Innovations in Mass Claims Dispute Resolution: Using New Standards of Proof

By van Haersolte-van Hof, Jacomijn J. | Dispute Resolution Journal, August-October 2003 | Go to article overview

Innovations in Mass Claims Dispute Resolution: Using New Standards of Proof


van Haersolte-van Hof, Jacomijn J., Dispute Resolution Journal


The author is an attorney at De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, in The Hague, specializing in arbitration and litigation. She previously served in different capacities on the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Account, Zurich, and the U.S./U.K. Heathrow User Charges Tribunal.

Mass-claims tribunals are characterized by large numbers of claims, large numbers of claimants, and usually, special factual circumstances triggering the claims that led to the institution of the particular mass claims tribunals. An examination of the recent practices of some of these tribunals reveals that the role of evidence in the proceedings before them has been redefined.

However, stating a rule of what has been the general practice of mass claims tribunals is not so easy to do. The excellent book Fact-Finding Before International Tribunals1 contains numerous papers on this subject, including fact finding by the International Court of justice and the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, and by international human rights bodies. Generally speaking, in "normal" non-mass claims proceedings, one can say that the standard is that evidence is weighed, and a determination is made of the preponderance of the evidence. Mass claim tribunals generally apply less stringent standards of proof. Moreover, the procedure of presenting evidence is often simplified, which may permit the use of newer techniques that replace or modify the traditional forms of submitting evidence, such as electronic submissions.

This article examines how six mass claims tribunals, some of which still exist, have dealt with the standard of proof. This examination reveals that a number of tribunals say that they apply a "plausibility" standard or simply a "more relaxed" standard of proof than would normally be required in court or arbitration. However, it is crucial to emphasize that a detailed comparison of the various tribunals is not helpful because of the different circumstances in which each arose. That is not to say that a comparison is utterly pointless. But in making any general comparison, the characteristics and circumstances that shaped each tribunal must be taken into account.

The Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal

The rules of procedure of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal are largely based on the UNCI-TRAL Arbitration Rules. The only guidance on the standard of proof in the rules are Article 24 (1), which provides that "each party shall bear the burden of proving the facts relied on to support his claim or defense," and Article 25 (6), which provides that "the arbitral tribunal shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence offered." However, Article 15 emphasizes the discretion of the tribunal to "conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate"; it further provides that the parties should be treated with equality and "that at any stage of the proceedings each party is given a full opportunity of presenting its case."

In practice, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal has exercised its discretion by using the traditional "preponderance of the evidence" yardstick, instead of a more relaxed standard of proof. In some cases, the Tribunal has taken an active role in investigating the facts. This was the case, for example, in relation to issues of jurisdiction.2 At times, the Tribunal has allowed a simplified presentation of evidence, such as by accepting and relying upon reports and summaries provided by certified public accountants.3 It has also allowed the filling of gaps in evidence by drawing inferences.4 Indeed, it has applied the technique of drawing adverse inferences under the following rule: "When a party ... has access to relevant evidence, the tribunal is authorized to draw adverse inferences from the failure of that party to produce such evidence."5 A necessary predicate for an adverse inference is the Tribunal's "reasonable certainty" that the party against whom the inference is to be drawn has possession of, or access to, the missing evidence. …

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

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.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Innovations in Mass Claims Dispute Resolution: Using New Standards of Proof
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    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.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.