Q: Do you mean translating into English, or from English?

Either way, I would worry more about understanding the entirety of a situation and not ruminate over particularities.

Disclaimer: this is an opinion, I am only a student. Thanks!

Thank you, this is not about translete problems, but how to draft a legal norms with appropriately and represents the desired goal with the word limitations in the language itself. Any language must have the limitation to represent an expression desired by a legal drafter.

No problem. As far as I am understanding what you are saying, I think defining norms goes into defining terms, then maybe searching what other ways curate the same understanding without losing significance in approach. For example, use descriptive methods.

The most important issue is lack of confusion during the drafting process and pick terms that serves the actual meaning the legislature intended during drafting the original document.

When drafting legislation involving concepts which are ambiguous in, or not well supported by, the language in which the legislation is to be drafted, one practical approach is to use an interpretation provision in which the term referring to that concept is defined.

Uncertainty in the meaning of words is a characteristic concern of legislative drafters in English-language jurisdictions. Several such jurisdictions follow a drafting practice in which Acts of Parliament include a section headed "interpretation" or (in Australian plain-English drafting) "definitions". Current Australian plain-English drafting practice goes a step further by removing the interpretation section to a schedule, usually bearing the title "dictionary".

Compare the following interpretation provisions in Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and UK crimes legislation:

The Australian approach is the most comprehensive. Not only does s. 4 of the the Criminal Code Act 1995 (CTH) point to the dictionary (in Volume 2), but many divisions and even subdivisions of the Code (which itself comprises a schedule to the Act) contain further definitions (see ss. 70.1, 71.23, 72.10, 72.36, etc.) which are specifically applicable to the respective parts of the legislation. By contrast, the corresponding UK legislation defines only a few terms.

Supposing that for some reason it is difficult even to describe the relevant concept in the language in which the legislation is to be drafted, another approach would be to use an applicable foreign language term and to define it with reference to its meaning in the law of another jurisdiction, either as at a certain date (fixed meaning) or as understood from time to time (dynamic meaning). However, every effort should be made to avoid reliance on foreign language and reference to foreign law because it makes legislation less accessible to users in the jurisdiction in which the legislation is to be enacted. Depending on the terms of the applicable constitution, such lack of accessibility may introduce doubts concerning legal validity of provisions drafted in this way.

If you would like my assistance in relation to a drafting project, please message me via LinkedIn.