NCJ Number
122868
Date Published
1987
Length
21 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the factual findings made by the International Court of Justice in the 1984 case involving Nicaragua and the United States and in several other cases concludes that the Court has not yet used to their full potential its broad flexibility and wide powers in matters relating to evidence.
Abstract
Most issues brought before the Court and its predecessor have been capable of resolution mainly by pleading and documentary proof; parties are free to introduce almost any evidence they consider appropriate to prove their cases. Only 8 cases in 60 years have involved the use of live witnesses and experts. However, the Court's ability to appoint its own experts is an important power, which it has occasionally exercised. In addition, the Court can conduct its own direct inspections. The Court has also used circumstantial evidence and inference and has relied on information that has been widely reported in the press and is therefore a matter of public knowledge. The Court's handling of the Nicaragua case showed its extensive reliance on indirect or inferential methods of proof, partly because of the absence of the United States from the proceedings. This case and other examples indicate the desirability of several changes, such as the use of depositions and interrogations and a more active role for the Court President in requesting greater clarity from the parties. Additional recommendations and 142 footnotes.