0

Excerpt:

Tourists and visitors should benefit, in compliance with international law and national legislation, from the liberty to move within their countries and from one State to another, in accordance with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; they should have access to places of transit and stay and to tourism and cultural sites without being subject to excessive formalities or discrimination; Source: Global Code of Ethics for Tourism

I know in compliance with means obeying, however, I need to know the subject of obeying in this long-run sentence.

Interpretation 1: Tourists and visitors should benefit, while they (=Tourists and visitors) should be in compliance with(=obey) international law and national legislation, from the liberty to move within their countries and ...

Interpretation 2: in compliance with(=according to) international law and national legislation, and in accordance with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Tourists and visitors should benefit from the liberty to move within their countries and ...

Improve this question
2
  • Can you please cite a source for this, preferably including a link? Often, I find that knowing what's in the rest of the document is helpful.
    – Catija
    Commented Apr 23, 2015 at 22:52
  • @Catija Sure! did this.
    – Juya
    Commented Apr 23, 2015 at 23:02

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

In compliance with international law and national legislation qualifies benefit.

Whatever benefits are received "from the liberty to move within their countries and from one State to another, in accordance with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" are limited to those being "in compliance with international law and national legislation."

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    So you go for interpretation 1. Am I right?
    – Juya
    Commented Apr 23, 2015 at 23:13
  • 1
    Yes. I agree with @TRomano that it is weird to use "benefit" in this way, though not impossible or wrong.
    – LawrenceC
    Commented Apr 29, 2015 at 4:36
1

This is an odd sentence IMO. People must act in compliance with law. But people do not benefit in compliance with law.

Either the authors are thinking of the verb "move" in the next sentence (People must move in compliance with law) or they are thinking of an implicit "must be allowed": "People must be allowed, in compliance with law, to benefit from ..."

Because it leaves out the actors who are obliged to comply with law, the "should benefit from" construction obscures these legal obligations or social imperatives. We can make them clearer if we recast the sentence:

In other words, "In compliance with law, we must allow people to benefit from the liberty to move...."

The word "we" could be replaced with the word "States".

In formal documents of this nature, authors try to avoid "We" because they're often writing about contentious subjects and don't want to be criticized for assuming the existence of a consensus opinion or unity (which "we" implies). The often try to "soften" their language, attempting to say things without really saying them. So they seek roundabout ways of expressing ideas, which often gets them into a hot mess grammatically.

Improve this answer
2
  • to my disappointment your comment is quite opposite the comment of @ultrasawblade. I see you go for interpretation 2. I think interpretation 1 somehow better since in the part in accordance with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is telling why states should let visitors movements and may be the part in compliance with international law and national legislation is restricting the right of tourists... I feel confused!
    – Juya
    Commented Apr 24, 2015 at 20:25
  • 1
    As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of pointing out how the language is being abused by the authors.
    – TimR
    Commented Apr 24, 2015 at 22:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .