In the past decade, international courts and tribunals have been increasingly facing scientific and technical issues in their case law, and international disputes have seen greater resort to expert opinion, both by parties and adjudicators. Despite the increasing use of the expert in various kinds of international disputes, there has not been a corresponding coherence in practice governing different aspects of expert use, or clarity in the rules and practices to be followed in this respect. The present journal issue includes diverse contributions from authors on the aforementioned theme and offers challenging views and opinions on the topic. To further dialogue on various aspects of working with experts in disputes, especially cutting across different fora, a symposium was organized in April 2017, at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg. This symposium provided a platform for the exchange of ideas on topics of considerable debate and divergent views. The interaction of participants highly experienced and specialized in their field also provided an in-depth practical and theoretical analysis of the topic under discussion. A comparative perspective, crucial to a holistic appraisal of the subject, was the hallmark of this discussion, due to the diverse professional backgrounds of the participants. The symposium highlighted and confronted, among other issues, varying views on the appointment of experts, their roles and obligations; the modes of using experts within the framework of the proceedings; and the means of assessing expert evidence available to the judge. The symposium was part of a research project on ‘Experts and International Courts and Tribunals’, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), and conducted at the Faculty of Law of the University of Geneva. The research conducted under the aegis of the project aimed to identify and analyse practices across various international jurisdictions in relation to experts appearing in disputes before * University of Geneva, Faculty of law. E-mail: laurence.boissondechazournes@unige.ch. ** Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law. E-mail: helene.ruizfabri@mpi.lu. *** University of Geneva, Faculty of law, Sciences Po Paris (School of Law). E-mail: makane.mbengue@unige.ch. **** University of Geneva, Faculty of law. E-mail: rukmini.das@unige.ch. ***** University of Geneva, Faculty of law. E-mail: guillaume.gros@unige.ch. 1 Project number 10001A_156117, Swiss National Science Foundation, 2015–2019. VC The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 339 Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2018, 9, 339–344 doi: 10.1093/jnlids/idy007 Advance Access Publication Date: 17 April 2018 Article D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /jids/article-ct/9/3/339/4975522 by U niersity de G eeve user on 19 uly 2019 the said jurisdictions. The research has illuminated the core areas of disagreement and disparity among participants in international dispute settlement, such as the efficacy of cross-examination, the preference for party-appointed over tribunalappointed experts and their expected roles and duties, as well as the areas which, by broad consensus, are in need of reform, such as the use of ‘phantom experts’ and transparency in a court or tribunal’s use of experts. The symposium provided opportunity for further in-depth discussion and examination of these aspects of expert use in international disputes. Speakers experienced in investment and trade disputes, those who have been involved with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Law of the Sea Tribunal as well as the International Court of Justice—in capacities of judges, counsel as well as experts—brought the necessary diversity of experience, along with academic scholars, to the debates at the symposium. A majority of these speakers, as contributors to this special issue of the JIDS, have also brought the same diversity of opinion to the debates in this journal, while at the same time expanding on the thoughts expressed at the symposium. Across a broad spectrum of dispute settlement fora, the authors raise issues concerning the various forms in which experts may be involved in a dispute and the procedures that govern their involvement, judicial assessment of expert evidence including questions such as admissibility and weight of such evidence and