Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 April 2011
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and TribunalsExpert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality, pp. 349 - 364Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
. ‘De l’Évolution de la Cour Internationale: Reflexions sur quelques tendances recentes' (1992) 2 Revue Générale De Droit International Public273–96Google Scholar
‘Fuller's analysis of polycentric disputes and the limits of adjudication’ (1994) Cambridge Law Journal367–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A Continental Distinction in the Common Law: A historical and comparative perspective on English public law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996)Google Scholar
and ‘The Tribunal's use of experts’ in and (eds.), The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal and the Process of International Claims Resolution (New York: Transnational Publishers, 2000), p. 275Google Scholar
‘Presumptions and inferences in evidence in international litigation’ (2004) 3(3) Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals395–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causes de nullité de la sentence arbitrale en droit international public (Paris: Pedone, 1938)Google Scholar
. Res Judicata, Estoppel, and Foreign Judgments (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar
. ‘Commentary’, in and (eds.), WTO Law and Process: The proceedings of the 2005 and 2006 Annual WTO Conferences (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007), p. 220.Google Scholar
The Handling of International Disputes by Means of Inquiry (Oxford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar
. ‘Proof of fact in French civil procedure’ (1986) 34 American Journal of Comparative Law459–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. Risk Society: Towards a new modernity (London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1992)Google Scholar
‘Risk society revisited: Theory, politics and research programmes’ in , and , The Risk Society and Beyond (London; California; New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2000)Google Scholar
. ‘La “Descente sur les lieux” dans la pratique de la Cour International de Justice et de sa devancière’ in , and (eds.), Liber Amicorum: Professor Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern in honour of his 80th birthday (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1998), p. 1Google Scholar
Rationale of Judicial Evidence: Specially applied to English practice: From the manuscripts of Jeremy Bentham (London: Hunt and Clarke, 1827)Google Scholar
‘Principles of judicial procedure with the outlines of a procedural code’ in (ed.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham 11 vols. (Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843), IIGoogle Scholar
. ‘Community interests in the procedure of international courts and tribunals’ (2006) 5 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals369–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. Encylopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (1953) 43(2) Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
. ‘Some limitations of adjudication as an international dispute settlement technique’ (1983) 23 Virginia Journal of International Law1–12Google Scholar
‘The fact/law distinction in international adjudication’ in (ed.), Fact-Finding before International Tribunals: Eleventh Sokol Colloquium (Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1991), p. 95Google Scholar
, , and Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, materials and commentary (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar
. ‘The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law?’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law596–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘The German advantage revisited: An inside view of German civil procedure in the nineties’ (1998) 13 Tulane European and Civil Law Forum25–46Google Scholar
‘Lon Fuller's theory of adjudication and the false dichotomy between dispute resolution and public law models of litigation’ (1995) 75 Boston University Law Review1273–324Google Scholar
‘Flushing the Danube: The World Court's decision concerning the Gabčíkovo Dam’ (1998) 9 Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy401–27.Google Scholar
‘Res judicata and the limits of rectification of decisions by international tribunals’ (1996) 8 African Journal of International and Comparative Law577–91Google Scholar
et al., The International Court of Justice: Process, practice and procedure (London: British Institute for International and Comparative Law, 1997)Google Scholar
‘The Hague Conventions and the nullity of international arbitral awards’ (1928) 9 British Yearbook of International Law114–17Google Scholar
. ‘Observations on the finality of ICSID awards’ (1991) 6 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal321–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Genetically modified rules: The awkward rule-exception-right distinction in EC – Biotech’ (2007) 6(2) World Trade Review215–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Evidence before international tribunals: The need for some standard rules’ (1994) 28 International Law47–58Google Scholar
and The Iran – United States Claims Tribunal (The Hague; Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers, 1998)Google Scholar
. A Common Law of International Adjudication (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Oral evidence and experts in arbitration’, Dossier of the ICC Institute of World Business Law: Arbitration and oral evidence (www.iccdrl.com: 2005), p. 77Google Scholar
. In Fairness to Future Generations: International law, common patrimony and international equity (Hotei Publishing, 1989)Google Scholar
. ‘Revision’ in (ed.), European Courts: Practice and Precedents (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1997), p. 699.Google Scholar
. The Power to Protect: Trade, health and uncertainty in the WTO (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar
. ‘The precautionary principle: Core meaning, constitutional framework and procedures for implementation’ in and (eds.), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Leichhardt, New South Wales: The Federation Press, 1999), p. 29Google Scholar
