for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords

Publisher: Oxford University Press   (Total: 396 journals)

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

        1 2 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Showing 1 - 200 of 396 Journals sorted alphabetically
ACS Symposium Series     Full-text available via subscription   (SJR: 0.189, CiteScore: 0)
Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.79, CiteScore: 2)
Adaptation     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.143, CiteScore: 0)
Advances in Nutrition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 48, SJR: 2.196, CiteScore: 5)
Aesthetic Surgery J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 1.434, CiteScore: 1)
African Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 64, SJR: 1.869, CiteScore: 2)
Age and Ageing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 91, SJR: 1.989, CiteScore: 4)
Alcohol and Alcoholism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 1.376, CiteScore: 3)
American Entomologist     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
American Historical Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 155, SJR: 0.467, CiteScore: 1)
American J. of Agricultural Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 41, SJR: 2.113, CiteScore: 3)
American J. of Clinical Nutrition     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 152, SJR: 3.438, CiteScore: 6)
American J. of Epidemiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 177, SJR: 2.713, CiteScore: 3)
American J. of Hypertension     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 1.322, CiteScore: 3)
American J. of Jurisprudence     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.281, CiteScore: 1)
American J. of Legal History     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.116, CiteScore: 0)
American Law and Economics Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 1.053, CiteScore: 1)
American Literary History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.391, CiteScore: 0)
Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 21, SJR: 1.038, CiteScore: 1)
Animal Frontiers     Hybrid Journal  
Annals of Behavioral Medicine     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 1.423, CiteScore: 3)
Annals of Botany     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 36, SJR: 1.721, CiteScore: 4)
Annals of Oncology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 5.599, CiteScore: 9)
Annals of the Entomological Society of America     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.722, CiteScore: 1)
Annals of Work Exposures and Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32, SJR: 0.728, CiteScore: 2)
AoB Plants     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.28, CiteScore: 3)
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.858, CiteScore: 2)
Applied Linguistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56, SJR: 2.987, CiteScore: 3)
Applied Mathematics Research eXpress     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.241, CiteScore: 1)
Arbitration Intl.     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 20)
Arbitration Law Reports and Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14)
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 0.731, CiteScore: 2)
Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3)
Arthropod Management Tests     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Astronomy & Geophysics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 43, SJR: 0.146, CiteScore: 0)
Behavioral Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 53, SJR: 1.871, CiteScore: 3)
Bioinformatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 305, SJR: 6.14, CiteScore: 8)
Biology Methods and Protocols     Hybrid Journal  
Biology of Reproduction     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.446, CiteScore: 3)
Biometrika     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 3.485, CiteScore: 2)
BioScience     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 2.754, CiteScore: 4)
Bioscience Horizons : The National Undergraduate Research J.     Open Access   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.146, CiteScore: 0)
Biostatistics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 1.553, CiteScore: 2)
BJA : British J. of Anaesthesia     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 166, SJR: 2.115, CiteScore: 3)
BJA Education     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 64)
Brain     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 68, SJR: 5.858, CiteScore: 7)
Briefings in Bioinformatics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 49, SJR: 2.505, CiteScore: 5)
Briefings in Functional Genomics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 2.15, CiteScore: 3)
British J. for the Philosophy of Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35, SJR: 2.161, CiteScore: 2)
British J. of Aesthetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26, SJR: 0.508, CiteScore: 1)
British J. of Criminology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 585, SJR: 1.828, CiteScore: 3)
British J. of Social Work     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 87, SJR: 1.019, CiteScore: 2)
British Medical Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 1.355, CiteScore: 3)
British Yearbook of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 32)
Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.376, CiteScore: 1)
Cambridge J. of Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 63, SJR: 0.764, CiteScore: 2)
Cambridge J. of Regions, Economy and Society     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 2.438, CiteScore: 4)
Cambridge Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.104, CiteScore: 0)
Capital Markets Law J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.222, CiteScore: 0)
Carcinogenesis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 2.135, CiteScore: 5)
Cardiovascular Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 3.002, CiteScore: 5)
Cerebral Cortex     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 45, SJR: 3.892, CiteScore: 6)
CESifo Economic Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.483, CiteScore: 1)
Chemical Senses     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 1.42, CiteScore: 3)
Children and Schools     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.246, CiteScore: 0)
Chinese J. of Comparative Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.412, CiteScore: 0)
Chinese J. of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.329, CiteScore: 0)
Chinese J. of Intl. Politics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.392, CiteScore: 2)
Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.183, CiteScore: 0)
Classical Receptions J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.123, CiteScore: 0)
Clean Energy     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Clinical Infectious Diseases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 65, SJR: 5.051, CiteScore: 5)
Clinical Kidney J.     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.163, CiteScore: 2)
Communication Theory     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 2.424, CiteScore: 3)
Communication, Culture & Critique     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.222, CiteScore: 1)
Community Development J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.268, CiteScore: 1)
Computer J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.319, CiteScore: 1)
Conservation Physiology     Open Access   (Followers: 2, SJR: 1.818, CiteScore: 3)
Contemporary Women's Writing     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.121, CiteScore: 0)
Contributions to Political Economy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.906, CiteScore: 1)
Critical Values     Full-text available via subscription  
Current Developments in Nutrition     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Current Legal Problems     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
Current Zoology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 2, SJR: 1.164, CiteScore: 2)
Database : The J. of Biological Databases and Curation     Open Access   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.791, CiteScore: 3)
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.259, CiteScore: 1)
Diplomatic History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.45, CiteScore: 1)
DNA Research     Open Access   (Followers: 5, SJR: 2.866, CiteScore: 6)
Dynamics and Statistics of the Climate System     Open Access   (Followers: 4)
Early Music     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.139, CiteScore: 0)
Economic Policy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 40, SJR: 3.584, CiteScore: 3)
ELT J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 0.942, CiteScore: 1)
English Historical Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54, SJR: 0.612, CiteScore: 1)
English: J. of the English Association     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 0.1, CiteScore: 0)
Environmental Entomology     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.818, CiteScore: 2)
Environmental Epigenetics     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Environmental History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27, SJR: 0.408, CiteScore: 1)
EP-Europace     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 2.748, CiteScore: 4)
Epidemiologic Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 4.505, CiteScore: 8)
ESHRE Monographs     Hybrid Journal  
Essays in Criticism     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17, SJR: 0.113, CiteScore: 0)
European Heart J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 57, SJR: 9.315, CiteScore: 9)
European Heart J. - Cardiovascular Imaging     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 3.625, CiteScore: 3)
European Heart J. - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 1)
European Heart J. - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes     Hybrid Journal  
European Heart J. : Case Reports     Open Access  
European Heart J. Supplements     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 0.223, CiteScore: 0)
European J. of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 1.681, CiteScore: 2)
European J. of Intl. Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 188, SJR: 0.694, CiteScore: 1)
European J. of Orthodontics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 1.279, CiteScore: 2)
European J. of Public Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 1.36, CiteScore: 2)
European Review of Agricultural Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.172, CiteScore: 2)
European Review of Economic History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29, SJR: 0.702, CiteScore: 1)
European Sociological Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 41, SJR: 2.728, CiteScore: 3)
Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health     Open Access   (Followers: 11)
Family Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.018, CiteScore: 2)
Fems Microbiology Ecology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 1.492, CiteScore: 4)
Fems Microbiology Letters     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.79, CiteScore: 2)
Fems Microbiology Reviews     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30, SJR: 7.063, CiteScore: 13)
Fems Yeast Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.308, CiteScore: 3)
Food Quality and Safety     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Foreign Policy Analysis     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 1.425, CiteScore: 1)
Forest Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.89, CiteScore: 2)
Forestry: An Intl. J. of Forest Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 16, SJR: 1.133, CiteScore: 3)
Forum for Modern Language Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.104, CiteScore: 0)
French History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 33, SJR: 0.118, CiteScore: 0)
French Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20, SJR: 0.148, CiteScore: 0)
French Studies Bulletin     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 0.152, CiteScore: 0)
Gastroenterology Report     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Genome Biology and Evolution     Open Access   (Followers: 13, SJR: 2.578, CiteScore: 4)
Geophysical J. Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35, SJR: 1.506, CiteScore: 3)
German History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.161, CiteScore: 0)
GigaScience     Open Access   (Followers: 4, SJR: 5.022, CiteScore: 7)
Global Summitry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Glycobiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.493, CiteScore: 3)
Health and Social Work     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 56, SJR: 0.388, CiteScore: 1)
Health Education Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.854, CiteScore: 2)
Health Policy and Planning     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 1.512, CiteScore: 2)
Health Promotion Intl.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 22, SJR: 0.812, CiteScore: 2)
History Workshop J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 31, SJR: 1.278, CiteScore: 1)
