argued that the NHAI had breached an Indian law that requires such notices to be published in the “main language” of the relevant geographic area.

In its decision, the Gujarat High Court stated that “[t]his is an admitted position that the language of the region where the petitioners are residing … the language used by them is Gujarati and the Hindi language used in the notification is foreign to them. The normal spoken language in the region is Gujarati and not Hindi. Similarly, the education imparted at the primary school-level is also Gujarati.” Accordingly, the court held that the notices provided by the NHAI were “null and void.” The court, however, refused to completely cancel the highway project on this basis.

This court decision has implications that go far beyond the mere facts of this case. It also is instructive to anyone who does business in India or any other country where multiple languages and/or dialects are spoken. It is important to note that while there are 22 different languages recognized by the Constitution of India, only Hindi and English are given special “official language” status. The Constitution provides, however, that the legislature of an Indian State may adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or declare that Hindi is the language to be used for any and all official purposes.

The lesson that anyone doing business in India must take from this case is that merely translating your message, regardless of the type of message, into an “official language” is insufficient. You must find out the language or dialect that is predominantly used in the area in which you are trying to communicate.

As you read about Hungary in the news, keep in mind this short version of the country’s history.

An Abridged History of Hungary

A landlocked country, Hungary is bordered by Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Austria. Hungary’s ancient history is rooted in semi-nomadic tribes that moved from Southern Russia and the Black Sea coast. After the 16^th century, Hungary became part of the Ottoman and Habsburg empires. It became a partner in the Austro-Hungarian empire in the mid-19^th century and finally became an independent kingdom following World War I.

World War I left millions of Hungarians living in nearby countries due to European countries redrawing national borders. Today, many ethnic Hungarians continue to dispute their status and complicate Hungary’s relations with neighboring countries.

After World War II, Hungary became a communist state. In 1956, Hungarians led an uprising against Soviet communism that was unsuccessful but led to more economic freedom down the road. Hungary remained under communist rule until 1968, when it decentralized the economy.

In 1990, Hungary held its first multiparty elections. Hungary’s landscape changed drastically post-communism, as the private sector rapidly expanded and foreign direct investment poured into the country. Ten years later, in 2008, private and public borrowing had reached such high levels that the Hungarian government was forced to borrow from the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank to prevent a major economic collapse.

Displeased by the poor handling of the economy, Hungarians supported a right-wing nationalist party in parliamentary elections, which brought current Prime Minister Viktor Orban to power. Since he’s been in office, Orban has pushed through sweeping measures to reshape the government, setting off alarms across Europe. He passed a new constitution, which critics say increases the government’s control over the news media and courts, seriously weakened the independence of the nation’s central bank,  and dismantled democratic aspects of the judiciary.

European Union Policy Concerns

By January 2012, the European Commission issued a final warning to Hungary to modify its policies or face formal legal action. In mid-January, the European Commission said it would initiate legal proceedings against Hungary over its concerns that Orban’s government is undermining democracy. Hungary may be forced to change its rules, or it can be taken to the European Court of Justice. Hungarian officials say that the country is ready to negotiate with the European Commission as a partner.

The Hungary turmoil has highlighted a broader policy issue in the EU. Once a nation becomes part of the EU, the bloc struggles to prevent member countries from adopting policies that undermine the EU’s basic principles. The outcome of the Hungary case may set a new precedent for how the EU will monitor and oversee EU member governments.

Facts About Hungary

• Official Name: Republic of Hungary
• Capital: Budapest
• Population: 10 million (2011)
• Area: 35,910 square miles, about the size of Indiana
• Major Language: Hungarian
• Major Religion: Christianity
• Main exports: Machinery and transport equipment, foodstuffs, chemicals

The Law at Issue

The 1994 federal law, called the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, was passed to implement the Uruguay Round General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), an international trade negotiation that took place between 1986 and 1994 and led to the creation of the World Trade Organization. GATT includes the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), which requires signatories to establish minimum levels of protection for intellectual property.

When the US signed, it promised to provide for automatic restoration of copyright in foreign works that were in the public domain in the US but protected by copyright in other countries. Those works were formerly ineligible for copyright protection in the US because they were not originally published in the US.

