Is the translation accurate?

[Kenny同志]

In a translation coursebook, I came across this sentence:

合营公司为中国法人，受中国法律管辖和保护。

And its translation:

The joint venture company is a legal person in China, who shall be governed and protected by Chinese law.

The translation doesn’t seem quite right to me though as “shall” indicates obligatoriness whereas the original merely states a fact.

What do you think of "The joint enterprise is a Chinese legal person and is governed and protected by the law of China"?

[dwq]

This looks like a legal clause, and the coursebook probably assumes such a context. And in such cases I think the "shall be governed..." form is a more accurate translation, since AFAIK this form is more likely to be seen than the "is governed..." form on an English contract.

[fanglu]

'Shall' can be a confusing word to use in a legal context because it means both 'will' (or 'must'), as well as 'is'. It is often overused.

In the example given, if the company shall be governed by Chinese law, what law is it currently governed by?

I would prefer Kenny's translation.

[edelweis]

Actually perhaps the confusion comes from using both "is" and "shall" in the same sentence.

The joint venture company is a legal person in China, who shall be governed and protected by Chinese law.

Could there be 3 possibilities then:

1) the company is about to be created. Then use shall...shall.

2) the company already exists and continues with the same status. Then use is...is.

3) the company already exists, but a court ruling asserts that Chinese law, and not another law, must govern it. Then use is...shall.

What do you think? (I'm not a native English speaker)

[Kenny同志]

Thanks everybody for your help.

@edelweis

The original sentence doesn't have any context. It's presented as a legal clause.

[anonymoose]

Without context it's impossible to say for sure, but without context, by default I'd choose the second of edelweis' translations.

I think this use of "shall" is normal, but very formal and legalese.

[Kenny同志]

Thanks for sharing your view, Anonymoose. Sometimes it's possible to determine the meaning of a particular sentence without context. As a native Chinese speaker, I believe the intended meaning of the original is that joint enterprises [formed on the Mainland]are Chinese legal persons and are governed and protected by the law of China, which would be clearer.