Sourgens, Duggal, & Laird: Evidence in International Investment Arbitration

Frédéric G. Sourgens (Washburn Univ. - Law), Kabir Duggal (Baker & McKenzie LLP), & Ian A. Laird (Crowell & Moring LLP) have published Evidence in International Investment Arbitration (Oxford Univ. Press 2018). Here's the abstract:

Advertisement

Evidence in International Investment Arbitration is a guide for practitioners representing a party in investment arbitration disputes, whilst also offering academics a perspective on the practical elements affecting the treatment of evidence in the area. The book is the first of its kind to systematically review the jurisprudence of investor-state tribunals on evidentiary matters and inductively establish the rules recognized in those decisions. It uses a comparative approach to demonstrate the points of commonality and uniformity in the transnational foundations of the law of evidence as it affects international investment arbitration, providing theoretical and practical guidance on the treatment of evidence at all stages of such disputes.

Advertisement

The work establishes the rules of evidence as currently recognized by investor-state arbitral jurisprudence and examines these rules of evidence against those recognized in the traditional rules of international law, as well as against those codified by the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. It examines the theory and function of international investment law dispute resolution against which the role of evidence must be assessed; practical management of the evidence-gathering process in investment arbitration disputes; and what to anticipate as challenges in the gathering and pleading of evidence in these disputes. Chapters cover a broad range of evidence-based topics, including: burden and standard of proof, presumptions and inferences, witness and expert evidence, exclusionary rules including privileged and confidential documents, and annulment.

Hamilton: User-Generated Evidence

Rebecca J. Hamilton (American Univ. - Law) has posted User-Generated Evidence. Here's the abstract:

Around the world, people are using their smartphones to document atrocities. Smartphone apps designed to allow Users to record material that will meet evidentiary standards are now freely available. User-Generated Evidence is the first Article to address this important development in international criminal law. It identifies three categories of concern: (i) User security; (ii) evidentiary bias; and (iii) fair trial rights. In the absence of safeguards, user-generated evidence may address current problems in international criminal justice at the cost of creating new ones, and/or shifting existing problems from traditional actors, who have institutional backing, to individual Users without such protections.

Devaney: Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice

James Gerard Devaney (Univ. of Glasgow - Law) has published Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice (Cambridge Univ. Press 2016). Here's the abstract:

Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice examines a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the ICJ deals with facts. The book takes the position that such criticisms are warranted and that the ICJ's current approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy, both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts, and in those involving a scarcity of facts. The author skilfully examines how other courts such as the WTO and inter-State arbitrations conduct fact-finding and makes a number of select proposals for reform, enabling the ICJ to address some of the current weaknesses in its approach. The proposals includes, but are not limited to, the development of a power to compel the disclosure of information, greater use of provisional measures, and a clear strategy for the use of expert evidence.

Roscini: Digital Evidence as a Means of Proof before the International Court of Justice

Marco Roscini (Univ. of Westminster - Law) has posted Digital Evidence as a Means of Proof before the International Court of Justice (Journal of Conflict & Security Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This article discusses the use of digital evidence as a means of proof before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The absence of specific Court rules and procedures for digital evidence (with the exception of Practice Direction IXbis) is not necessarily an obstacle to its production and evaluation before the ICJ, as the general evidentiary rules can also be applied to digital evidence. The article first looks at the rules on the production of documentary evidence and then examines the specific issues related to audiovisual evidence. Finally, it examines the admissibility of digital evidence unlawfully obtained by a litigant through unilateral transborder access to data. The article concludes that, even if specific regulation may be needed as to the specific way in which authenticity and accuracy of digital evidence are to be established, the particular facts of the case and the grounds of challenge can vary widely, and it is doubtful that any regulation could be suffi- ciently flexible to deal with this in advance.