‘The precautionary principle in international law’ in , and (eds.), Re-Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (London: Cameron, 2001), p. 113Google Scholar
and . ‘The precautionary principle: A fundamental principle of law and policy for the protection of the global environment’ (1991) 14 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review1–28Google Scholar
and ‘The status of the precautionary principle in international law’ in and (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The challenge of implementation (The Hague; London; Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996) p. 29Google Scholar
and ‘GATT/WTO Panels between recording and finding facts: Issues of due process, evidence, burden of proof, and standard of review in GATT/WTO dispute settlement’ in (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and lessons from the practice of other international courts and tribunals (London: Cameron May, 2000), p. 195Google Scholar
and ‘Introduction: Policies, trends and ideas in civil procedure’ in International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, XVI: Civil Procedure (Tübingen, Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988)Google Scholar
and Public Interest Parties and the Active Role of the Judge in Civil Litigation (Milan: Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore; and New York: Oceana Publications, Inc., 1975)Google Scholar
‘L'excès de pouvoir dans la justice internationale’ (1931) 35 Recueil des cours353–472Google Scholar
, , , , and ‘Internet roundtable: The Appellate Body's GSP decision’ (2004) 3(2) World Trade Review239–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘The role of the judge in public law litigation’ (1976) 89 Harvard Law Review1281–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge: Grotius Publications Ltd, 1987)Google Scholar
. ‘WTO Panels in the face of scientific uncertainty’ in (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and lessons from the practice of other international courts and tribunals (London: Cameron May, 2000), p. 243Google Scholar
and . ‘The MOX Plant litigation: The first half-life’ (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly643–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘The EU “coexistence” policy under WTO law: Problems and solutions’, paper presented at Changing Futures? Science and International Law, ESIL-ASIL Research Forum, University of Helsinki, Finland, 2–3 October 2009Google Scholar
. The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, text and commentaries (Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
and ‘WTO dispute procedures, standard of review, and deference to national governments’ (1996) 90 American Journal of International Law193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A comparative approach to the legal process (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1986)Google Scholar
‘The uncertain fate of evidentiary transplants: Anglo-American and Continental experiments’ (1997) 45 American Journal of Comparative Law839–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(ed.), Evidence in International Arbitration Proceedings (London: Graham and Trotman / Martinus Nijhoff and Association Internationale de Jeunes Avocats, 1994)
‘Mass tort litigation and inquisitorial justice’ (1999) 87 The Georgetown Law Journal1983–2024Google ScholarPubMed
‘The annulment proceedings and the finality of ICSID arbitral awards’ (1987) 2 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal85–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘A day in court in Justinian's Rome: Some problems of evidence, proof and justice in Roman law’ (1961) 46 Iowa Law Review732–72Google Scholar
. ‘Is the precautionary principle justiciable?’ (2001) 13(3) Journal of Environmental Law315–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism (Oxford; Portland: Hart Publishing, 2007)Google Scholar
and . ‘The precautionary principle: Towards a deliberative, trans-disciplinary problem-solving process’ in and (eds.), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Leichhardt, New South Wales: The Federation Press, 1999), p. 290Google Scholar
. ‘Equipping the Court to deal with developing areas of international law: Environmental law’ in and (eds.), Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997), pp. 397–417.Google Scholar
‘The “real dispute” in the Southern Bluefin Tuna case: A scientific dispute?’ (2001) 16(4) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law571–601Google Scholar
‘Social science experts and amicus curiae briefs in international courts and tribunals: The WTO Biotech Case’ (2005) 52 Netherlands International Law Review433–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Necessity and precaution in international law: Responding to oblique forms of urgency’ (2008) 32(2) New Zealand Universities Law Review265–83Google Scholar
‘Prior approval systems and the substance–procedure dichotomy under the WTO SPS Agreement’ (2008) 42(6) Journal of World Trade1203–17Google Scholar
‘Public opinion and the interpretation of the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ (2008) 11(2) Journal of International Economic Law427–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Precaution, scientific development and scientific uncertainty under the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ (2009) 18(1) Review of European Community and International Environmental Law50–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘The consultation of independent experts by international courts and tribunals’, Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Volume 20, 2009 (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar
‘Burden of proof in international courts and tribunals’ (2010) 29 Australian Yearbook of International Law (forthcoming)Google Scholar
and Judging Science: Scientific knowledge and the Federal Courts (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997)Google Scholar
and ‘Risk regulation: Technocratic and democratic tools for regulatory reform’ (1998) 43 McGill Law Journal835–87Google Scholar
