This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Indeed, and thanks again for sharing those links. Obviously, terminology may differ per country/jurisdiction. Military Court of Appeals seems to be used exclusively in Israel, as already pointed out by Katerina. Your version - Military Court of Appeal - seems to be in wider use, as are the other options suggested by Barend and Adrian in their comments to Etienne's answer. And, as far as I can see, 'Martial-Courts Appeal Court would be yet another way of putting it.
Following up on writeaway's clever suggestion, I came across the following info (taken from a publication about post-WW II prosecution of acts of collaboration) which I also posted in my reference comment but thought I might add here too:
The prosecution and punishment of crimes committed against the external security of the state was entrusted to the military judiciary, which consisted of courts martial (krijgsraden, conseils de guerre) and the Court of Military Appeals (Krijgshof; Cour militaire), which were part of the ordinary judiciary. (...) The courts martial and Court of Military Appeals were composed of a civilian magistrate and lay judges, who were officers or reserve officers. With a view to processing the acts of collaboration, the number of civilian magistrates was increased. https://chs.revues.org/998
Since this is Belgian and it dates from WWI, I suggest finding the French term. In WWI, the upper echelons of the Belgian military were French (something that has caused probs between French and Flemish since) and imo the Dutch is a translation of the French term. Since you also list that you know French, I suggest finding French references as well to check.
Barend, I might be wrong of course, but I suspect that Kitty has actually never once broken a KudoZ rule, at least not any of the ones relating to professional conduct and "being nice to each other". Sadly, I cannot say the same of myself, as I regularly break rules right and left, but hopefully only in self-defense. Admittedly, this isn't great either, and I am working on learning new ways to respond to people who act like mallooten to me or others. Responding in kind will of course only cause the problem to repeat itself endlessly.
Ja, en waarom zou ik verantwoording aan jou moeten afleggen?
Houd jij je nu aan je eigen principes, dan houd ik me aan die van mijzelf. Ik sta volledig achter mijn opmerking richting writeaway.
Nogmaals dit is iets tussen writeaway en mij, het is jouw business niet.
Bovendien als je meent dat ik of iemand anders hier de regels heeft overtreden stap dan naar de bevoegde proz-com mensen en ga niet zelf voor moderator spelen.
Je mag mijn gedrag uiteraard in de gaten houden, en ik houd me aanbevolen voor opbouwende kritiek indien mijn gedrag daar aanleiding toe geeft, maar ik maak me sterk dat je me ooit zult betrappen (of hebt kunnen betrappen) op opmerkingen in de D-box waarin ik collega's vraag om 'verantwoording' af te leggen over hun redenen voor het verwijderen of wijzigen van peer comments (of antwoorden).
Ik vind het persoonlijk storend en niet ten goede komen aan de sfeer in deze taalcombinatie. Daarnaast zijn dit soort discussiebijdragen ook in strijd met de regels, die mijns inziens niet voor niets zijn opgesteld. Zie 'site rules' 3.2 en 3.5: http://www.proz.com/?sp=siterules&mode=show&category=kudoz_a...
Ik zou ten eerste zeggen dat writeway vrouws genoeg is om voor haarzelf op te komen, dat hoef jij niet te doen.
Ten tweede, writeaway had een agree gegeven aan BQuigley, die was plotseling verdwenen. Wat mij betreft is er niets mis mee als je van mening verandert, maar haal je comment dan niet weg en verander die in een neutral met een verklaring erbij.
Ik vind het vreemd als een agree plotseling verdwenen is en daar reageerde ik op. That's all.
Let's try not to make this forum into some kind of tribunal by calling other colleagues to task so to speak for certain choices they've made, including choices they've made on second thoughts. Every now and then I also find myself in situations where I decide to change my earlier peer comment based on 'voortschrijdend inzicht'. I don't think there's much wrong with that and I would say no one is obliged to account for this to you or to anyone else for that matter.
Could you maybe tell us what kind of document you are translating, and provide us with some more of your surrounding text, including things like chapter titles, tables, or anything else relevant. Might save us all a lot of time.
actually, I also don't like this word - Tribunal, for more reasons than Nuremberg alone. What about Chief Military Court? straight from Imperial Russia :))
it is really a Military Appellate Court - I agree. Maybe the solution is : Krijgsraad = Army Court; and Krijgshof = Military Appellate Court
I will interrupt Michael's habit of answering questions, or attempts to/at answering questions, in the D-box for a while.
I did not see your explanation and I still don't see it. In my opinion, you should have modified your comment agree --> neutral, so that anyone can see the true history of the arguments.
As far as your second 'point' is concerned, I don't consider myself at all in charge here, especially I won't in the legal field.
C. Evidence in favour of "Military Court of Appeal":
In Google results, I found:
"en meer specifiek de hoogste instantie – het Krijgshof – deze nieuwe ... of exception, and in particular its highest authority – the Military Court of appeal – has." … but I can;t get at the text.
Van Dale NL/EN: Krijgshof, het (in België)= military high court
Van Dale online: Krijgshof (het; o) (België) 1.hoogste militaire rechtbank
***************************** B. Evidence in favour of "Military Tribunal":
"11.2 Belgium
• Brussels Military Tribunal (Krijgshof), Military Prosecutor CGKR v. Dirk N., 7 May 1998. • Belgian Military Court of Appeal (Militair Gerechtshof), Prosecutor v. C.K and B.C., Judgment of 17 December 1997, reported in Journal desTribunaux 1998, 286-289."
(Accountability Of Peace Support Operations By M. C. Zwanenburg @ https://goo.gl/o36WX8 )
I am not so sure I got it again. I am sure I got it at another question. :-) Unlike 'this other question', which remains between you and me as our most precious secret, this question isn't really my department, far from it.
However, you are absolutely right, my thoughts on this are simple, most likely too simple. I will explain to you what I mean.
'tribunal' sounds like Nuremberg to me, so I have my doubts about that one.
I like the logic of the other answer which may be supported by the info in my reference comment and http://tinyurl.com/zelr5dh
But as I said, I am treading on dangerous ground here.
military tribunal decides the fates of prisoners of war military court of appeals is an Israeli institution that leaves "military appellate court" as the only option you do have to be careful of the exact context around these terms. I'd say "hof" has more authority, or perhaps it's an euphemism, if there are too many 'Krijgsraad''s in the text.