Tomka & Proulx: The Evidentiary Practice of the World Court

Peter Tomka (Judge, International Court of Justice) & Vincent-Joël Proulx (National Univ. of Singapore - Law) have posted The Evidentiary Practice of the World Court (in Liber Amicorum Gudmundur Eiriksson, Juan Carlos Sainz-Borgo ed., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

In this chapter, we canvass some key aspects of the evidentiary practice of the World Court, with particular emphasis on recent developments. Our ambition is to provide insight into both the Court’s jurisprudential pronouncements on important evidentiary matters, and its institutional culture and practice as regards the management and treatment of evidence. This chapter begins by mapping out the evidentiary framework governing the Court’s work, with reference to relevant provisions, before turning to the admissibility of evidence before the Court. Ultimately, this contribution recalls and explores select substantive pronouncements of the Court on matters of evidence.

Elias-Bursac: Translating Evidence and Interpreting Testimony at a War Crimes Tribunal

Ellen Elias-Bursac has published Translating Evidence and Interpreting Testimony at a War Crimes Tribunal: Working in a Tug-of-War (Palgrave Macmillan 2015). Here's the abstract:

How can defendants be tried if they cannot understand the charges being raised against them? Can a witness testify if the judges and attorneys cannot understand what the witness is saying? Can a judge decide whether to convict or acquit if she or he cannot read the documentary evidence? The very viability of international criminal prosecution and adjudication hinges on the massive amounts of translation and interpreting that are required in order to run these lengthy, complex trials, and the procedures for handling the demands facing language services. This book explores the dynamic courtroom interactions in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in which witnesses testify—through an interpreter—about translations, attorneys argue—through an interpreter—about translations and the interpreting, and judges adjudicate on the interpreted testimony and translated evidence.

d'Aspremont & Mbengue: Strategies of Engagement with Scientific Fact-Finding in International Adjudication

Jean d'Aspremont (Univ. of Manchester - Law) & Makane Moïse Mbengue (Univ. of Geneva - Law) have posted Strategies of Engagement with Scientific Fact-Finding in International Adjudication. Here's the abstract:

The following contribution zeroes in on the diverging responses that permeate international adjudicative practice pertaining to international disputes arising out of scientific controversies. Drawing on the idea that scientific fact-finding is as much a struggle for argumentative persuasiveness as traditional fact-finding and law-interpretation, this article identifies and critically evaluates four attitudes of international judges and arbitrators. It shows that, when it comes to scientific fact-finding, adjudicative bodies are in a constant flux between nihilism, protectionism and outsourcing. It further demonstrates that similar dynamics can be observed with regards to the weighing of scientific knowledge in cases when adjudicators decide to outsource it to experts. This paper subsequently argues that when confronted with scientific fact-finding, international adjudicators are dealing with knowledge that is as unstable as the law and which brings them to make a choice between different types of reasoning or rationality. It ultimately makes the argument that the question of scientific fact-finding inevitably confronts international judges and arbitrators with a choice of epistemic rationality.

Klamberg: Evidence in International Criminal Trials: Confronting Legal Gaps and the Reconstruction of Disputed Events

Mark Klamberg (Stockholm Univ. - Law) has published Evidence in International Criminal Trials: Confronting Legal Gaps and the Reconstruction of Disputed Events (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013). Here's the abstract:

In Evidence in International Criminal Trials Mark Klamberg compares procedural activities relevant for international criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court, including evaluation, collection, disclosure, admissibility and presentation of evidence. The author analyses what objectives are recognized in relation to the aforementioned procedural activities and whether it is possible to establish a priority between them. The concept of “robustness” is introduced to discuss the quantity of evidence in addition to concepts that deal with quality. Finally, the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence method is examined as one of several analytical steps that may contribute to the systematic evaluation of evidence. The book seeks to provide guidance on how to confront legal as well as factual issues.

Öberg: Processing Evidence and Drafting Judgments in International Criminal Trial Chambers

Marko Divac Öberg (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) has posted Processing Evidence and Drafting Judgments in International Criminal Trial Chambers (Criminal Law Forum, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

International criminal trials are usually very complex, lengthy and heavy on evidence. This complicates the Trial Chamber’s fact finding task and hampers its ability to issue a reasoned written judgment without undue delay. The present article examines the specific challenges of drafting an international criminal trial judgment, with the main focus being on mastering the huge amounts of evidence. It further provides practical recommendations on how to deal with these challenges.

