Site visits by the bench occur rarely in inter-state adjudication and arbitration. Against this backdrop, the recent site visits in Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India) and Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (Bangladesh v. India) are noteworthy and raise questions about how on-site inspections influence the decision making process and whether site visits are an underused fact-finding tool. An analysis of these site visits, as well as past examples of site visits by arbitral tribunals and the International Court of Justice, reveal that the utility and value of site visits by the bench is difficult to ascertain, and there is little evidence that site visits have played a dispositive role. Moreover, in many disputes, other fact-finding methods may be more suitable than a site visit. But if site visits do, in fact, play a significant role in decision-making, then adjudicators should acknowledge that influence in a more transparent manner.

中文翻译：

---

调查现场访问在州际仲裁和裁决中的价值

在州际裁决和仲裁中，法官现场访问很少发生。在此背景下，最近在印度河水域基申甘加仲裁（巴基斯坦诉印度）和孟加拉湾海上边界仲裁（孟加拉国诉印度）案中的实地考察值得注意，并引发了关于现场检查如何影响决策过程以及是否会影响决策过程的问题现场访问是一种未被充分利用的实况调查工具。对这些实地考察以及仲裁庭和国际法院过去实地考察的例子的分析表明，法官进行实地考察的效用和价值难以确定，而且几乎没有证据表明实地考察起到了决定性的作用。此外，在许多争议中，其他实况调查方法可能比实地考察更合适。但如果现场访问确实如此