The Copyright Case

The plaintiffs in the case, a group of orchestra conductors, performers and motion picture distributors, sought to overturn the 1994 law on the ground that Congress did not have authority under the Constitution to reinstitute copyright protection once it had already been released into the public domain. They also argued that the law violated the free speech rights of those who already used the works because they were in the public domain before.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the 6-2 majority opinion, focusing on the international treatment of copyrights. The US had been out of sync with other countries’ treatment of copyrights and wanted to harmonize with the international community by passing the 1994 law. Prior to 1994, at the Uruguay Round discussions, the US, facing harsh criticism, remedied the situation and brought US legislation back in line with copyright protections internationally.

In response to the free speech claim, the court decided that anyone who wants to use a copyrighted work must pay for the privilege. It did not matter that the works had earlier been released to the public. Current safeguards in copyright law are sufficient to ensure that free speech interests are adequately protected.

Two dissenters in the case, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Samuel Alito, expressed concerns that Congress does not have the powers to withdraw works from the public domain, without providing additional incentives for producing new material. Their concern was that the 1994 law does not encourage the production of artistic works as copyright law was intended to do.

What Does This Mean for Copyrights?

For foreign works that had obtained copyrights in other countries but never in the US, the 1994 law provided a guarantee that those works would receive copyright protection for the remainder of the copyright term in the US.

Many works that were not eligible for protection before 1994 were freely copied. With the reinstatement of these works’ copyright protection, industries that freely used the works before will now have to pay royalty fees to the artists.

A Case of Mistranslated Hindi

In a Canadian Superior Court, an attorney who spoke Hindi suspected that the hired Hindi interpreter could not keep the pace of simultaneous interpretation. This, despite the observation that the interpreter spoke Hindi well.

The legal case involved allegations of sexual assault. The key terms that the court later found were misinterpreted included using “physical” assault in place of “sexual” assault; and “a couple of weeks” in place of “two days.”

A US-based expert reviewed tapes of the cross-examination. The expert reported that the interpreter failed to interpret the proceedings verbatim, but instead summarized most of the proceedings. The Superior Court Justice later declared a mistrial, claiming that the interpreter’s substandard Hindi interpretation of important factual allegations of assault caused prejudice and a denial of the guaranteed standard of interpretation under the Canadian constitution.

Bilingual Ability Isn’t Enough

This story shows that being a good legal interpreter requires a lot more than just being bilingual. The Canadian interpreter was certainly bilingual but still had difficulty keeping up with the demands of simultaneous interpretation. This highlights the importance of hiring a professional legal interpreter who has the skills necessary to conduct an accurate interpretation.

Important Skills of an Interpreter

The skills of a qualified interpreter include an immediate understanding of two or more languages. But this understanding must go beyond simply being bilingual. The interpreter must have an immediate and fluid ability to simultaneously listen and interpret words and phrases without paraphrasing, and quickly enough so that the interpreter can hear the next phrase. This skill requires experience and expertise.

A qualified interpreter must also have subject area expertise. That is, he or she must know specialized vocabulary for the setting. For example, an interpreter in a courtroom setting must know courtroom terminology in both languages and must know what conduct is appropriate for a legal setting.

A qualified interpreter must also be knowledgeable about the culture of the country from which the languages originate. He or she must be familiar with cultural expressions and slang so that the speaker’s full intent and message are clearly articulated in the second language.

Interpretation Requirements Vary

Standards of interpretation vary by jurisdiction. In the United States, for example, interpretation requirements may differ depending on which state the court resides in.

Regardless of which legal jurisdiction your case will be decided in, it is important to always hire a professional interpreter. Substandard interpretation can lead to mistrials — a huge waste of resources — or worse, a trial that is prejudiced by an unqualified legal interpreter but never discovered to be so.

In 2011, there were 1,607 immigration-related bills and resolutions introduced in state legislatures, compared to about 1,400 in 2010. All 50 states and Puerto Rico introduced immigration legislation, as compared to 46 states in 2010.

Although there was a marked increase in bills introduced, this doesn’t mean that states actually enacted more immigration legislation than in 2010. In fact, 11 percent fewer bills were enacted in 2011, compared to 2010. In 2011, a total of 306 new laws and resolutions were enacted as of December 7. Fifteen bills were passed but later vetoed by state governors.

State Omnibus Immigration Bills

Although signed into law in 2010, the most talked about immigration legislation in 2011 may have been Arizona’s SB 1070. Five other states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — followed Arizona’s lead, enacting similar bills that expanded law enforcement’s power to inquire about the immigration status of highway drivers, created violations for failure to carry an alien registration document, and required employers to use E-Verify when making new hires.