. ‘Caution or precaution: “A rose by any other name”?’ (1999) 10 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . ‘Origins and development of the precautionary principle’ in and (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The challenge of implementation (The Hague; London; Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996), p. 3Google Scholar
. ‘Assessing expert evidence’ in and (eds.), The Leading Arbitrators' Guide to International Arbitration, 2nd edn (New York: Juris Publishing Inc., 2008), p. 429Google Scholar
‘Fact-finding by the European Commission of Human Rights’ in (ed.), Fact-Finding before International Tribunals: Eleventh Sokol Colloquium (Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1991), p. 237Google Scholar
. ‘Inherent powers of international courts and tribunals’ in , et al. (eds.), Man's Inhumanity to Man: Essays on international law in honour of Antonio Cassese (The Hague; New York: Kluwer Law International, 2003), p. 353Google Scholar
. ‘Centre International pour le Réglement des Différends Relatifs aux Investissements’ (1987) 114 Journal du Droit International135–91Google Scholar
. ‘Incertitude et expertise: l'expertise française sous le regard international’ in Séminaire risques, assurances, responsabilités 2004–2005: le traitement juridique et judiciaire de l'incertitude, Cour de Cassation, colloques et activités de formation, www.courdecassation.fr
, and Traité de Droit Civil (Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, Editions Juridiques Associées, 1994)Google Scholar
. ‘The World Court and the interpretation of constitutive treaties: Some observations on the development of an international constitutional law’ (1965) 59 American Journal of Interational Law794–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Allocating the burden of proof in WTO disputes: A critical analysis (2006) 9(3) Journal of International Economic Law615–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement (Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Fluctuating evidentiary standards for self-defence in the International Court of Justice’ (2009) 58(1) International and Comparative Law Quarterly163–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Res judicata: l'autorité de la chose jugée en droit international’ in and (eds.), Melanges Georges Perrin: recueil de travaux offerts à M. Georges Perrin (Lausanne: Payot, 1984) p. 136Google Scholar
. ‘The status in international law of the principle of precautionary action’ (1990) 5 International Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review40–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Environmental security and global change: The challenge to international law’ in , and (eds), Environmental Protection and International Law (London; Dordrecht; Boston: Graham and Trotman / Martinus Nijhoff, 1991)Google Scholar
. ‘Satisfying the burden of proof: The viewpoint of a “civil law” lawyer’ (1994) 10(3) Arbitration International341–53Google Scholar
, , et al. ‘Twelve late lessons’ in , , et al. (eds.), The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late lessons from early warnings (London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan Pub. Ltd, 2002), p. 185Google Scholar
. ‘French judicial expertise procedure and international arbitration’ (1987) 4 Journal of International Arbitration77–101Google Scholar
and . ‘Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication’ (1997) 107 Yale Law Journal273–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and . ‘Attacks on judicial decisions’ in International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, XVI: Civil Procedure (Tübingen, The Hague: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1982)Google Scholar
. ‘The precautionary concept in environmental policy and law: Institutionalizing caution’ (1991–1992) 4 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review303–18Google Scholar
and ‘Refining the precautionary principle in international environmental law’ (1995) 14 Virginia Environmental Law Journal Spring, 423–54Google Scholar
. ‘Respecting sovereign states and running a tight courtroom’ (2001) 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly121–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Evidence and proof of facts’ in (ed.), The International Court of Justice at a Crossroads (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers Inc., 1987), pp. 355–75Google Scholar
. Commentary on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: The application by the Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal (Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1991)Google Scholar
. Precautionary Legal Duties and Principles of Modern International Environmental Law: The precautionary principle: International environmental law between exploitation and protection (London; Boston: Graham and Trotman / Martinus Nijhoff, 1994)Google Scholar
‘Fact-finding by the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ in (ed.), Fact-Finding Before International Tribunals: Eleventh Sokol Colloquium (Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1991), p. 101Google Scholar
, , ‘Streamlining arbitral proceedings: Some techniques of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ (1995) 11 Arbitration International39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and ‘Assessing causation in breast implant litigation: The role of science panels’ (2001) 64(4) Law and Contemporary Problems139–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Democracy, science, and free trade: Risk regulation on trial at the World Trade Organization’ (2000) 98 Michigan Law Review2329–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Visits by international tribunals to places concerned in proceedings’ (1937) 31 American Journal of International Law696–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Expert conferencing and new methods’ in (ed.), International Arbitration 2006: Back to Basics? (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2006), pp. 820–5Google Scholar
‘Witness conferencing,’ in (ed.), Guide to the World's Leading Experts in Commercial Arbitration (Legal Media Group, www.legalmediagroup.com, 2008), pp. 3–5Google Scholar
‘Witness conferencing and party autonomy’ Transnational Dispute Management (October 2009 provisional issue) 19–27Google Scholar