Holocaust and Genocide Studies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28, SJR: 0.105, CiteScore: 0)
Human Communication Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 2.146, CiteScore: 3)
Human Molecular Genetics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 3.555, CiteScore: 5)
Human Reproduction     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 71, SJR: 2.643, CiteScore: 5)
Human Reproduction Open     Open Access  
Human Reproduction Update     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 19, SJR: 5.317, CiteScore: 10)
Human Rights Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 57, SJR: 0.756, CiteScore: 1)
ICES J. of Marine Science: J. du Conseil     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 52, SJR: 1.591, CiteScore: 3)
ICSID Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10)
ILAR J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 1.732, CiteScore: 4)
IMA J. of Applied Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.679, CiteScore: 1)
IMA J. of Management Mathematics     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 0.538, CiteScore: 1)
IMA J. of Mathematical Control and Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.496, CiteScore: 1)
IMA J. of Numerical Analysis - advance access     Hybrid Journal   (SJR: 1.987, CiteScore: 2)
Industrial and Corporate Change     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 10, SJR: 1.792, CiteScore: 2)
Industrial Law J.     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 36, SJR: 0.249, CiteScore: 1)
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 44, SJR: 2.511, CiteScore: 4)
Information and Inference     Free  
Integrative and Comparative Biology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 8, SJR: 1.319, CiteScore: 2)
Interacting with Computers     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.292, CiteScore: 1)
Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7, SJR: 0.762, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 61, SJR: 1.505, CiteScore: 3)
Intl. Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Intl. Health     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 6, SJR: 0.851, CiteScore: 2)
Intl. Immunology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 3, SJR: 2.167, CiteScore: 4)
Intl. J. for Quality in Health Care     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 37, SJR: 1.348, CiteScore: 2)
Intl. J. of Constitutional Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 63, SJR: 0.601, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Epidemiology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 232, SJR: 3.969, CiteScore: 5)
Intl. J. of Law and Information Technology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5, SJR: 0.202, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Law, Policy and the Family     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25, SJR: 0.223, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Lexicography     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.285, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Low-Carbon Technologies     Open Access   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.403, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Neuropsychopharmacology     Open Access   (Followers: 3, SJR: 1.808, CiteScore: 4)
Intl. J. of Public Opinion Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 1.545, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Refugee Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35, SJR: 0.389, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. J. of Transitional Justice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.724, CiteScore: 2)
Intl. Mathematics Research Notices     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 2.168, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. Political Sociology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 39, SJR: 1.465, CiteScore: 3)
Intl. Relations of the Asia-Pacific     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23, SJR: 0.401, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. Studies Perspectives     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.983, CiteScore: 1)
Intl. Studies Quarterly     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 2.581, CiteScore: 2)
Intl. Studies Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24, SJR: 1.201, CiteScore: 1)
ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 0.15, CiteScore: 0)
ITNOW     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1, SJR: 0.103, CiteScore: 0)
J. of African Economies     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 0.533, CiteScore: 1)
J. of American History     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 46, SJR: 0.297, CiteScore: 1)
J. of Analytical Toxicology     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 14, SJR: 1.065, CiteScore: 2)
J. of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15, SJR: 2.419, CiteScore: 4)
J. of Antitrust Enforcement     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
J. of Applied Poultry Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4, SJR: 0.585, CiteScore: 1)
J. of Biochemistry     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 40, SJR: 1.226, CiteScore: 2)
J. of Burn Care & Research     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9, SJR: 0.768, CiteScore: 2)
J. of Chromatographic Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 18, SJR: 0.36, CiteScore: 1)
J. of Church and State     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11, SJR: 0.139, CiteScore: 0)
J. of Communication     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 54, SJR: 4.411, CiteScore: 5)
J. of Competition Law and Economics     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 35, SJR: 0.33, CiteScore: 0)
J. of Complex Networks     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2, SJR: 1.05, CiteScore: 4)
J. of Computer-Mediated Communication     Open Access   (Followers: 28, SJR: 2.961, CiteScore: 6)
J. of Conflict and Security Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 12, SJR: 0.402, CiteScore: 0)
J. of Consumer Research     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 46, SJR: 5.856, CiteScore: 5)

        1 2 | Last   [Sort by number of followers]   [Restore default list]

Journal Cover
Journal of International Dispute Settlement
Number of Followers: 15  
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 2040-3585 - ISSN (Online) 2040-3593
Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [396 journals]
  • The Expert in the International Adjudicative Process: Introduction to the
           Special Issue
    • Authors: Boisson de Chazournes L; Ruiz Fabri H, Mbengue M, et al.