a related concern for independence and impartiality of experts that may have a bearing on admissibility of their evidence. The thread that ties these inquiries together is the extent to which the use of experts affects various aspects of an international dispute, from the pre-hearing phase, until judicial decision-making. There is a need to delineate the roles and responsibilities of experts from those exercised by judges and arbitrators in a dispute settlement function. The contributions brought together in this special edition of the journal confront these issues and help us to further consider how to address them. The papers in this special issue have thus been broadly classified into four sections, based on the different aspects of expert use they analyse. Each section consists of two to four contributions. Thereafter, a jointly authored paper by Professors Boisson de Chazournes and Mbengue, and Guillaume Gros and Rukmini Das, highlights the conclusions they have drawn from the empirical research they have conducted, under the aegis of the SNSF project. 1 . C O N T R I B U T I O N S B Y S Y M P O S I U M S P E A K E R S A. Different Forms of Expert Involvement The expert is an actor with a plurality of forms. A single term encompasses a multiplicity of practical expressions. He or she may be appointed by the judge, by the parties as a witness, as a counsel, or may sit with the judge or even in certain instances be a judge. Some of them apparently intervene at the fringe of the legal framework, being invisible, without formal recognition or public involvement. Each of these is an expert, the modality of intervention relates in fine to a specific type of justice either more inquisitorial or more adversarial. There may be advantages of using one form of experts over another, or of using two or more of them in conjunction. The authors of this section describe according to different perspectives and conceptions, these different types of use, and make a critical assessment in context of the adversarial principle. 340 Journal of International Dispute Settlement D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /jids/article-ct/9/3/339/4975522 by U niersity de G eeve user on 19 uly 2019 Judge Bennouna after carefully delineating the limit of the function of an expert in a judicial context addresses the advantages and disadvantages of the different forms of expert involvement in context of the International Court of Justice. He notes certain limits to a pure adversarial approach of fact-finding especially with regard to scientific uncertainty. He argues however in favour of the limited added value of the court-appointed expert and advocates for its cautious use. James Flett makes the plea that a sound conceptual clarification is necessary to effectively grasp the practice of using experts and would help resolving substantial issues. By relating the function of an expert to the functions of the other judicial actors, he identifies a negative definition, determining what an expert is not or should not do. He identifies the remaining (limited) functions of the expert, the primary one being organizing facts and evidence. Against this background Flett analyses the World Trade Organization (WTO) practice, and concludes that both adjudicators and counsel should keep in mind that the role of an expert is limited to ‘provid[ing] assistance’. As a counterpoint, Geoffrey Senogles offers a valuable perspective by giving the practical analysis of an expert on the adversarial production of expert evidence. Senogles offers a critical assessment of the different procedural methods existing to implement the adversarial principle in the production of expert evidence, rooted in practical experiences. He demonstrates that an adversarial approach without constraints can lead the experts to forget their function of assistance to the judge by sustaining entrenched positions and concentrating on discrediting the expert of the opposing party. Cherise Valles, after acknowledging the technical or scientific complexity of the disputes brought to the WTO, draws a comprehensive picture of the types of expert involvement including recourse to international organizations. By doing so, she points the paradox in WTO practice that no economic expert was ever appointed despite the parties including increasing number of economic technical evidence. The role of the secretariat in this perspective is then critically discussed as well as the importance of the standard of review applied when dealing with factual complexity. B. Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence This section debates the means of introducing expert knowledge into the judicial decision and the potential development of legal criteria to handle scientific categories. Judgments from different international fora reveal varied approaches to handling expert evidence, in terms of using it to arrive at a decision, incorporating it into the steps in the judicial process. There seems to be an absence of a consistent approach in terms of admissibility of such evidence, weight given to it, or otherwise assessing it, across fora and sometimes within the same judicial forum. Judge Donoghue clearly notes that every case involving expert evidence does not call for passing judgement on scientific questions, since the mandate of the international judge is to settle legal disputes. Addressing a case according to this specific mandate allows judges to not adjudicate on the substance of matters of scientific uncertainty. Judge Donoghue demonstrates that when it

中文翻译：

---

国际裁决程序专家：特刊简介

在过去十年中，国际法院和法庭在其判例法中越来越多地面临科学和技术问题，国际争端越来越多地诉诸专家意见，无论是当事人还是裁决者。尽管在各类国际争端中越来越多地使用专家，但在管理专家使用的不同方面的实践中并没有相应的一致性，或者在这方面应遵循的规则和实践的明确性。本期期刊包括作者对上述主题的各种贡献，并就该主题提出了具有挑战性的观点和意见。为了进一步就与争议专家合作的各个方面进行对话，尤其是在不同的论坛上，2017 年 4 月在卢森堡马克斯普朗克研究所组织了一次研讨会。本次座谈会提供了一个平台，就具有相当大的辩论和不同观点的主题交流思想。在各自领域经验丰富且专业的参与者之间的互动也为所讨论的主题提供了深入的实践和理论分析。由于参与者的不同专业背景，比较视角对于对该主题的整体评估至关重要，是本次讨论的标志。除其他问题外，专题讨论会突出并解决了对专家的任命、专家的作用和义务的不同看法；在程序框架内使用专家的方式；以及评估法官可获得的专家证据的方法。该研讨会是“专家与国际法院和法庭”研究项目的一部分，由瑞士国家科学基金会 (SNSF) 资助，在日内瓦大学法学院进行。在该项目的支持下进行的研究旨在识别和分析与出现在日内瓦大学法学院争端中的专家有关的各种国际司法管辖区的做法。电子邮件：laurence.boissondechazournes@unige.ch。** 马克斯普朗克研究所卢森堡程序法。电子邮件：helene.ruizfabri@mpi.lu。*** 日内瓦大学法学院，巴黎政治学院（法学院）。电子邮箱：makane.mbengue@unige.ch。**** 日内瓦大学法学院。电子邮箱：rukmini.das@unige.ch。***** 日内瓦大学法学院。电子邮件：guillaume.gros@unige.ch。1 项目编号 10001A_156117，瑞士国家科学基金会，2015-2019。VC 作者 2018。牛津大学出版社出版。版权所有。如需许可，请发送电子邮件至：journals.permissions@oup.com 339 Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2018, 9, 339–344 doi: 10.1093/jnlids/idy007 Advance Access Publication Date: 17 April 2018 Article D http naded rom /academ ic.p.com /jids/article-ct/9/3/339/4975522 由 U niersity de Geeve 用户在 2019 年 1 月 19 日上述司法管辖区。该研究阐明了国际争端解决参与者之间存在分歧和差异的核心领域，例如盘问的有效性、当事人指定的专家优先于仲裁庭指定的专家及其预期角色和职责，以及哪些领域，根据广泛的共识，需要改革，例如使用“幻影专家”和提高法院或法庭使用专家的透明度。研讨会为进一步深入讨论和审查国际争端中专家使用的这些方面提供了机会。在投资和贸易争端方面经验丰富的演讲者，曾参与欧洲联盟法院 (CJEU)、海洋法法庭以及国际法院的演讲者——担任法官、法律顾问和专家——与学术学者一起为研讨会的辩论带来了必要的多样性经验。大多数发言者作为 JIDS 特刊的撰稿人，也为本刊的辩论带来了同样多样化的意见，同时扩展了研讨会上表达的想法。在广泛的争端解决论坛中，提交人提出了关于专家可能以各种形式参与争议的问题及其介入程序、专家证据的司法评估，包括诸如此类证据的可采性和权重等问题，以及对专家独立性和公正性的相关关切这可能会影响其证据的可采性。将这些调查联系在一起的主线是专家的使用对国际争端各个方面的影响程度，从预审阶段到司法决策。有必要将专家的作用和责任与法官和仲裁员在争端解决职能中的作用和责任区分开来。本期杂志特刊中汇集的贡献解决了这些问题，并帮助我们进一步考虑如何解决这些问题。因此，根据他们分析的专家使用的不同方面，本期特刊中的论文大致分为四个部分。每个部分由两到四个贡献组成。此后，Boisson de Chazournes 和 Mbengue 教授以及 Guillaume Gros 和 Rukmini Das 共同撰写的论文强调了他们在 SNSF 项目的支持下进行的实证研究得出的结论。1 . A. 专家参与的不同形式 专家是具有多种形式的演员。一个术语包含多种实际表达方式。他或她可以被法官、当事人任命为证人、律师，或者可以与法官坐在一起，甚至在某些情况下是法官。他们中的一些人显然是在法律框架的边缘进行干预，是隐形的，没有得到正式承认或公众参与。这些人中的每一个都是专家，干预的方式与特定类型的司法密切相关，要么更具审问性，要么更具对抗性。使用一种形式的专家可能比另一种形式的专家更有优势，或者结合使用其中的两个或多个。本节的作者根据不同的观点和概念描述了这些不同类型的使用，并在对抗性原则的背景下进行了批判性评估。340 Journal of International Dispute Settlement D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p. com /jids/article-ct/9/3/339/4975522 由 U niersity de Geeve 用户于 2019 年 1 月 19 日撰写 本努纳法官在仔细界定了专家在司法背景下的职能限制后，阐述了国际法院背景下不同形式的专家参与。他指出，纯对抗性的事实调查方法存在一定的局限性，尤其是在科学不确定性方面。然而，他主张法院指定专家的附加价值有限，并主张谨慎使用。詹姆斯·弗莱特 (James Flett) 辩称，要有效地掌握使用专家的做法并有助于解决实质性问题，就必须进行合理的概念澄清。通过将专家的职能与其他司法行为者的职能联系起来，他确定了一个否定的定义，确定专家不应该做什么或不应该做什么。他确定了专家的剩余（有限）职能，主要职能是组织事实和证据。在此背景下，Flett 分析了世界贸易组织 (WTO) 的实践，并得出结论，仲裁员和法律顾问都应牢记专家的作用仅限于“提供 [ing] 援助”。作为对比，Geoffrey Senogles 提供了一个有价值的观点，通过对专家证据的对抗性产生的专家的实际分析。Senogles 对现有的不同程序方法进行了批判性评估，这些方法在专家证据的生成中实施对抗性原则，植根于实践经验。他证明，没有约束的对抗性方法会导致专家忘记他们通过维持根深蒂固的立场并专注于诋毁对方专家的信誉来协助法官的功能。Cherise Valles 在承认提交给 WTO 的争端在技术或科学上的复杂性之后，全面描绘了专家参与的类型，包括求助于国际组织。通过这样做，她指出了 WTO 实践中的悖论，即尽管当事人包括越来越多的经济技术证据，但从未任命过经济专家。然后批判性地讨论了秘书处在这方面的作用以及在处理事实复杂性时适用的审查标准的重要性。B. 专家证据的司法评估 本节讨论将专家知识引入司法判决的方法以及处理科学类别的法律标准的潜在发展。来自不同国际论坛的判决揭示了处理专家证据的不同方法，包括使用专家证据做出决定，将其纳入司法程序的步骤。在此类证据的可采性、对证据的重视或以其他方式对其进行评估方面，跨论坛，有时甚至在同一司法论坛内，似乎缺乏一致的方法。多诺霍法官明确指出，每个涉及专家证据的案件并不需要就科学问题作出判断，因为国际法官的任务是解决法律纠纷。根据这一特定任务处理案件允许法官不对科学不确定性问题的实质作出裁决。多诺霍法官证明，当它