. ‘The case for incorporating scientists and technicians into WTO Panels’ (2008) 42(2) Journal of World Trade279–97Google Scholar
. ‘What judges should know about the sociology of science’ (1992) 32 Jurimetrics Journal345–60Google Scholar
‘The active role of the court in civil litigation’ in and (eds.), Public Interest Parties and the Active Role of the Judge in Civil Litigation (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications Inc., 1975), pp. 157–278Google Scholar
. ‘Party appointed expert witnesses in international arbitration: A protocol at last’ (2008) 24(1) Arbitration International137–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. Burden of Proof and Related Issues: A study on evidence before international tribunals (The Hague; Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996)Google Scholar
. The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights Law: Civil and common law approaches with special reference to the American and German legal systems (The Hague; Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1998)Google Scholar
. ‘General principles of procedural law’ in , and (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A commentary (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 793–835Google Scholar
. ‘Peaceful settlement of environmental disputes’ (1991) 60 Nordic Journal of International Law73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Cooperating on the law of UNCLOS Article 76 and the science of the outer limits: The normativity of the institutional dimension’, paper presented at Changing Futures? Science and International Law, ESIL-ASIL Research Forum, University of Helsinki, Finland, 2–3 October 2009Google Scholar
. ‘Evidence in the procedure of the International Court of Justice: Role of the Court’ in and (eds.), Essays in Honour of Judge Taslim Olawale Elias, 2 vols., I: Contemporary International Law and Human Rights (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992), p. 265Google Scholar
‘Quelques remarques sur la preuve devant la Cour Permanente et La Cour Internationale de Justice’ (1950) 7 Annuaire Suisse de Droit International77–103Google Scholar
‘The German advantage in civil procedure’ (1985) 52 The University of Chicago Law Review823–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The European Court of Justice: Practice and procedure, 2nd edn (London: Butterworths, 1994)Google Scholar
. ‘Partial judgments and the inherent jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice’ in and (eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice (Cambridge University Press 1996), pp. 465–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1927)Google Scholar
. The Development of International Law by the International Court (London: Stevens and Sons Limited, 1958)Google Scholar
et al. World Trade Law: Text, materials and cases (Oxford; Portland, OR: Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar
. ‘Science in the hands of international investment tribunals: A case for “scientific due process”’, Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Volume 20, 2009 (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar
and The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (New York: Plenum Press, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Res judicata and the rule of law in international arbitration’ (1996) 8 African Journal of International and Comparative Law38–50Google Scholar
‘Appreciating the precautionary principle as an ethical evolution in ocean management’ (1995) 26 Ocean Development and International Law255–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Evidence, standard and burden of proof in the use of experts in procedure before the Luxembourg Courts’ in (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and lessons from the practice of other international courts and tribunals (London: Cameron May, 2000), p. 265Google Scholar
International Adjudication: Procedural aspects (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1980)Google Scholar
. ‘The Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration: Comments on Professor Barbara Kwiatkowska's article’ (2001) 16 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law361–6.Google Scholar
. ‘Compulsory dispute settlement after the Southern Bluefin Tuna Award’ in and (eds.), Oceans Management in the 21st Century: Institutional frameworks and responses (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2004), p. 255.Google Scholar
‘Presumptions and burden of proof in world trade law’ (1997) 14 Journal of International Arbitration67–98Google Scholar
. ‘Propositions du groupe de travail’, in Séminaire risques, assurances, responsabilités 2004–2005: le traitement juridique et judiciaire de l'incertitude Cour de Cassation colloques et activités de formation (www.courdecassation.fr)
. ‘Risk management, reality and the precautionary principle: Coping with decisions’ in and (eds.), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Leichhardt, New South Wales: The Federation Press, 1999), p. 190Google Scholar
‘Civility and the burden of proof’ (1994) 17 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy647–90Google Scholar
‘Some problems of expertise in French civil proceedings’ (1989) 10 Civil Justice Quarterly168–83Google Scholar
‘The role of the judge in French civil proceedings’ (1990) 9 Civil Justice Quarterly167–85Google Scholar
. ‘“What you risk reveals what you value” and other dilemmas encountered in the legal assaults on risks’ in and (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The challenge of implementation (The Hague; London; Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996), p. 73Google Scholar
and Cheshire and North's Private International Law, 14th edn (Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
. Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution (Oxford University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Procedural obligations in international environmental agreements’ (1996) 67 British Yearbook of International Law275–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Case concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)’ 47 (1998) International and Comparative Law Quarterly688–98.
