The Optimal Standard of Proof with Adjudication Avoidance

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murat C. Mungan
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Proof

scholarly journals Civil liability and the 50%+ standard of proof

2021 ◽  
pp. 136571272110112
Author(s):  
Martin Smith
Keyword(s):  
Civil Liability ◽  
Alternative Interpretation ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Civil Trials ◽  
Civil Trial

The standard of proof applied in civil trials is the preponderance of evidence, often said to be met when a proposition is shown to be more than 50% likely to be true. A number of theorists have argued that this 50%+ standard is too weak—there are circumstances in which a court should find that the defendant is not liable, even though the evidence presented makes it more than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. In this paper, I will recapitulate the familiar arguments for this thesis, before defending a more radical one: The 50%+ standard is also too strong—there are circumstances in which a court should find that a defendant is liable, even though the evidence presented makes it less than 50% likely that the plaintiff’s claim is true. I will argue that the latter thesis follows naturally from the former once we accept that the parties in a civil trial are to be treated equally. I will conclude by sketching an alternative interpretation of the civil standard of proof

scholarly journals Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high

2021 ◽  
Vol 165 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth A. Lloyd ◽  
Naomi Oreskes ◽  
Sonia I. Seneviratne ◽  
Edward J. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Standards Of Proof

AbstractStandards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence.

Beweisanforderungen in der internationalen Sportschiedsgerichtsbarkeit vor dem Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie Franziska Axer
Keyword(s):  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
The Individual

Due to the nature of the sport, in particular the proof of doping, the requirements that are placed on the evidence before the CAS are unique. For the detection of violations of anti-doping regulations, in addition to the analytical, the non-analytical evidence is comprehensively analyzed. In addition, there is a naturally existing imbalance between athletes and associations, in which an athlete's complaint can have the effect of a “David versus Goliath” fight. Therefore, when examining the individual standard of proof, a focus is always placed on maintaining equality. Overall, the work offers orientation for users and suggestions for amendments by showing potential for improvement.

Deepfakes in International Arbitration: How Should Tribunals Treat Video Evidence and Allegations of Technological Tampering?

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 860-890
Author(s):  
Markus Burgstaller ◽  
Scott Macpherson
Keyword(s):  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Circumstantial Evidence ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Potential Use

Abstract Deepfakes can be described as videos of people doing and saying things that they have not done or said. Their potential use in international arbitration leads to two competing threats. Tribunals may be conscious of the difficulties in proving that a deepfake is, in fact, fake. If the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard of proof is applied, it may be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a sophisticated deepfake is fake. However, the burgeoning awareness of deepfakes may render tribunals less inclined to believe what they see on video even in circumstances in which the video before it is real. This may encourage parties to seek to deny legitimate video evidence as a deepfake. The ‘balance of probabilities’ standard, while not perfect, would appear to address this concern. In order to properly assess deepfakes, tribunals should apply this standard while assessing both technical and circumstantial evidence holistically.

scholarly journals Standards of Proof and Civil Litigation: A Game-Theoretic Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Guerra ◽  
Barbara Luppi ◽  
Francesco Parisi
Keyword(s):  
Critical Role ◽  
Policy Instrument ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Game Theoretic Analysis ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Game Theoretic ◽  
Truth Finding ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractIn litigation models, the parties’ probability to succeed in a lawsuit hinge upon the merits of the parties’ claims and their litigation efforts. In this paper we extend this framework to consider an important procedural aspect of the legal system: the standard of proof. We recast the conventional litigation model to consider how alternative standards of proof affect litigation choices. We analyze the interrelation between different standards of proof, the effectiveness of the parties’ efforts, and the merits of the case. We study how these factors jointly affect the parties’ litigation expenditures, the selection of cases brought to the courts, pretrial bargain solutions and preemptive strategies. Our results show that standards of proof are not only instrumental to balancing the competing goals of access to justice and judicial truth-finding, but they also play a critical role in affecting parties’ litigation investments and settlement choices, and in sorting the mix of cases that will actually be filed and defended in courts. The understanding of the sorting effect of standards of proof sheds light on their role as a policy instrument in civil litigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document