国际法院证明标准方法的一致性:对法院灵活性的评价

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Gian Maria Farnelli
{"title":"国际法院证明标准方法的一致性:对法院灵活性的评价","authors":"Gian Maria Farnelli","doi":"10.1163/15718034-12341466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nTaking steps from Judge Higgins’ invitation to the ICJ “mak[ing] clear what standards of proof it requires to establish what sorts of facts”, the contribution addresses the Court’s case law with a view to verifying the degree of consistency in its practice. The study comes in three parts. First, the absence of rules on the standard of proof in litigation before the ICJ is addressed, and the Court’s inherent power to choose the standard of proof is upheld. Second, the ICJ case law is addressed from which a highly flexible approach to the standard of proof is inferred. In particular, a two-tier approach in the matter is highlighted with regard to cases in which all the disputing parties appear, whereas the Court appears to follow a single-tier analysis in cases of non-appearance. Lastly, some concluding remarks are provided, highlighting the accordance of such a flexible approach with general principles of procedural law.","PeriodicalId":42613,"journal":{"name":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consistency in the ICJ’s Approach to the Standard of Proof: An Appraisal of the Court’s Flexibility\",\"authors\":\"Gian Maria Farnelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718034-12341466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nTaking steps from Judge Higgins’ invitation to the ICJ “mak[ing] clear what standards of proof it requires to establish what sorts of facts”, the contribution addresses the Court’s case law with a view to verifying the degree of consistency in its practice. The study comes in three parts. First, the absence of rules on the standard of proof in litigation before the ICJ is addressed, and the Court’s inherent power to choose the standard of proof is upheld. Second, the ICJ case law is addressed from which a highly flexible approach to the standard of proof is inferred. In particular, a two-tier approach in the matter is highlighted with regard to cases in which all the disputing parties appear, whereas the Court appears to follow a single-tier analysis in cases of non-appearance. Lastly, some concluding remarks are provided, highlighting the accordance of such a flexible approach with general principles of procedural law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"volume\":\"117 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341466\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

从希金斯法官向国际法院发出的“明确确立何种事实需要何种证明标准”的邀请开始,这篇文章采取了步骤,论述了法院的判例法,以期核实其实践的一致性程度。这项研究分为三个部分。首先,解决了国际法院在诉讼中缺乏证明标准规则的问题,维护了法院选择证明标准的固有权力。其次,论述了国际法院的判例法,从中推断出一种高度灵活的证明标准方法。特别是,在所有争端当事方都出庭的案件中,强调了这一问题的两层方法,而法院在不出庭的案件中似乎采用单层分析。最后,本文作了一些总结,强调这种灵活的做法符合程序法的一般原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consistency in the ICJ’s Approach to the Standard of Proof: An Appraisal of the Court’s Flexibility
Taking steps from Judge Higgins’ invitation to the ICJ “mak[ing] clear what standards of proof it requires to establish what sorts of facts”, the contribution addresses the Court’s case law with a view to verifying the degree of consistency in its practice. The study comes in three parts. First, the absence of rules on the standard of proof in litigation before the ICJ is addressed, and the Court’s inherent power to choose the standard of proof is upheld. Second, the ICJ case law is addressed from which a highly flexible approach to the standard of proof is inferred. In particular, a two-tier approach in the matter is highlighted with regard to cases in which all the disputing parties appear, whereas the Court appears to follow a single-tier analysis in cases of non-appearance. Lastly, some concluding remarks are provided, highlighting the accordance of such a flexible approach with general principles of procedural law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
40.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals is firmly established as the leading journal in its field. Each issue will give you the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal will also provide you with the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信