‘Environmental dispute settlement: Some reflections on recent developments’ in (ed.), Remedies in International Law: The institutional dilemma (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1998), p. 157Google Scholar
‘Shifting the burden of proof: How the common law can safeguard nature and promote an earth ethic’ (1990) 20 Environmental Law891–915Google Scholar
‘The role of science in investment arbitrations concerning public health and the environment’ (2006) 17 Yearbook of International Environmental Law48–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘The politics of the precautionary principle’ in and (eds.), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (Leichhardt, N.S.W.: The Federation Press, 1999), p. 283Google Scholar
. The Changing International Law of High Seas Fisheries (Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar
The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘ICSID's achievements and prospects’ (1991) 6 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal380–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Evidence, proof and persuasion in WTO dispute settlement: Who bears the burden?’ (1998) 1 Journal of International Economic Law227–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures as applied in the first three SPS disputes: EC – Hormones, Australia – Salmon and Japan – Varietals’ (1999) 2(4) Journal of International Economic Law641–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘The use of experts in WTO dispute settlement’ (2002) 51 International and Comparative Law Quarterly325–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Expert advice in WTO dispute settlement’ in and (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘Risk regulation under the WTO SPS agreement: Science as an international normative yardstick?’ Jean Monnet Working Papers, 2004
The Precautionary Principle in Practice: Environmental decision-making, and scientific uncertainty (Annandale, N.S.W.: Federation Press, 2005)Google Scholar
‘International law and the legitimate determination of risk: Is democratising expertise the answer?’ (2007) 38 Victoria University Law Review363–80Google Scholar
. ‘Witness conferencing revisited’ in Arbitral Procedure at the Dawn of the New Millennium: Reports of the International Colloquium of CEPANI (Brussels: Bruylant, 2005), pp. 155–71Google Scholar
. ‘Procedure in the European Courts: Comparisons and proposals’ (1997) 267 Receuil des CoursGoogle Scholar
. ‘Continuity and change in the EU Regulatory Framework on Genetically Modified Organisms, after the WTO dispute on “Biotech Products”’ (2010) Legal issues of Economic Integration (forthcoming)
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 4th edn (London: Hutchinson, 1959)
The Myth of the Framework: In defence of science and rationality (London; New York: Routledge, 1994)Google Scholar
‘The principle of utility and the law of procedure: Bentham's theory of adjudication’ (1977) 11 Georgia Law Review1393–424Google Scholar
‘Procedural developments at the International Court of Justice’ (2004) 3 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals125–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Witness conferencing’ in L. W. Newman and (eds.), The Leading Arbitrators Guide to International Arbitration, 2nd edn (New York: Juris Publishing Inc., 2008), pp. 415–28Google Scholar
The Law and Procedure of International Tribunals: Being a resumé of the views of arbitrators upon questions arising under the law of nations and of the procedure and practice of international courts (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1926)Google Scholar
. ‘L'Annulation des sentences Klöckner et AMCO’ (1986) 32 Annuaire Français de Droit International259–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds). The Rules of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A commentary (Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006)
et al. Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2004)Google Scholar
. Nullity and Revision: The review and enforcement of international judgments and awards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971)Google Scholar
‘The breakdown of the control mechanism in ICSID arbitration’ 1989 (4) Duke Law Journal739–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘The supervisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: International arbitration and international adjudication (1996) 258 Recueil des CoursGoogle Scholar
‘Why we probably cannot adopt the German advantage in civil procedure’ (1990) 75 Iowa Law Review975–1009Google Scholar
. ‘Fact-finding at the European Court of Justice’ in (ed.), Fact-Finding before International Tribunals: Eleventh Sokol Colloquium (Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY: Transnational Publishers, 1991), pp. 177–203Google Scholar
and . Evidence Before the International Court of Justice (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009)Google Scholar
‘Les Règles du droit civil applicables aux rapports internationaux’ (1933) 44 Receuil des Cours, 569–660Google Scholar
. ‘“Substance” and “procedure” revisited with some afterthoughts on the constitutional problems of “irrebuttable presumptions”’ (1982–83) 30 University of California at Los Angeles Law Review156–88Google Scholar
