Legal Terminology

Chinese source (authoritative): ../../skills/legal-terminology/SKILL.md

Standardized Legal Terminology

I. Overview Table

II. Legal Disclaimer

Important notice: This skill file provides only operational guidance on standardized legal terminology for AI agents and does not constitute legal advice. Final confirmation of legal terms shall be based on currently effective statutes and regulations, judicial interpretations, and official terminology standards. In legal instruments involving major rights and interests, terminology use should be reviewed and confirmed by a practicing lawyer. Different jurisdictions and different branches of law may use different terms for the same concept; the agent should select appropriate expression according to the specific context.

III. Core Concepts

3.1 What Is Standardized Legal Terminology

Standardized legal terminology means using, in legal texts, professional vocabulary and fixed expressions recognized by the legal community and having determinate legal meaning, so as to achieve precision, rigor, and uniformity of legal texts.

3.2 Three Dimensions of Standardized Expression

Copy code
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│     Three Dimensions of Standardized Legal Terminology │
├───────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┤
│   Accuracy    │ Consistency  │ Formality     │
│ (Accuracy)    │ (Consistency)│ (Formality)   │
├───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│ Term meanings │ Same concept │ Conform to    │
│ correspond    │ uses the same│ solemn,       │
│ precisely to  │ term within  │ rigorous      │
│ legal rules;  │ the same     │ legal-document│
│ no ambiguity  │ text; do not │ style; avoid  │
│               │ freely swap  │ colloquial or │
│               │ near-synonyms│ literary tone │
└───────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┘

3.3 Hierarchy of Sources for Terminology Norms

The normative force of legal terms shall be determined by the following priority:

3.4 Core Principles of Terminology Standardization

1. Statutory-priority principle: Where statutes and regulations provide express wording, that statutory wording must be used
2. Identity principle: Within the same text, the same concept is expressed by only one term
3. Precision principle: The extension and intension of a term must fully match the legal concept referred to
4. Context-fit principle: The same term may have different meanings in different branches of law; choose according to context
5. Temporal-validity principle: Terms must remain consistent with currently effective law; note terminology changes from statutory revisions

IV. Core Terminology Standardization Comparison Tables

4.1 High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Civil Law)

4.2 High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Criminal Law)

4.3 High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Administrative Law)

4.4 High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Litigation Procedure)

4.5 High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Contract and Commercial Law)

4.6 High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Other Important Terms)

V. Complete Workflow

5.1 Terminology Standardization Process

Copy code
Input: Legal text to be processed
         │
         ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 1: Identify legal terms │ ← Scan all legal terms and suspected terms in the text
│   and potential terminology issues │
└─────────┬───────────┘
          │
          ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 2: Determine legal field │ ← Judge the branch of law (civil / criminal / administrative / commercial, etc.)
│   and document type          │ ← Judge document type (contract / pleading / judgment / opinion, etc.)
└─────────┬───────────┘
          │
          ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 3: Verify terms one by one │ ← Verify accuracy against the source hierarchy
│                      │ ← Check whether terms match the branch of law
│                      │ ← Check whether term meanings fit the context
└─────────┬───────────┘
          │
          ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 4: Consistency check │ ← Check whether the same concept uses the same term throughout
│                      │ ← Check whether first appearance has necessary definition / explanation
└─────────┬───────────┘
          │
          ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 5: Style-fit check │ ← Check whether terminology expression conforms to legal style
│                      │ ← Eliminate colloquial, literary, and vague expressions
└─────────┬───────────┘
          │
          ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 6: Temporal-validity check │ ← Confirm terms are consistent with currently effective law
│                      │ ← Watch for obsolete terms from repealed laws
└─────────┬───────────┘
          │
          ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ Step 7: Output standardized text │ ← Generate corrected text
│   and correction notes          │ ← Attach terminology correction comparison table and reasons
└─────────────────────┘

5.2 Detailed Operational Guidance for Each Step

Step 1: Identify Legal Terms and Potential Issues

Operational points:

• Scan the text sentence by sentence; mark all professional legal terms
• Pay special attention to these high-risk areas:
  • Party designations (plaintiff / defendant / applicant / respondent, etc.)
  • Descriptions of legal acts (rescission / termination / revocation / withdrawal, etc.)
  • Liability forms (joint and several / several / supplementary, etc.)
  • Right types (ownership / use right / creditor’s right / real right, etc.)
  • Procedural terms (jurisdiction / service / periods / limitation, etc.)
  • Quantity and time-limit expressions (above / below / day / business day, etc.)
• Mark everyday language that may need conversion into legal terms

