Fact-finding

Abstract: Following legal realists, we model the causes and consequences of trial judges exercising discretion in finding facts in a trial. We identify two motivations for the exercise of such discretion: judicial policy preferences and judges’ aversion to reversal on appeal when the law is unsettled. In the latter case, judges exercising fact discretion find the facts that fit the settled precedents, even when they have no policy preferences. In a standard model of a tort, judicial fact discretion leads to setting of damages unpredictable from true facts of the case but predictable from knowledge of judicial preferences, distorts the number and severity of accidents, and generates welfare losses. It also encourages litigants to take extreme positions in court and raises the incidence of litigation relative to settlement, especially in new and complex disputes for which the law is unsettled.

Abstract: Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice examines a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the ICJ deals with facts. The book takes the position that such criticisms are warranted and that the ICJ's current approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy, both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts, and in those involving a scarcity of facts. The author skilfully examines how other courts such as the WTO and inter-State arbitrations conduct fact-finding and makes a number of select proposals for reform, enabling the ICJ to address some of the current weaknesses in its approach. The proposals includes, but are not limited to, the development of a power to compel the disclosure of information, greater use of provisional measures, and a clear strategy for the use of expert evidence.

Abstract: When courtroom interpreters translate a witness’s testimony, errors are not just possible, they are inherent to the process. Moreover, the occurrence of such errors is not merely a technical problem; errors can infringe on the rights of defendants or even lead to verdicts based on faulty findings of fact. International criminal proceedings, which are necessarily multilinguistic, are both particularly susceptible to interpretation errors and sensitive to questions of procedural fairness.This Article surveys the history and mechanics of courtroom interpretation, explains the inherent indeterminacy of translated language, and describes the other sources of inaccuracy in interpreted testimony. It then assesses the impact that errors in interpretation may have on fact finding by international criminal tribunals and on the rights of international criminal defendants. The Article concludes by suggesting some low-cost and easy-to-institute measures that will reduce the likelihood that a judgment will turn on an inaccurate interpretation. Improving the quality of translation will buttress the rightness of the international criminal tribunals’ judgments and the fairness of their procedures.

Abstract: Most international organizations lack law-enforcing sanctions or, having them in legal theory, are reluctant to invoke them in practice. Instead, they increasingly resort to fact-finding.