. Procedure in the International Court: A commentary on the 1978 Rules of the International Court of Justice (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1983)Google Scholar
‘The International Court of Justice and international arbitration’ in and (eds.), The Flame Rekindled: New hopes for international arbitration: Leiden Journal of International Law, Special issue on International Arbitration (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1994), p. 297Google Scholar
‘Visit to the site by the International Court’ in and (eds.), Liber Amicorum – Mohammed Bedjaoui (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999), pp. 461–73Google Scholar
The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–2005, 4th edn (Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006)Google Scholar
Interpretation, Revision and Other Recourse from International Judgments and Awards (Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Fact-finding before the International Court of Justice’ in , Essays on International Law and Practice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), p. 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘The development of the use of expert testimony’ (1935) 2 Law and Contemporary Problems403–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. Environmental Principles: From political slogans to legal rules (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Le Fait dans l'application du droit international’ (1982) 175 (II) Recueil des Cours257–414Google Scholar
. ‘Commentary on UNCITRAL arbitration rules’ (1997) II Yearbook: Commercial Arbitration172– 219Google Scholar
Evidence before International Tribunals (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1975)Google Scholar
. Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘The precautionary principle and its normative challenges’ in , and (eds.), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and prospects (Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2006), p. 19Google Scholar
The ICSID Convention: A commentary, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (London: Stevens and Sons Ltd, 1986)Google Scholar
‘The creation and operation of an International Court of Arbitral Awards’ in , and (eds.), The Internationalisation of International Arbitration (London; Dordrecht; Boston: Graham and Trotman / Martinus Nijhoff, 1995)Google Scholar
. ‘Res judicata, precedent and the International Court: A preliminary sketch’ (1999) 20 Australian Yearbook of International Law299–317Google Scholar
. The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: A commentary (Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar
. ‘The International Court of Justice: The integrity of an idea’ in and (eds.), International Law in Transition, Essays in Honour of Judge Nagendra Singh (Dordrecht; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff 1992) p. 341Google Scholar
Precedent in the World Court (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals (Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar
and . International Arbitration: Law and practice (London: Stevens and Sons Ltd, 1959)Google Scholar
. ‘Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzogovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)’ (2007) 56(3) International and Comparative Law Quarterly695–708Google Scholar
and . ‘Introduction’ in , and (eds.), Expert Evidence (London; New York: Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar
, and The Doctrine of Res Judicata, 2nd edn (London; Edinburgh; Dublin: Butterworths, 1996)Google Scholar
. Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Civil procedure’ in , , and (eds.) Introduction to Dutch Law for Foreign Lawyers (Deventer: Kluwer, 1978), p. 231Google Scholar
. ‘The limits of international adjudication in international environmental law: Another perspective on the Southern Bluefin Tuna case’ (2004) 19 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law173–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. International Courts and Environmental Protection (CambridgeUniversity Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘The precautionary principle in science and technology’ in , and (eds.), Re-Interpreting the Precautionary Principle (London: Cameron May, 2001), p. 61Google Scholar
‘Values, ideology and the evolution of the adversary system’ (1989) 64 Indiana Law Journal301–56Google Scholar
. ‘The implementation of the judgment of the ICJ in the Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros dispute’ (2009) 39 Environmental Policy and Law97–102Google Scholar
‘Article 50’ in , and (eds.) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A commentary (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 1109Google Scholar
. ‘Rethinking the standards of proof’ (2003) 51 American Journal of Comparative Law569–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘A comparative study of expert testimony in France and the United States: Philosophical underpinnings, history, practice and procedure’ (1996) 31 Texas International Law Journal181–213Google Scholar