Step 2: Determine Legal Field and Document Type

Operational points:

• Judge the branch of law from the text content, because the same word may mean different things in different branches
  • Example: “追诉时效” belongs to criminal law; “诉讼时效” belongs to civil law
  • Example: “罚金” belongs to criminal law; “罚款” belongs to administrative law
• Determine stylistic requirements by document type
  • Judicial documents: Strictest; must fully follow statutory terminology
  • Contract texts: Strict, but parties may agree on short forms
  • Legal opinions: Relatively strict; explanatory wording may be used appropriately
  • Legal memoranda: Relatively flexible, but core terms must still be standardized

Step 3: Verify Terms One by One

Verification checklist:

Copy code
□ Does the term have an express formulation in statutes and regulations?
  → Yes: Must use the statutory formulation
  → No: Use judicial-interpretation or prevailing-doctrine formulation

□ Is the term’s meaning correct in the current branch-of-law context?
  → Example: “违约金 (liquidated damages)” should not appear in a criminal context

□ Does the term’s extension precisely match the referent?
  → Example: Do not use “担保 (security)” generically in place of “抵押 (mortgage)”

□ Is the term used in currently effective law?
  → Example: Do not continue using “经济合同 (economic contract)” (repealed)

□ Does the term have common objects of confusion?
  → Check one by one against the terminology comparison tables in Section IV of this skill

Step 4: Consistency Check

Operational points:

• Build an in-text terminology index; ensure the same concept uses the same term throughout
• If a short form is needed, define it expressly on first appearance
  • Incorrect example: Party A (hereinafter the "Lessor") ❌
  • Correct example: Lessor Zhang San (hereinafter "Party A") ✅
• Check whether synonym substitution creates ambiguity
  • Example: Earlier text uses “解除 (rescission)”; later text uses “终止 (termination)” for the same act → ambiguity arises

Step 5: Style-Fit Check

Legal stylistic requirements:

Step 6: Temporal-Validity Check

Key legal changes to watch:

Step 7: Output Standardized Text and Correction Notes

Output should include two parts:

1. Full corrected text
2. Terminology correction comparison table (see output format templates)

VI. Verification and Screening Rules

6.1 Five-Step Method for Verifying Terminology Correctness

Copy code
Step 1: Statutory verification
  → Look up the statutory formulation of the term in currently effective statutes and regulations
  → If found, the statutory formulation controls

Step 2: Context verification
  → Confirm the term’s meaning in the current branch of law / context
  → Exclude cross-branch terminology mixing

Step 3: Collocation verification
  → Confirm whether the term’s modifiers and verbs match customary legal collocations
  → Example: “承担违约责任” ✅  “负担违约责任” ⚠️  “背负违约责任” ❌

Step 4: Logic verification
  → Confirm whether the term’s logical relations in context hold
  → Example: Cannot say both “合同无效 (contract void)” and “解除合同 (rescind the contract)” in the same clause

Step 5: Audience verification
  → Confirm whether terminology use suits the target reader
  → For legal professionals: professional terms may be used directly
  → For non-professionals: a brief explanation may follow core terms

6.2 Terminology Selection Decision Tree

Copy code
Need to express a legal concept
        │
        ▼
Is there a statutory term in statutes and regulations?
    │           │
   Yes          No
    │           │
    ▼           ▼
Use the statutory term   Is there a common formulation in judicial interpretations?
                    │           │
                   Yes          No
                    │           │
                    ▼           ▼
              Use the judicial-  Is there a recognized term in legal doctrine?
              interpretation          │           │
              formulation            Yes          No
                                   │           │
                                   ▼           ▼
                              Use the doctrinal  Construct a descriptive expression
                              term               and add an explanatory note

VII. Output Format Templates

7.1 Terminology Correction Report Template

markdownCopy code
## Legal Terminology Standardization Correction Report

**Text type:** [Contract / Pleading / Legal opinion / Other]
**Field:** [Civil / Criminal / Administrative / Commercial / Other]
**Correction date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Number of corrections:** [N]

### Correction Comparison Table

| No. | Location | Original Expression | Corrected Expression | Correction Type | Reason | Severity |
|------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| 1    | Art. X  | XXX     | XXX     | Terminology error | XXX     | 🔴 Critical |
| 2    | Art. X  | XXX     | XXX     | Imprecise term | XXX    | 🟡 Warning |
| 3    | Art. X  | XXX     | XXX     | Style defect | XXX     | 🔵 Suggestion |

