The role of experts before the International Court of Justice: The Whaling in the Antarctic case

Between law and science: Some considerations inspired by the Whaling in the Antarctic judgment

1. An attitude of reluctance The judgment rendered on 31 March 2014 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Whaling in the Antarctic case (Australia v Japan; New Zealand intervening)[1] raises the issue of scientific or technical matters in the proceedings before the ICJ. Usually guidance on such issues is given by experts....

Between law and science: A commentary on the Whaling in the Antarctic case

1. Introduction In March 2014, the International Court of Justice [‘ICJ’ or ‘the Court’] issued its judgment on the merits in the dispute between Australia and Japan, with New Zealand intervening, regarding Japan’s whaling programme in the Antarctic.[1] Australia’s primary contention in its application was that Japan’s whaling programme in the southern hemisphere [‘JARPA II’]...

Weighing the evidential value of expert opinion: The Whaling Case

1. Introduction The question of how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses experts in disputes involving complex scientific issues seems to be a trend topic in academic discussions on international litigation. The two commentaries offered by professors Mbengue and Scovazzi shed significant light on several questions raised after the Whaling in the Antarctic judgment...