      Pages: 339 - 344
      Abstract: 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.
      PubDate: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy007
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Experts before the International Court of Justice: What for'
    • Authors: Bennouna M.
      Pages: 345 - 351
      Abstract: International courts and tribunals are dealing with an increasing number of cases involving complex technical and scientific issues. In doing so, the facts at hand may fall outside the realm of a respective body’s judicial expertise. This article examines the role of experts before the International Court of Justice, delineating the respective advantages and disadvantages of proceedings involving Court-appointed experts, and those that proceed with the party-appointed experts only. In doing so, this article looks at the existing case law, statute and rules of the Court, as well as the actual utility of experts in legal proceedings.
      PubDate: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy009
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • When is an Expert not an Expert'1
    • Authors: Flett J.
      Pages: 352 - 360
      Abstract: This article does not set out to describe how experts are being used or should be used in international adjudication. Rather, it sets out to delimit the role of an expert conceptually, by distinguishing it from the functions of other actors, such as adjudicator, counsel and witness. Once this is done, most of the ‘problems’ associated with the role of experts in litigation are resolved. The role of experts is thus revealed to be one of guiding, translating, organizing and contextualizing. All that remains is for other actors, and notably the adjudicator and opposing counsel, to identify the additional functions that experts tend to arrogate to themselves, and respond accordingly.
      PubDate: Thu, 10 May 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy014
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Some Views from the Crucible: The Perspective of an Expert Witness on the
           Adversarial Principle
    • Authors: Senogles G.
      Pages: 361 - 366
      Abstract: This article, written from the perspective of an accountant with broad experience as an expert witness, discusses the relative merits of the perceived adversarial nature of expert evidence. The article first identifies some advantages and disadvantages of the process whereby two expert witnesses can be perceived to take up positions seen by the tribunal as polar opposites. This article then provides commentary on some of the common ways in which expert evidence is presently communicated to a tribunal. The concluding commentary is that more thought could be given before an expert takes a position that serves the tribunal, but only somewhat as an afterthought—but whose principal target audience can be the opposing expert witness.
      PubDate: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy008
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Different Forms of Expert Involvement in WTO Dispute Settlement
    • Authors: Valles C.
      Pages: 367 - 378
      PubDate: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy010
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Expert Scientific Evidence in a Broader Context
    • Authors: Donoghue J.
      Pages: 379 - 387
      Abstract: The primary mandate of international adjudicators (such as Judges of the International Court of Justice and members of investor-State arbitral tribunals) is to settle the legal dispute presented to them in a given case. They have scope to decide scientific questions only in the course of settling those disputes. Many cases involving scientific issues do not call for findings of scientific facts by adjudicators. In those cases that do call for findings of scientific facts, however, the methodology of judicial assessment is not peculiar to scientific facts. Regardless of whether the facts at issue are scientific in nature, adjudicators rarely base their conclusions on direct evidence, relying instead on second-order indicators. These second-order indicators are well-suited to the evaluation of evidence adduced through party-appointed experts, but are of more limited use when a court or tribunal appoints its own expert.
      PubDate: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy011
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Judging ‘Best Available Science’: Emerging Issues and the Role
           of Experts
    • Authors: Cook K.
