I’d like to ask if it is possible to separate the phrase “require smb/sth to” in a sentence:
International standards of ensuring the principle of independence of judges – the principle proclaimed in articles 106 and 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of XXX – require the main role when forming judicial manpower and controlling it (selection of judges, charging them from office, holding them liable, etc.) to belong to a body of judicial community that is independent of the rest authorities.
Yes, it is possible. Perhaps it is a bit confusing to have such a large gap and from a stylistic point of view it would be better to say:
when forming judicial manpower and controlling it (selection of judges, charging them from office, holding them liable, etc.) require the main role to belong to a body of judicial community that is independent of the rest authorities.
Alan, thank you very much!
While not quite addressing your question, actually the whole sentence is impossible from a comprehension point of view, as well as containing a number of errors. For example: one has ‘standards for ensuring …’, ‘standards which ensure…’ or simply ‘standards ensuring…’.
The use of multiple hyphens in this context is also confusing, and may indicate a struggle to form proper clauses with suitable punctuation. The information in this case would really benefit from a short paragraph rather than such a convoluted compound sentence.
When putting across a technical point it is often helpful to start with a brief statement, followed by an explanation. This enables the reader to follow the whole argument without having to unravel all the related clauses after reading the sentence. e.g.
<<The principle proclaimed in articles 106 and 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of XXX has established (followed?) an international standard ensuring (requiring?) the independence of judges. The principle’s primary requirement is that … belongs to a professional body which is independent of the employing authority.>>
I’m not sure if the intended meaning is actually correct here because, frankly, I can’t understand what you have written. It might have been clearer if I could have seen it in context, but I hope this is useful as an example: statement -> explanation. It also helps if the initial statement can kept as brief as possible.
Ignoring the meaning for a moment, but using your words, your initial statement could have started something like:
<<International standards require the main role to belong to an independent body …>>
Thank you very much, Anglo Sax.
Anglo Sax, taking into account what you have said, I’ll try to explain the intendent meaning in as simplest manner as possible:
The situation is as follows: There are some international standards. They were not established by the country in question. The country just follows these standards, and the author of the text says that this principle (principle of independence of judges) is proclaimed in some articles of the Constitution of the country.
Judges can be appointed to their positions and judges can be dissmissed/charged from their positions. And according to these internation standards, all these functions (i.e. appointing and dissmissing) should be done by a judicial community body and this body shoud be independent of the rest authorities.
But the author of the original text does not say “functions should be done”, he says “international standards require the main role, when forming judiciary and controlling it, to belong to a judicial community body independent of the rest authorities”.
I understood the ‘gist’ of it.
Your first explanatory paragraph is an excellent example of the structure I was suggesting. I think you mean “intended meaning” not “intendent”, dismissed = discharged (not charged), international not “internation”, not sure what is meant by “rest authorities” or “main role”. (One problem when dealing with ‘legalese’ is that one often comes across words/phrases which seem incorrect, only to find that they are archaic or specialist to that profession.) Functions are not “done” they are carried out.
I suspect the original author was not a native English speaker. Your English may even be more competent than his. The sentence you have quoted is extremely badly written, although one can glean some meaning from it. The real problem seems to be that you are dealing with sophisticated concepts written by non English speakers, and expecting to be able to paraphrase from that material, assuming it will be correct and people will understand what you mean. Most native English speakers would struggle with that.
There is a huge problem with the teaching/examining of international legal English. Item writers generally do not have legal backgrounds and teachers/examiners may not have sufficent knowledge of international or legal affairs to understand what the candidates have written (or are trying to say).
Unfortunately, your profile gives me no clue to your intent. If you are simply learning the language and developing ideas, then good luck to you - I urge you to try to source as much original data as possible from a native English origin. If you are attempting to use your English for a critical purpose you should be prepared to pay someone suitably qualified to edit and rewrite your material. Legal English is a nightmare - we have annual awards for people who publish ‘gobbledygook’ and these are usually given to well educated people whose first language is English!
Anglo Sax, thank you very much again for your detailed answer!
And I’m very sorry for ridiculous typos in my previous post.