Why Asymmetric Rules of Procedure Make It Impossible to Calculate a Rationally Warranted Standard of Proof

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Laudan
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

Aspects of Evidence in International Adjudication

2007 ◽  
pp. 83-118
Author(s):  
Chester Brown
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Evidence Gathering ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
International Adjudication

This chapter examines whether commonalities exist in the rules of evidence applied by different international courts and tribunals. It begins by considering the sources of rules of evidence in international law. These are the constitutive instruments of international courts, rules of procedure, general principles of law, and inherent powers. It then selects a number of evidential issues, being the admission of evidence, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof, and reviews whether international courts adopt similar approaches. The chapter then turns to an examination of the evidence-gathering powers of international courts, such as taking judicial notice of facts, ordering the production of evidence, making site visits, and ordering expert reports. The practice of international courts generally indicates a common approach to these issues, although the application of the rules is not completely consistent.

Constitutional and Institutional Developments: Guilt by Majority in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Does This Meet the Standard of Proof ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’?

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renée C. Pruitt
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Evidence Rules ◽  
Rules Of Procedure

Established in 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991 (International Tribunal) has steadily become more active in its quest to fulfil its mandate, moving from the establishment stage to the working stage most notably over the past two years. The trial of Dusko Tadić, the first full scale trial before the International Tribunal, was held from 7 May 1996 through 28 November 1996 and the final judgment was rendered on 7 May 1997. Pursuant to a guilty plea, the accused Drazen Erdemović was sentenced on 29 November 1996. In addition, two trials, one of which is based on the Celebići indictment against four accused, Esad Landžo, Zenjil Delalić, Zdravko Mucić, and Hazim Delić, and began on 10 March 1997, and one against Tihomir Blaskić, are currently underway. The motions submitted and arguments that have been and will be made during these proceedings have, and will continue to, force the trial and appellate chambers of the International Tribunal to apply and interpret for the first time many of the International Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Rules). One of the issues that is no doubt relevant for the judges of the trial chambers as they deliberate the final judgments in these cases is the modicum of proof necessary to find the accused guilty of the infractions of international humanitarian law charged in the relevant indictment.

A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Retselisitsoe Phooko
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Future Situation ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction

On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document