      Pages: 388 - 400
      Abstract: This article considers the implications, for future disputes, of the adoption of the best available science (BAS) standard in a number of international (and national) regimes, including the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. The three strands of BAS: ‘best’, ‘available’, ‘science’ raise distinct but related issues on which expert evidence may be presented before courts and tribunals. This article considers these three aspects of BAS, both in relation to the evidence which states and others may need to present to demonstrate substantive conformity with BAS, and in relation to the way in which expert evidence is appraised by tribunals in such disputes.
      PubDate: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy012
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • The Assessment of Expert Evidence in International Adjudication
    • Authors: Van Damme I.
      Pages: 401 - 410
      Abstract: An assessment of the different contexts in which expert evidence in international adjudication, in particular in the settlement of disputes before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system, may be used shows that the challenge lies in designing rules that are sufficiently permissive and flexible but nonetheless result in a more equitable, efficient and transparent method of submitting and assessing expert evidence. At the same time, the practice of and the rules governing the use of expert evidence before the CJEU and the WTO dispute settlement bodies suggest that a more calibrated treatment of court-appointed experts and party-appointed experts is required.
      PubDate: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy013
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • The Search for Objectivity: The Use of Experts in Philip Morris v Uruguay
    • Authors: Alvarez J.
      Pages: 411 - 422
      Abstract: This essay uses a prominent ICSID arbitral ruling to explore the prospects for developing ‘best practices’ for handling expert evidence in international adjudication. It argues that the treatment of evidence responds to institutional context and explains why investor-state arbitrations take a lax approach to admitting and relying on many forms of expertise. Their penchant for relying on experts—including legal experts opining on matters familiar to the arbitrators—casts doubt on the proposition that experts should testify only with respect to scientifically provable matters that are beyond the ken of adjudicators.
      PubDate: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy015
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Legal Basis and Procedures for Consulting with Experts and International
           Organizations in WTO Dispute Settlement
    • Authors: Goldstein M.
      Pages: 423 - 432
      Abstract: Since the entry into force of the WTO multilateral trade agreements and dispute settlement mechanism, WTO panels have been relying on other international organizations and scientific and technical experts to assist them in their appreciation of the evidence presented by the disputing Members. The principle of consulting experts is contained in specific provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes and other WTO agreements. However, the specifics of the procedures have been developed by panels over time with particular guidance from the Appellate Body on how panels are supposed to undertake their tasks. This article will look briefly at the legal basis for consulting experts and international organizations in WTO dispute settlement, the process of consulting experts and international organizations and finally at the procedural steps taken by panels to ensure that the process is fair, objective and unbiased.
      PubDate: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy017
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Experts before ITLOS: An Overview of the Tribunal’s Practice
    • Authors: Gautier P.
      Pages: 433 - 439
      Abstract: The article clarifies the notion of the expert, observing that, in proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (‘Tribunal’ or ITLOS), parties have made extensive use of expert evidence. The Tribunal’s Rules contain provisions to safeguard the impartiality and credibility of expert statements and to enable the Tribunal to play an active role in dealing with expert evidence. The function of the Tribunal in promoting impartial and credible expert statements is illustrated. These examples refer inter alia to the power of the Tribunal to assess the relevance—and thus admissibility—of expert statements, the need to avoid confusion between expert and party representative, the use of ‘voir dire’ in international proceedings, and the pro-active role the Tribunal may play in ensuring disclosure of relevant information. Thus, although the main responsibility of providing evidence lies with parties, the Tribunal may, under its Rules, play a useful role in ensuring that facts are based on reliable evidence.
      PubDate: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy016
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Parties’ Engagement with Experts in International Litigation
    • Authors: Parlett K.
      Pages: 440 - 452
      Abstract: Experts are playing a role of increasing importance in both inter-State and investor–State disputes. Given the rising number of fact-intensive technical or scientific disputes in the inter-State context and the prevalence of expert evidence on a range of issues in investor–State arbitration, it is likely that expert evidence will play an increasingly central and even pivotal role in international litigation. In the light of this development, this article provides an outline of the issues relating to the engagement that takes place between parties to a proceeding and experts giving evidence in that proceeding. Drawing upon the usual practice in relation to both party-appointed and Court- or tribunal-appointed experts, the author explains how a party and its counsel engage with experts from the beginning of their engagement through to the expert giving evidence at an oral hearing. The author also identifies safeguards and limitations to the possibility that an expert’s views might be unduly influenced by a party or its counsel. In practice, the effectiveness of these safeguards will ultimately depend on the ethical standards observed by parties, their counsel, and the experts themselves.
