國際法上 專門家 意見의 地位

Title
國際法上 專門家 意見의 地位
Authors
이석우
Keywords
법학연구, 국제법, 전문가, 지위
Issue Date
2003
Publisher
인하대학교 법학연구소
Series/Report no.
법학연구제6집85-124 pp.
Abstract
The object of this research has been to survey the practice of
international tribunals in the decisions relating to the use of
expeerts as were recorded in generally available reports. Also
anattempt has been made th extract the general principles which
seem to be applicable and recognized. A general survey of the
competence of tribunals to make use of expeerts, of the function
and status of experts, and the common procedural questions
arising has been undertaken, and this is coupled with a detailed
analysis of some of the more interesting and important cases in
which experts have been employed.

This study has established that the approach of the international
tribunals is to keep open the channels for any evidence that might
help them to determine the facts relative to the issues in
contention before them. But the use of experts for the
determination and clarification of all or some of the facts upon
which the crucial desision of responsibility vel nonwill be based
raises the fundamental question of the precise role of the expert in
relation to that of the tribunal.

While professional qualifications may influence the weight which
is attached to the expert's evidence of opinion and fact, anyone
with considerable knowledge or experience of the matters in issue
can appear as an expert. Is is not the quantity of evidence which is
of prime importance but the weight of such evidence that is
presented to the tribunal.

This search examined the admissibility and probative value of
evidence of expert opinion under international proceedings and
practices, and evidence of four types of expert opinion which
involve the admissibility and probative value of evidence. The first
one involves expert opinion invited by the international tribunals.
This research concludes that these opinions should be routinely
admitted, and have greater probative value of evidence. The
second one involves opinion of experts hired by the disputed
parties. The international tribunals are able to determine whether
the opinion of experts should be accepted or rejected, so
consequently this type has less probative value of evidence than
the first type.

The third type, opinion of an impartial expert produeced as
evidence by the disputing parites can be divided into two, the
fuctual opinion of an impartial expert produce as evidence, and
legel opinion of an imprtial expert produced as evidence. On this
matter, this research concludes that an impartial expert's opinion
of the factual issues may be admitted according to relevant rules,
procedures, and practices. However, an impartial expert's opinion
of the legal issues should be prohibited from admittance. The
primary reason for this exclusion is that expert opinion relating to
legal issues remains inconsistent with the role of the arbitrators,
or judges to determine the law and to reach final conclusions.
URI
http://dspace.inha.ac.kr/handle/10505/610
Appears in Collections:
연구기관 > 법학연구소 > 법학연구(法學硏究)
Files in This Item:
법학연구6_85-124.pdfDownload

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse