The main purpose of this paper is to compare referencing conventions between English-translated Korean laws and non-translated American and British laws in terms of collocational salience and frequencies. Intertexual or referencing devices serve specific functions in the discourse of law, which include signaling textual authority, providing terminological explanation, and facilitating textual mapping. Common law jurisdictions have developed their own preferences in the use of referencing patterns for displaying each function, and established specific contexts of use in their official legislative guidelines. In this respect, English translations of intertextual devices in Korean laws need to reflect the referencing conventions of non-translated laws in order to meet the cognitive expectancy norms of their intended foreign recipients and reduce difficulties with their interpretation at court. The comparison of collocations of main editing units of legislative provisions used in the translated and non-translated law corpora revealed that the translated laws show salient departures from the referencing conventions of TL non-translations for each function, thus requiring revised translation guidelines for ensuring convergence with TL non-translations.