These bills also created new violations for US citizens who harbor or transport illegal immigrants. All five of these new state laws have been challenged on grounds of civil rights violations and federal preemption — that federal immigration laws prohibit states from legislating about immigration.

Identification and Employment Laws

Other top issues in state immigration laws related to identification documents for immigrants and the employment of illegal immigrants.

Six states passed laws requiring sex offender registries to also list proof of citizenship or lawful immigrant status. Eleven states enacted legislation requiring employers to use E-Verify, and now seventeen states have a requirement to use E-Verify. On the federal level, bills have been introduced in Congress to make E-Verify a permanent and mandatory verification system for all federal, state and local government employers, but none had been enacted.

Expanding Access to Education

While some states cracked down on illegal immigration, others expanded benefits for illegal immigrants within their territories.

For example, Connecticut and Maryland passed laws permitting illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition. California went a step further, offering financial aid to illegal immigrants.

In total, 13 states now permit students to become eligible for in-state tuition if they graduate from state high schools, have two to three years of residence in the state, and apply to a state college or university. On the federal level, immigrant children are eligible for free primary and secondary education but are not guaranteed financial aid for college tuition.

Immigration: An Important Issue for States

According to Sen. John Watkins of the Virginia Senate, co-chair of the NCSL Task Force on Immigration and the States, the increase in state bills shows that in absence of federal immigration reform, state legislatures are developing local responses.

Said Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos of the Washington Legislature, also co-chair of the task force: “States are at the forefront of managing immigration policy,” and are asking for federal government to support effective enforcement of immigration laws in place.

Here’s what happened, according to the Times Record in Fort Smith, Arkansas:

Jose Luis Mendez was originally sentenced to 60 years in prison for rape, attempted murder, aggravated residential burglary and aggravated assault. Mendez’s conviction was based in part on his own statement in Spanish that he committed the crimes with which he was charged.

Both the prosecutor’s office and the defense prepared interpretations of the interview in English, but came out with very different interpretations. During an interview, a detective asked Mendez if he grabbed his girlfriend by the neck. His response according to the prosecution’s interpretation was, “I did that.” But according to the defense’s interpretation, Mendez responded, “I didn’t do that.” This difference in interpretation obviously led to a critical misunderstanding.

The judge admitted both translations as evidence, but left it up to the jury to decide which interpreter was more credible. The interpreters testified on the stand about their qualifications. The interpreter for the defense was certified for the state of Arkansas. The interpreter for the prosecutor’s office, however, had taken the qualification exam but failed it.

Later, a higher court disagreed with the trial judge’s decision to admit both interpretations, and demanded a new trial. The higher court justice explained that the issue should not have been submitted to the jury.

The Importance of Accurate Interpreting

This real story illustrates the importance of obtaining qualified court interpreters and the very serious consequences that may result in using an unqualified court interpreter. Courtroom interpreting can be crucial to the outcome of a court case depending on the experience of the interpreter. Poor interpreting can cause prejudice in the courtroom.

Given this huge potential for bias it is of the utmost importance that words are being interpreted as accurately as possible. The case in Arkansas turned on a crucial difference in interpretation, and led to a big misunderstanding, and a big loss of time and money.

Is a Certified Interpreter Necessary?

Although there is no nationwide standard for interpreter certification, some states require that interpreters be certified in order to perform in court. For example, Arkansas has one level of certification for legal interpreters.

In the Arkansas case, it was deemed that the uncertified interpreter’s work should have been thrown out and that the only interpretation that was admissible was that of the defense since the interpreter was certified through the state certification program.

However, not all excellent interpreters are certified. Sometimes an interpreter’s experience and familiarity with legal terminology is more important than certification. There are specialized terms, roles and ethics unique to the legal setting that make it vastly different from the community setting.  Furthermore, the stakes are very high when statements are not accurately interpreted in the courtroom setting.

Either way, it is in your best interest to hire a professional interpreter since successful interpreting for court proceedings requires very specific skills and expertise.

Burma has been entrenched in political turmoil for the past 50 years. A repressive military dictatorship has caused the displacement of more than 3.5 million Burmese to the Thai-Burma border. Today, hundreds of thousands of Burmese refugees live in refugee camps in Thailand and Malaysia.

