الفهرس 
الغلافOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 273 |  |  |
| | | from | 273 | | |
Abstract
Abstract
This study analyses how power and hegemony are embedded in legal-diplomatic discourse, particularly in the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decisions from the perspective of Genre Analysis and CDA. Employing Bhatia’s (1993) Move Analysis model and Fowler’s (1985) Linguistic Checklist, it examines the stylistic and lexico-grammatical features of the legal-diplomatic discourse, particularly the UNSC resolution and the ICJ decisions, and how such features reflect power and hegemony. It also investigates the move structure of such documents and the similarities and differences between UNSC resolutions and the ICJ decisions concerning the stylistic and lexico-grammatical features and the move structure. The data chosen are 24 UN documents on armed conflict and the proliferation of nuclear weapons from 2015 to 2017; nine of them are of ICJ decisions and fifteen are of the UNSC resolutions. They are collected from the United Nations official website (www.un.org/en/documents). The findings show that the ICJ decisions and the UNSC resolutions are signified by certain linguistic choices at word, sentence, and discoursal level, e.g. formal, technical, foreign, and archaic vocabulary, modality, performatives, and complex sentences, making such documents distinctive, authoritative, and impartial. Stylistically, these documents appear as only one sentence composed of a number of paragraphs separated by comma and semicolon and in three moves: Identifying the case/resolution; Arguing the case, which includes two steps: Presenting arguments and Deriving ratio decidendi; and Pronouncing judgement/Declaring the resolution. Finally, the similarities between the UNSC resolutions and the ICJ decisions outweigh their differences.
Keywords: Power, Hegemony, Legal-diplomatic discourse, UN Security Council, International Court of Justice, Genre Analysis, CDA