Communication about law takes place in time and space, both of which are key dimensions for legal history: law is (re)produced diachronically and synchronically. But what actually happens during this transmission, this transfer, this translation? Communication about law in various places and under various cultural conditions is a highly topical phenomenon, but certainly not a new one. Processes of intercultural legal development permeate legal history in Europe and beyond. Legal scholarship typically describes such processes with terms like ‘reception’, ‘transfer’ or ‘transplantation’, and the purpose of this Research Focus Area is to focus attention on their complex dynamics. What happens when law is introduced into another cultural context and thereby undergoes translation? What semantic shifts occur perceptibly or imperceptibly, how does the ostensibly new law come to terms with previously existing normative systems and finally, how does foreign law become indigenised? These questions require an interdisciplinary approach that profits from the potential heuristic value of global history, cultural transfer studies, entangled history and certainly translation studies. This is to be achieved under the label of ‘translation’. The term ‘cultural translation’ should broaden the perspective beyond linear notions of give and take and towards interactions, interstices, internal dynamics, resistances and actors’ creative autonomy. Thus, the Research Focus Area can potentially bring all projects together, though those treating Latin America, the Ottoman Empire through to East Asia and from early modernity to the 20th century are most heavily involved at the moment. This allows for collaborative theoretical reflection across a broad empirical field and will help to assess the analytical potential of these models for legal history. Academic myopia is to be avoided by taking non-European research seriously, leading to historical narratives that encourage critical reflection on Eurocentric perspectives. This will result in an altered image of Europe, which has historically often been seen as a ‘benefactor’. What role exactly did Europe play in these processes: point of reference, meeting place or projection surface? Is it to be found within its geographical borders or somewhere else entirely?