### Correction Type Notes
- **Terminology error:** Wrong legal term used; may affect legal effect
- **Imprecise term:** Terminology insufficiently precise; may create ambiguity
- **Terminology confusion:** Near-synonyms with different meanings mixed
- **Obsolete term:** Old term from a repealed law used
- **Style defect:** Expression does not meet legal stylistic requirements
- **Consistency issue:** Different terms used for the same concept in the text

### Severity Notes
- 🔴 **Critical:** Must correct; otherwise may cause defects in legal effect or major misunderstanding
- 🟡 **Warning:** Recommended to correct; may create ambiguity or appear unprofessional
- 🔵 **Suggestion:** Optional correction at the stylistic-optimization level

7.2 Standardized Text Output Template

markdownCopy code
## Standardized Text

[Output the full corrected text here; mark corrections in **bold**]

---
*Note: Bold portions are terminology standardization corrections in this pass.*

VIII. Confidence Annotation System

When standardizing terminology, annotate confidence for each correction:

Usage rules:

• Corrections at “Certain” and “High” confidence may be executed directly
• Corrections at “Medium” confidence should attach an explanation and recommend user confirmation
• Corrections at “Low” confidence should be expressly marked as “suggestions” with reasons for uncertainty

IX. Common Errors and Prevention

9.1 Critical Error Table

9.2 Common Traps

Trap 1: Literal-Meaning Trap

• Manifestation: Understanding legal terms by everyday meanings
• Example: “善意” in “善意取得 (bona fide acquisition)” ≠ moral goodness; it means “did not know and ought not to have known”
• Prevention: Always take the legal definition as controlling; do not infer from everyday meaning

Trap 2: Near-Synonym Substitution Trap

• Manifestation: Substituting near-synonyms for legal terms to avoid repetition
• Example: Replacing “解除合同” with “取消合同” / “废除合同”
• Prevention: Legal terminology does not pursue literary lexical variety; the same concept must use the same term

Trap 3: Cross-Branch Transplantation Trap

• Manifestation: Transplanting a term from one branch of law into another
• Example: Writing in a civil contract “甲方应受到处罚” (“处罚 / penalty” is a public-law concept)
• Prevention: Confirm the term’s branch of law matches the text’s context

Trap 4: Old-Law Inertia Trap

• Manifestation: Continuing to use old terms superseded by new law
• Example: Continuing to use “具体行政行为” (should be “行政行为”)
• Prevention: Track statutory revision developments; periodically update the terminology bank

Trap 5: Translation Calque Trap

• Manifestation: Literally translating foreign legal terms into Chinese in ways that do not fit the Chinese legal system
• Example: Literally rendering “consideration” as “对价” in a Chinese contract-law context
• Prevention: Use corresponding terms in the Chinese legal system; add notes where necessary

Trap 6: Umbrella-Concept Substitution Trap

• Manifestation: Using an umbrella concept generically in place of a specific subordinate concept that should be used precisely
• Example: Using “担保” in place of “抵押” or “质押” that should be specified
• Prevention: When precise expression is needed, use the most specific subordinate concept

Trap 7: Quantity-Boundary Ambiguity Trap

• Manifestation: Using “以上 / 以下” without clarifying whether the stated number is included
• Example: “三年以上有期徒刑”—does it include three years?
• Prevention: Note the rules in different laws on “以上 / 以下” (Criminal Law expressly includes the stated number); annotate expressly where necessary

X. Special Scenario Handling

10.1 Emerging-Field Terminology

For emerging fields such as data compliance, artificial intelligence, and blockchain:

Copy code
Handling strategy:
1. Prefer terms already used in statutes and regulations
   → Example: “个人信息处理者 (personal information handler)” in the Personal Information Protection Law
2. If no statutory term, use formulations in official documents
   → Example: Terms in national standards and departmental rules
3. If neither exists, use industry-prevailing terms and add a definition clause
   → Example: “For purposes of this Agreement, ‘smart contract’ means …”
4. Avoid using pure technical terms without legal definition
   → Example: Do not use “Token” directly; define it as a “digital credential” or other legally intelligible expression