Why the Burmese Come to the US

The US is one of some 11 countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Finland, to accept Burmese refugees. The US has historically accepted more refugees for resettlement than all other countries combined. In FY 2010, the US admitted more than 10,000 Burmese Karen and Karenni refugees living in camps along the Thai-Burma border and 6,000 Burmese Chin in Malaysia. The State Department proposed admitting up to 18,500 more Burmese refugees in 2011.

Where Burmese Refugees Are Settling

Fort Wayne, Indiana, is home to about 3,500 Burmese refugees, the largest community in the US. The refugee population includes people who have fled Burma over the past 20 years, such as Buddhist monks, Christians and Muslims. Many of Fort Wayne’s Burmese refugees were imprisoned and tortured in Burma in the wake of a pro-democracy uprising in 1988.

Non-profit resettlement organizations began bringing Burmese refugees to Fort Wayne for a number of reasons, including the city’s number of jobs not requiring English proficiency and the low cost of housing. Once refugees started resettling there, the area became a bustling Burmese community that even offered Burmese products.

In addition to Fort Wayne, Burmese refugees have resettled in large numbers in Utica, New York; Elizabeth, New Jersey; Phoenix, Arizona; and Fort Worth, Texas.

How Resettlement Works

Burmese refugees are interviewed by US government officers in Southeast Asia. If they are approved for resettlement, they are screened for medical issues and a criminal history and are provided basic cultural training before traveling to the US.

Eleven resettlement agencies with offices scattered throughout the US are responsible for resettling refugees once they arrive at a port of entry. These agencies operate under contracts with the US government to provide refugees rent, English language classes, job placement and training, and medical assistance. The goal is to make the refugees self-sufficient by the end of four months.

Language Services for Burmese Refugees

Many of the Burmese refugees are ethnic minorities, including the Karen, Karenni, and Chin. The Karen are one of the largest ethnic populations from Burma. Karenni, or Red Karen, people originated from a formerly independent region in southern Burma. Both the Karen and Karenni speak dialects of the Karen languages. The Chin people originate from the western Burma and also live in nearby Indian states. They speak Hakha, a language shared by other small groups in nearby India and Bangladesh.

A city or community should determine whether its refugees from Burma speak Burmese, Karen or another language or dialect, and then consider what translation or interpreting services are needed to communicate with the population. This may include translations of public notices and government forms, and/or interpreters for on-site or telephonic proceedings.

Of course, your community may have its own unique needs, and a professional language services company can help you meet them. In fact, a company like Legal Language Services can even help you determine how best to reach out to the Burmese refugees in your area if you are unsure of the languages or dialects specific to your community.

The question then arises: Are these “costs of suit” that can be recouped by the winning party?

The answer is not clear. 28 U.S.C. § 1920 allows a winning party to recoup costs for certain categories of expenses incurred during litigation, such as fees associated with filing, printing or electronically recording transcripts; disbursements for printing materials and witnesses; and making copies of relevant litigation materials. Section 1920(6) also allows a court to award the prevailing party costs incurred in relation to court appointed experts, interpreters and special interpretation services (emphasis added).

Circuit courts have been split about whether written translation is equivalent to oral interpreting, and should therefore be covered as a cost of suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

The issue is now before the US Supreme Court. It is expected that the Supreme Court’s decision will significantly impact how transnational litigation is conducted.

The case at issue, Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, LTD, 633 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011), is before the Supreme Court on appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The facts of the case involve Kouichi Taniguchi, a former Japanese professional baseball player who fell through a wooden deck at a resort in the Mariana Islands. Taniguchi later sued the resort for negligence, but the resort was granted summary judgment by the district court.

As part of its decision, the district court awarded costs to the resort, “including the costs of translating contracts and other documents from Japanese to English.” Taniguchi appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion discusses the split between the Sixth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits regarding “compensation of interpreters” and the proper interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The court focused on section 1920(6) which provides for an award costs incurred in relation to court appointed experts, interpreters and special interpretation services.

In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit held that a dictionary definition of “interpret” could include spoken and written translation, agreeing with the view held by the Sixth Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia:

We are persuaded by the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning. District courts are free to interpret the meaning of the cast of categories listed within § 1920. In § 1920(6), the word “interpreter” can reasonably encompass a “translator,” both according to the dictionary definition and common usage of these terms, which does not always draw precise distinctions between foreign language interpretations involving live speech versus written documents. More importantly, the Sixth Circuit’s analysis is more compatible with Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which includes a decided preference for the award of costs to the prevailing party.

