JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
Reappraising the Role of Experts in Recent Cases Before the International Court of Justice
German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 62 (2019), Iss. 1 : pp. 337–370
2 Citations (CrossRef)
Additional Information
Article Details
Pricing
Author Details
James Devaney, University of Glasgow.
Cited By
-
International Courts versus Non-Compliance Mechanisms
General and Conceptual Issues
2024
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009373913.004 [Citations: 0] -
International Courts versus Non-Compliance Mechanisms
International Courts versus Compliance Mechanisms through the Lens of the Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros and Bystroe Canal Cases
Pineschi, Laura
2024
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009373913.007 [Citations: 0]
Abstract
Experts have played a prominent role in recent proceedings before the International Court of Justice (the Court). Against the backdrop of high-profile criticisms of the Court's fact-finding process, recent cases before the Court have produced a number of notable developments which can be seen as responses to these concerns. However, some issues persist, largely due to a lack of conceptual clarity regarding the role that both party- and Court-appointed experts should play in proceedings, a consequence of the rudimentary procedural provisions in the Court's constitutive instruments. This article advances a number of proposals for reform in the form of two Practice Directions that set out modalities for the examination of party-appointed experts and the appointment of the Court's own experts, as well as providing reasoned guidance on the independence of experts. These proposals not only flesh out the role of the expert, but also show how the Court can accommodate the principles of party autonomy and the proper administration of justice which operate upon it.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| James Gerard Devaney\nReappraising the Role of Experts in Recent Cases Before the International Court of Justice | 337 | ||
| I. Introduction | 337 | ||
| II. The Court’s Handling of Experts Post-Pulp Mills: An Apparent Response to Merited Criticisms | 339 | ||
| A. Party-Appointed Experts | 341 | ||
| 1. Analysis and Proposal for Reform | 337 | ||
| 2. Draft Practice Direction XIV | 337 | ||
| B. Court-Appointed Experts | 337 | ||
| 1. Analysis and Proposal for Reform | 338 | ||
| 2. Draft Practice Direction XV | 338 | ||
| III. Reflections on the Court’s Guiding Principles and the Reforms Proposed | 338 | ||
| IV. Conclusion | 339 |