Pauwelyn: The Use, Nonuse and Abuse of Economics in WTO and Investor-­State Dispute Settlement

Joost Pauwelyn (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies - Law) has posted The Use, Nonuse and Abuse of Economics in WTO and Investor-­State Dispute Settlement (in WTO Litigation, Investment and Commercial Arbitration – Cross-fertilization and Reciprocal Opportunities, Goldman, Romanetti & Stirnimann eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

What is the role of economic evidence and arguments in WTO and investor-state dispute settlement? Both regimes epitomize the search for an international rule of law and legal stability. At the same time, both trade and investment agreements are economic contracts. Economics provides insights not only in lawmaking but also in law application, both fact establishment and legal interpretation. The influence of economic evidence and arguments, including quantitative studies, is on the rise in both fields. It spans far beyond damage calculations and decisions on appropriate trade retaliation. In the WTO: like products, less favorable treatment, subsidies and general exceptions. In investor-state arbitration: economic necessity. And in both regimes many more provisions lend themselves to input from economics. Such input can provide more robust, empirically sound and predictable outcomes. This, in turn, can broaden the support and legitimacy of both the trade and investment regimes. At the same time, reliance on economics does not come without risks. Core caveats and limits are: (1) economics must be filtered through legal criteria, (2) methodological discipline, (3) for communication purposes, ‘keep it simple’; (4) due process, (5) avoid or disclose value judgments. The cases and controversies discussed in this contribution indicate progress made but highlight that a lot of work must still be done to conform to ‘best practices’.

Jackson & Summers: The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions

John D. Jackson (Univ. College Dublin - Law) & Sarah J. Summers (Universität Zürich - Rechtswissenschaftliches Institut) have published The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:

Although there are many texts on the law of evidence, surprisingly few are devoted specifically to the comparative and international aspects of the subject. The traditional view that the law of evidence belongs within the common law tradition has obscured the reality that a genuinely cosmopolitan law of evidence is being developed in criminal cases across the common law and civil law traditions. By considering the extent to which a coherent body of common evidentiary standards is being developed in both domestic and international jurisprudence, John Jackson and Sarah Summers chart this development with particular reference to the jurisprudence on the right to a fair trial that has emerged from the European Court of Human Rights and to the attempts in the new international criminal tribunals to fashion agreed approaches towards the regulation of evidence.

Foster: Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals

Caroline E. Foster (Univ. of Auckland - Law) has published Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality (Cambridge Univ. Press 2011). Here's the abstract:

By canvassing a range of international scientific disputes, including the EC-Biotech and EC-Hormones disputes in the WTO, the Case concerning Pulp Mills and the Gabcíkovo–Nagymaros case in the International Court of Justice, and the Mox Plant and Land Reclamation cases dealt with under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Caroline Foster examines how the precautionary principle can be accommodated within the rules about proof and evidence and advises on the boundary emerging between the roles of experts and tribunals. A new form of reassessment proceedings for use in exceptional cases is proposed. Breaking new ground, this book seeks to advance international adjudicatory practice by contextualising developments in the taking of expert evidence and analysing the justification of and potential techniques for a precautionary reversal of the burden of proof, as well as methods for dealing with important scientific discoveries subsequent to judgments and awards.

Ngambi: La preuve dans le règlement des différends de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce

Joseph Ngambi has published La preuve dans le règlement des différends de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce (Bruylant 2010). Here's the abstract:

Advertisement

Qu’est-ce que le thème de la preuve apprend sur le fonctionnement du mécanisme de règlement des différends (MRD) de l’OMC? Pour répondre à cette question, l’ouvrage adopte une approche classique basée sur l’analyse de la charge et de l’administration de la preuve.

Concernant la charge de la preuve, elle est attribuée aux parties, qui doivent convaincre le juge, des faits qu’elles allèguent. En effet, quiconque allègue un fait doit le prouver. Si l’attribution de la charge de la preuve renseigne, dès lors, sur qui doit perdre en cas de doute, elle n’épuise pas les enjeux de la question. La réalité de cette charge n’est pas moins importante. Elle pose le double problème de l’objet de la preuve, et de la lourdeur de la charge mise sur les parties. A ce propos, la thèse démontre, que si la preuve porte sur les faits, son poids peut néanmoins s’avérer très lourd. Sans doute le plaignant est-il dans une situation plus confortable, n’ayant à établir qu’une présomption de violation. En revanche, la charge qui pèse sur le défendeur est plus lourde. S’il conteste les faits allégués, il devra réfuter la présomption de violation établie. S’il invoque un moyen de défense affirmatif (exception), il devra prouver la nécessité de sa mesure, et le fait que son application ne débouche ni sur une discrimination arbitraire et injustifiable, ni sur une restriction déguisée au commerce.