10.2 Cross-Border Legal Text Terminology

Copy code
Handling strategy:
1. For foreign legal concepts in Chinese legal texts, use corresponding terms in the Chinese legal system
2. If no direct counterpart, use a descriptive expression and annotate the original
   → Example: “信托受益人 (beneficiary)”
3. In bilingual contracts, specify which language version controls
4. Watch for “false friends”—terms that look similar but mean different things
   → Example: Common-law “consideration” ≠ Chinese-law “对价” (Chinese law has no such concept)

10.3 Party-Defined Custom Terminology

Copy code
Handling strategy:
1. Parties may define custom terms in contracts, but must not conflict with mandatory legal provisions
2. Custom terms should be expressly defined in the contract’s “definitions” clause
3. Custom terms should not create confusion with statutory terms
   → Incorrect example: Defining “违约金” to include the meaning of “定金”
4. Recommend parenthetically annotating the legal nature after a custom term
   → Example: “服务保证金 (in the nature of a deposit / 定金)”

10.4 Plain-Language Explanation of Legal Terms

Copy code
Handling strategy:
When explaining legal content to non-professionals:
1. First use the standardized legal term
2. Then provide a plain-language explanation in parentheses or a footnote
   → Example: “本案适用诉讼时效（即法律规定的起诉期限）为三年”
3. Plain-language explanation must not replace the legal term itself
4. Plain-language explanation must accurately reflect the term’s meaning and must not oversimplify into misunderstanding

XI. Quality Checklist

After completing terminology standardization, check the following items one by one:

11.1 Basic Checks

Copy code
□ Are all legal terms consistent with currently effective statutes and regulations?
□ Are there obsolete terms from repealed laws?
□ Do party designations match the procedural stage / procedure type?
□ Are liability forms accurate (joint and several / several / supplementary)?
□ Are contract-validity statuses accurate (valid / void / voidable / pending validity)?
□ Are right types accurate (real rights / creditor’s rights / IP rights, etc.)?

11.2 Consistency Checks

Copy code
□ Does the same concept use the same term throughout?
□ Are short forms expressly defined on first appearance?
□ Is terminology use logically consistent before and after?
□ When citing statutory provisions, are terms identical to the original text?

11.3 Precision Checks

Copy code
□ Is an umbrella concept used in place of a subordinate concept that should be expressed precisely?
□ Are quantity and time-limit expressions clear (including / excluding the stated number)?
□ Is “日 (day)” specified clearly (calendar day / business day)?
□ Are amounts standardized (currency + upper/lower case numerals)?
□ Are there vague qualifiers (“大约 / 左右 / 若干,” etc.)?

11.4 Style Checks

Copy code
□ Have all colloquial expressions been eliminated?
□ Have all emotionally colored words been eliminated?
□ Have all internet slang / vernacular expressions been eliminated?
□ Has the solemnity of legal documents been preserved?
□ Does use of passive / active voice conform to legal stylistic convention?

11.5 Special Checks

Copy code
□ Are cross-border terms correctly corresponded?
□ Are emerging-field terms sufficiently defined?
□ Do party-defined custom terms not conflict with statutory terms?
□ Is each correction annotated with confidence?
□ Have all critical-level corrections been addressed?

XII. Complete Examples

Example 1: Simple Scenario — Contract Clause Terminology Standardization

Input Text

Copy code
第五条 违约条款
1. 如甲方未按时交货，乙方有权取消合同，并要求甲方赔偿订金的双倍。
2. 因天灾人祸等意外事件导致不能交货的，甲方不用负责。
3. 双方发生纠纷的，可以打官司解决，诉讼有效期为两年。
4. 甲方的法人代表应在合同上签字盖章。

Output

Terminology Correction Report:

Corrected Text:

Copy code
第五条 违约责任
1. 如出卖人未按约定期限交付标的物，买受人有权**解除**合同，并要求出卖人
   双倍返还**定金**（《民法典》第五百八十七条）。
2. 因**不可抗力**导致不能交付标的物的，出卖人**不承担违约责任**，但应当
   及时通知买受人并在合理期限内提供证明（《民法典》第五百九十条）。
3. 双方因履行本合同发生争议的，可**向有管辖权的人民法院提起诉讼**。
   本合同项下纠纷的**诉讼时效期间**依照法律规定执行。
4. 出卖人的**法定代表人**或授权代表应在本合同上签字并加盖公章。

[Confidence: Certain] — All corrections are supported by express statutory provisions.