. ‘Dilemma or chimera? Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in international adjudication’ (1984) 78 American Journal of International Law622–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Procedural law and the International Court of Justice’ in and (eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honour of Sir Robert Jennings (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Procedure of international courts and tribunals’ in (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, 12 vols. (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science BV, 1997), III, pp. 1128–31Google Scholar
‘The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989: Part Nine’ (1999) 69 British Yearbook of International Law1–84Google Scholar
‘The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989: Part Ten’ (2000) 70 British Yearbook of International Law1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘La Descente de la cour sur les lieux dans l'affaire relative au projet Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros’ (1997) XLIII Annuaire Français de Droit International333–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Courts and the European Court of Human Rights: Procedure and evidence (Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008)Google Scholar
and ‘The first site visit of the International Court of Justice in fulfilment of its judicial function’ (1998) 92 American Journal of International Law133–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. Evolution and Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law (The Hague; New York: Kluwer Law International, 2002)Google Scholar
‘Application for revision of the judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina), Judgment of 3 February 2003’ (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly731–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, Handon, 1985)Google Scholar
Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. ‘The law of nations or the principles of natural law’ (trans. ) in (ed.), The Classics of International Law (Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1916), III, pp. 1–398Google Scholar
. ‘Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros: The evidentiary regime on environmental degradation and the World Court’ (1997) 6 European Environmental Law Review, 247–53Google Scholar
‘The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization: An assessment after five years’ (1999–2000) 32 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics865–937Google Scholar
‘International investment, expropriation and environmental protection’ (1999) 29 Golden Gate University Law Review465–538Google Scholar
. WTO Litigation: Procedural aspects of formal dispute settlement (London: Cameron May, 2002)Google Scholar
. ‘Two nebulous ICSID features: The notion of investment and the scope of annulment control: Ad hoc Committee's decision in Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of Congo’ (2007) 24 (3) Journal of International Arbitration287–306Google Scholar
‘Keeping the WTO from becoming the “World Trans-Science Organization”: Scientific uncertainty, science policy, and factfinding in the growth hormones dispute’ (1998) 31 Cornell International Law Journal251–322Google Scholar
‘Transforming science into law: Default reasoning in international trade disputes’ in and (eds.), Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the distortion of scientific research (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. New Zealand at the International Court of Justice: French nuclear testing in the Pacific: Nuclear Tests Case New Zealand v. France, 1995 (Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 1996)Google Scholar
‘Burden of proof, and evidence before the ICJ’ in (ed.), Improving WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures: Issues and lessons from the practice of other international courts and tribunals (London: Cameron May, 2000), pp. 289–301Google Scholar
‘New practice directions of the International Court of Justice’ (2002) 1(2) Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals247–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Scientific evidence and the question of judicial capacity’ (1984) 25 William and Mary Law Review675–703Google Scholar
. The International Arbitral Process: Public and private, 5 vols. (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 1979), IIGoogle Scholar
The Use of Experts by International Tribunals (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1965)Google Scholar
, , , and ‘Adjudicating the GM food wars: Science, risk, and democracy in world trade law’ (2005) 30 Yale Journal of International Law81–123Google Scholar
. ‘The role of science in the Uruguay round and NAFTA trade disciplines’ (1994) 27 Cornell International Law Journal817–59Google Scholar
‘Onus probandi devant les juridictions arbitrales’ (1951) 55 Revue Generale de Droit International Public321–42Google Scholar
. Lord. Access to Justice: Final report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales (London: HMSO, 1996)Google Scholar
, The Legal Texts: The results of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations (Cambridge University Press, 1999)Google Scholar
. ‘Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm’ (1992) 2(2) Global Environmental Change111–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Risk and environmental issues as STS themes: Reflexivity on the rocks?’ (July 2002) Special Issue Current Sociology
Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of practice (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006)Google Scholar