Quant à l’administration de la preuve, elle s’effectue sous le contrôle des groupes spéciaux, dotés à cet effet d’importants pouvoirs procéduraux, dont l’influence sur la configuration de la procédure est indéniable. En atteste la manière dont se déroule l’acquisition des preuves, qui peut être spontanée ou « forcée » selon la qualité de la collaboration des parties. Qui plus est, le juge admet de manière discrétionnaire, les preuves venant de sources extérieures, et est libre de les prendre en compte. En atteste également l’évaluation des preuves, le MRD ayant incorporé le principe de la libre appréciation des preuves, par l’adoption d’un critère d’examen permissif –l’évaluation objective des faits–, et l’affranchissement du juge de règles trop techniques d’évaluation. Ce principe s’accommode néanmoins, sans être remis en cause, d’un contrôle restreint de l’Organe d’appel, sur le caractère objectif de l’évaluation des preuves, au titre de question de droit.

Benzing: Das Beweisrecht vor internationalen Gerichten und Schiedsgerichten in zwischenstaatlichen Streitigkeiten

Markus Benzing has published Das Beweisrecht vor internationalen Gerichten und Schiedsgerichten in zwischenstaatlichen Streitigkeiten (Springer 2010). Here's the abstract:

Vor dem Hintergrund einer immer größer werdenden Zahl zwischenstaatlicher Gerichtsverfahren, in denen verstärkt auch Tatsachenfragen streitig sind, untersucht die Dissertation die Grundsätze der Tatsachenfeststellung und -würdigung vor internationalen Gerichten und Schiedsgerichten. Sie bietet eine systematische Darstellung und kritische Betrachtung des geltenden völkerrechtlichen Beweisrechts und unterbreitet Vorschläge für seine Fortentwicklung. Dabei trägt die Arbeit besonders den Umständen Rechnung, dass die internationale Gerichtsbarkeit kein kohärentes, in sich geschlossenes System darstellt und dass prozessrechtliche und gerade beweisrechtliche Fragen oft nur rudimentär in den gerichtseinsetzenden Verträgen geregelt sind.

Grando: Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement

Michelle T. Grando (Univ. of Toronto - Law) has published Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement (Oxford Univ. Press 2010). Here's the abstract:

This book examines the process through which a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel formulates its conclusions with respect to the facts of a case, i.e. the process of fact-finding or process of proof. The Dispute Settlement Understanding provides general guidance but few direct answers to specific questions regarding the process of fact-finding, which has placed upon panels and the Appellate Body the responsibility to provide answers to those questions as they have arisen in the cases. This book reviews the extensive jurisprudence developed in the 14 years of operation of the WTO dispute settlement system with a view to (a) determining whether panels and the Appellate Body have set out optimal rules to govern the process of fact-finding and, to the extent that that is not the case, (b) to make suggestions for improvement.

This book analyses questions such as (i) which party bears the responsibility of ultimately convincing the panel of the truth of a fact (burden of proof); (ii) what quantum of proof is necessary to convince the panel (standard of proof); (iii) the role of the panel, disputing parties, and non-disputing parties (e.g. experts, international organizations, private parties) in the development of the evidentiary record on which the panel bases its decision; (iv) the consequences of a party's failure to cooperate in the process of fact-finding; (v) how the parties can access the information which is necessary to prove their allegations; and (vi) the treatment of confidential business and governmental information. In assessing and making suggestions to improve the answers provided by panels to these questions, the book draws on the approaches followed in the two major legal systems of the world, the common law and the civil law, and to the extent possible the approaches adopted by other international courts and tribunals.

Expert Evidence in International Tribunals

Today, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law will host a forum on "Expert Evidence in International Tribunals."