      PubDate: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy018
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Experts in Investor-State Arbitration: The Tribunal as Gatekeeper
    • Authors: Hodgson M; Stewart M.
      Pages: 453 - 463
      Abstract: This article examines issues related to the role of experts—legal, technical and valuation—in investment arbitration. Specifically, the article examines the lack of standards in existing rules to assess the credibility of expert opinions—particularly technical and quantum opinions. The article examines existing standards and current practices. It then proposes that standards be adopted to determine the admissibility, or qualification, of credible expert testimony.
      PubDate: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy006
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Expert Evidence and the Challenge of Procedural Reform in International
           Dispute Settlement
    • Authors: Plant B.
      Pages: 464 - 472
      Abstract: While international courts and tribunals have been criticized recently for their approach to the production and evaluation of expert evidence, it is uncertain how any improvements to the use of expert evidence might be achieved. The prospects for reforming this increasingly significant element of international dispute settlement appear to be rather limited, since any reform initiative must preserve the essential attribute of flexibility with which each international tribunal has been created. Based on a brief survey of the available options, this short comment observes that the best prospect for effecting worthwhile change in the handling and assessment of expert evidence is a court-led model of incremental reform through adjudicative practice.
      PubDate: Thu, 03 May 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy019
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Symposium—The Expert in the International Adjudicative
           ProcessConcluding Observations
    • Authors: Sorel J.
      Pages: 473 - 476
      Abstract: These concluding observations will be short, because everybody has already made their own conclusions. So, this is merely a ‘conclusion of the conclusions’. Moreover, if I may make some short comments, I think I have definitively no specific ideas about the question of expertise, just some ‘feelings’. My comments are not far from the titles of the panels, but not exactly so. In fact, the questions I try to answer are more simple.
      PubDate: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy020
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • One Size does not Fit All—Uses of Experts before International Courts
           and Tribunals: An Insight into the Practice
    • Authors: Boisson de Chazournes L; Mbengue M, Das R, et al.
      Pages: 477 - 505
      Abstract: This paper presents the results of empirical research conducted in context of a broader study on the use of experts in international disputes. An analysis of the interviews conducted and responses received from questionnaires as part of this empirical research sheds light on various aspects of expert involvement in international disputes, revealing trends that are not discernible from a textual or casuistic approach. The analysis in this paper also demonstrates interesting divergences as well as common approaches to expert use in different international judicial fora, and among different actors in the judicial process - judges, counsel or experts themselves. The paper concludes that no single unified regime can be identified for experts in international law, variances exist in connection with the forum considered. At the same time, the empirical study reveals universal characteristics in expert use mainly to be found in due process requirements.
      PubDate: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy021
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
  • Requiem for Crimea: Why Tribunals Should Have Declined Jurisdiction over
           the Claims of Ukrainian Investors against Russian under the
           Ukraine–Russia BIT
    • Authors: Dumberry P.
      Pages: 506 - 533
      Abstract: This article examines claims filed by Ukrainian investors against Russia under the Ukraine–Russia BIT alleging violations committed in Crimea after its annexation by Russia in 2014. Six tribunals have recently rendered awards concluding that they have jurisdiction over these disputes. I will argue that the only logical way for them to come to this conclusion is to consider that Crimea is now part of Russia for the application of the BIT. Yet, Crimea is still part of Ukraine under international because the annexation was in violation of the jus cogens prohibition of the use of force. Tribunals should therefore have declined their jurisdiction over these claims. Their decisions have certainly been influenced by the unprecedented context of these proceedings, including Ukraine’s intervention recognizing the effectiveness of the occupation. Yet, such decisions are giving legal effect to Crimea’s change of status contrary to the non-recognition obligation under international law.
      PubDate: Sat, 02 Jun 2018 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idy022
      Issue No: Vol. 9, No. 3 (2018)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Your IP address:
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-