The International Court of Justice's Treatment of Circumstantial Evidence and Adverse Inferences

By Scharf, Michael P.; Day, Margaux | Chicago Journal of International Law, Summer 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The International Court of Justice's Treatment of Circumstantial Evidence and Adverse Inferences


Scharf, Michael P., Day, Margaux, Chicago Journal of International Law


Abstract

This Article examines a vexing evidentiary question with which the International Court of Justice has struggled in several cases, namely: What should the Court do when one of the parties has exclusive access to critical evidence and refuses to produce it for security or other reasons? In its first case, Corfu Channel, the Court decided to apply liberal inferences of fact against the non-producing party, but in the more recent Crime of Genocide case, the Court declined to do so under seemingly similar circumstances. By carefully examining the treatment of evidence exclusively accessible by one party in these and other international cases, this Article seeks, first, to illuminate the nuances in the Court's approach to circumstantial evidence and adverse inferences and, second, to recommend a more coherent approach for the future. Because International Court of Justice cases have significant impact on the practice of states and international organisations and are frequently cited as authority by national courts, a better understanding of the Court's application of evidentiary standards has broad scholarly and practical utility.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ....................................................................124

IL The Court's Power to Consider Circumstantial Evidence and Rely on Adverse Inferences.................................................................... 127

III. Key Early ICJ Cases Concerning Nonproduction of Evidence .....................128

A. The Corfu Channel Case ....................................................................129

1. Legal responsibility of Albania ....................................................................129

2. Legal responsibility of the UK. ....................................................................130

3. Analysis of evidentiary principles ....................................................................131

B. The South West Africa Cases ....................................................................131

C. The Military ana Paramilitary Activities Case ....................................................................132

D. The Pulau Ligitan andPulau Sipadan Islands Case ....................................................................133

E. The Oil Platforms Case ....................................................................134

F.DRC v Uganda ....................................................................135

G. Observations about the ICJ's Treatment of Circumstantial Evidence and Adverse Inferences Prior to 2005.................................................................... 136

IV. The Crime of Genocide Case ....................................................................136

A. The Separate Opinion of Judge Lauterpacht ....................................................................137

B. The Opinion of the Court ....................................................................138

1. Submission and use of secret evidence ....................................................................138

2. Recourse to liberal findings of fact ....................................................................139

3. Specific intent to commit genocide ....................................................................139

4. Duty to prevent and punish ....................................................................140

5. The Court's limited reliance on circumstantial evidence ....................................................................141

C. Reconciling Corfu Channel 'with Crime ofGenodde ....................................................................142

V. Circumstantial Evidence and Other International Tribunals ....................................................................143

A. Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague .

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The International Court of Justice's Treatment of Circumstantial Evidence and Adverse Inferences
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?