Example 2: Complex Scenario — Criminal Defense Statement Terminology Standardization

Input Text

Copy code
尊敬的审判长、审判员：

    我受犯罪嫌疑人王某的委托，担任其辩护律师。现就本案发表如下辩护意见：

    一、关于犯罪事实
    犯罪嫌疑人王某系初犯，且在被抓获后主动交代了全部犯罪事实，属于自首，
依法可以减轻处罚。

    二、关于量刑
    犯罪嫌疑人王某犯罪情节较轻，建议法院判处缓期执行。王某已向被害方赔偿
了全部损失并取得谅解，具有悔过表现。

    三、关于附带民事赔偿
    犯罪嫌疑人已支付了全部赔偿金，包括医药费、误工费和精神赔偿金共计
十万元左右。

    综上，请求法院对犯罪嫌疑人从轻处罚。

                                        辩护人：李律师
                                        2024年X月X日

Output

Terminology Correction Report:

Corrected Text:

Copy code
尊敬的审判长、审判员：

    北京XX律师事务所接受**被告人**王某的委托，指派我担任其辩护人。
现根据事实和法律，发表如下辩护意见：

    一、关于量刑情节
    **被告人**王某系初犯、偶犯，且在**归案后如实供述自己的罪行**，
依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第六十七条第三款之规定，属于**坦白**，
**可以从轻处罚**。

    二、关于量刑建议
    **被告人**王某犯罪情节较轻，有**悔罪表现**，且已积极赔偿被害人
损失并取得谅解，符合《中华人民共和国刑法》第七十二条规定的**缓刑**
适用条件，建议对**被告人**王某**宣告缓刑**。

    三、关于民事赔偿情况
    **被告人**王某已向被害人赔偿医疗费、误工费等各项经济损失共计
**人民币壹拾万元整（¥100,000.00）**，并已取得被害人出具的谅解书。

    综上所述，辩护人恳请合议庭综合考虑上述情节，依法对**被告人**
王某**从轻处罚**并**适用缓刑**。

                            辩护人：李XX
                            北京XX律师事务所
                            二〇二四年X月X日

Key Correction Notes:

1. “犯罪嫌疑人” → “被告人” [Confidence: Certain] The statutory designation at the trial stage is “被告人.” This is the most basic terminology norm in criminal procedure; incorrect use severely damages the professionalism of the defense statement.

2. “自首” → “坦白” [Confidence: High] The original text describes “主动交代 after being apprehended”; “被抓获” indicates non-voluntary appearance and does not meet the “自动投案” element of voluntary surrender. If counsel has evidence that Wang XX had intent to surrender and took steps to surrender before apprehension, voluntary surrender may still be established, but factual grounds must be supplemented. This correction is based on the literal meaning of the original text.

3. “缓期执行” → “缓刑” [Confidence: Certain] In criminal law, “缓期执行” specifically means “death sentence with a two-year suspension of execution” (死缓), which is an entirely different institution from “缓刑” (suspension of sentence / probation). Confusing them may cause serious misunderstanding.

4. Handling of “精神赔偿金” [Confidence: High] The corrected text deletes “精神赔偿金” because, under Article 175 paragraph 2 of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC, incidental civil actions in criminal cases generally do not support claims for mental distress damages. If the victim truly needs to claim mental distress damages, a separate civil action should be filed.

Appendix: Quick Reference Card

Copy code
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║   Standardized Legal Terminology · Quick Check Mnemonic ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║                                                  ║
║  1. Check statute: Does the term have a statutory formulation? ║
║  2. Check branch: Does the term belong to the correct branch of law? ║
║  3. Check context: Does the term’s meaning fit the surrounding text? ║
║  4. Check consistency: Is the same concept worded uniformly throughout? ║
║  5. Check currency: Is the term consistent with currently effective law? ║
║  6. Check style: Does the expression meet legal-document norms? ║
║  7. Check precision: Is there vagueness, overbreadth, or ambiguity? ║
║                                                  ║
║  Critical red lines (never commit):              ║
║  × Mixing 犯罪嫌疑人 / 被告人                     ║
║  × Confusing 定金 / 订金                          ║
║  × Confusing 缓刑 / 死缓                          ║
║  × Confusing 自首 / 坦白                          ║
║  × 法人代表 (should be 法定代表人)                ║
║  × Cross-branch mixing of 罚金 / 罚款             ║
║  × Confusing 赔偿 / 补偿                          ║
║  × Confusing 诉讼时效 / 除斥期间                   ║
║                                                  ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════╝