633 F.3d at 1221. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit rejected the more limited view of the Seventh Circuit, which has firmly held that an interpreter translates only the spoken, but not the written, word. See id. at 1221-22.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Sixth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits that lower courts should have more freedom in determining what costs prevailing parties can recover, the decision will lead to losing parties being responsible for more litigation costs, including the cost of translating documents from one language to another.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s decision may significantly impact the manner in which litigants conduct discovery and other aspects of litigation, including limiting the number of foreign documents translated in order to avoid incurring future costs stemming from an award.

What’s Happening in North Korea Now

In mid-December, North Korean media announced that Kim Jong-il, the longstanding leader of the country, died of a heart attack at the age of 69.

Kim Jong-il succeeded his father Kim Il-sung to become the second leader of North Korea in 1994. Shortly after he came to power, North Korea suffered acute food shortages caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement. These disasters resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2 million people. Human rights groups have accused Kim Jong-il of systematic human rights abuses, such as torture, public executions, slave labor, forced abortions and infanticides.

Under Kim Jong-il, North Korea became a nuclear power, which quickly led to its global isolation. In 2002, the leader decided to reactivate a nuclear reactor and expel international inspectors. By 2006, North Korea claimed to have tested a nuclear weapon.

Many years of diplomatic negotiations ensued as negotiating partners — the US, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia– attempted to persuade North Korea to shut down its main nuclear reactor in exchange for aid and diplomatic concessions. In 2009, North Korea abandoned international talks to end its nuclear development.

South Korea has been particularly concerned about North Korea’s nuclear program. In 2010, the South accused North Korea for sinking a warship and subsequently cut off all cross-border trade. North Korea denied responsibility for the event. The US responded by instituting tough sanctions against North Korea, causing Kim Jong-il to resume international talks. The talks remained tepid as another cross-border clash in November 2010 led to the deaths of two South Korean marines.

An Abridged History of North Korea

For most of its history, Korea was an independent kingdom. It was briefly occupied by Japan beginning in 1905, but was formally annexed in 1910.

After World War II, the peninsula was split into North and South. The northern half came under Soviet-sponsored Communist control, and the South established a capitalist democracy backed by the US. Kim Il-sung became leader of North Korea in 1948.

Almost immediately after the two states were formed, North Korean forces launched attacks against South Korea and invaded in 1950. The United Nations responded by sending troops and assistance to South Korea. Hostilities continued until 1953, when both sides signed an armistice agreement. The two Koreas are still technically at war, since no comprehensive peace agreement has replaced the 1953 armistice pact.

Although little is known about North Korea due to its isolation, it is known to have one of the largest armies in the world.

With very little information about Kim Jong-un, time will tell how the country will transition to new leadership.

North Korea Key Facts

• Full name: The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
• Population: 23.9 million (2010)
• Capital: Pyongyang
• Major language: Korean
• Major religions: atheist or non-religious, traditional beliefs
• Main exports: minerals and metals, cement, agricultural products

But US citizenship can be revoked. Here’s what you should know.

Acts That Can Lead You to Lose US Citizenship

US citizens can lose their citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish US citizenship. These acts include:

• Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state

• Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions

• Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the US or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state

• Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state; (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position

• Formally renouncing US citizenship before a US diplomatic or consular officer outside the US

• Formally renouncing US citizenship in the US, under strict, narrow conditions

• Conviction for an act of treason

The important thing to remember is that all of these acts must be done voluntarily and with the intent to lose US citizenship. If the act itself is not voluntary, one will not automatically lose citizenship. For example, if a person is forced to serve in the armed forces of another country, this will not lead to the automatic loss of citizenship.

Intent to Relinquish Citizenship

The US State Department also automatically assumes that an individual does not intend to give up citizenship when performing one of the acts. If asked, the individual can always testify that he did not intend to lose his citizenship.

For example, an individual may take a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state without automatically revoking his citizenship as long as he did not have the intention to relinquish it. This is how the US effectively allows citizens to acquire new citizenships while maintaining US citizenship — and become a dual citizen.

In certain circumstances, however, an individual will not get the benefit of this assumption. This includes people engaged in active hostilities against the US.

Certificate of Loss of Nationality

If a US citizen satisfies the criteria for loss of citizenship, he or she will be issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality, signifying renunciation of all citizenship rights.