Book contents
- Science and Judicial Reasoning
- Cambridge Studies On Environment, Energy And Natural Resources Governance
- Science and Judicial Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Author Note
- Table of Cases
- Abbreviations
- Part I The Three-Fold Challenge of Engaging with Science in International Environmental Adjudication
- Part II Techniques for Judicial Engagement with Science in the Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
- Part III Engaging with Scientific Knowledge in the Judicial Reasoning
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 October 2020
Book contents
- Science and Judicial Reasoning
- Cambridge Studies On Environment, Energy And Natural Resources Governance
- Science and Judicial Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- Author Note
- Table of Cases
- Abbreviations
- Part I The Three-Fold Challenge of Engaging with Science in International Environmental Adjudication
- Part II Techniques for Judicial Engagement with Science in the Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
- Part III Engaging with Scientific Knowledge in the Judicial Reasoning
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Science and Judicial ReasoningThe Legitimacy of International Environmental Adjudication, pp. 371 - 390Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Adler, J. E., ‘Introduction: Philosophical Foundations’ in Adler, J. E., Rips, L. J. (eds.), Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, J., ‘Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration and State-to-State Disputes’ (2013) 29 Arbitration International 507–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alemanno, A., ‘EU Risk Regulation and Science: The Role of Experts in Decision-Making and Judicial Review’ in Vos, E (ed.), European Risk Governance: Its Science, Its Inclusiveness and Its Effectiveness, Connex Report Series No. 6 (2008), pp. 37–88.Google Scholar
Allott, P., ‘Interpretation: An Exact Art’ in Bianchi, A, Peat, D, Windsor, M (eds.), Interpretation in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 373–92.Google Scholar
Allum, J. R., ‘“An Outcrop of Hell”: History, Environment, and the Politics of the Trail Smelter Dispute’ in Bratspies, R, Miller, R (eds.), Transboundary Harm in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alter, K. J., Helfer, L. R., and Madsen, M. R. (eds.), International Courts Authority (Oxford University Press, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, J. E., ‘Are International Judges Afraid of Science? A Comment on Mbengue’ (2011) 34 Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 81–98.Google Scholar
Alvarez, J. E., ‘The Search for Objectivity: The Use of Experts in Philip Morris v. Uruguay’ (2018) 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 411–22.Google Scholar
Ambrus, M., Rayfuse, R, and Werner, W, ‘Risk and International Law’ in Ambrus, M, Rayfuse, R, Werner, W (eds.), Risk and the Regulation of Uncertainty in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017), pp. 3–9.Google Scholar
Ambrus, M., Rayfuse, R, and Werner, W (eds.), Risk and the Regulation of Uncertainty in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrus, M., Arts, K, Hey, E, and Raulus, H (eds.), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes (Cambridge University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amiott, J. A., ‘Environment, Equality, and Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System: Mayagna (Sumo) Indigenous Community of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua’ 32 Environmental Law 873–904.Google Scholar
Andersen, S., ‘The Role of Scientific Expertise in Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Influence and Effectiveness’ in Ambrus, M, Arts, K, Hey, E, Raulus, H (eds.), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 105–25.Google Scholar
Andersen, S. and Skjærseth, J. B., ‘Science and Technology from Agenda Setting to Implementation’ in Bodansky, D, Brunnée, J, Hey, E (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 183–202.Google Scholar
Anderson, D., ‘Scientific Evidence in Cases under Part XV of the LOSC’ in Nordquist, M. H., Long, R, Heidar, T, Moore, J. N. (eds.), Law, Science and Ocean Management (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007), pp. 503–18.Google Scholar
Asteriti, A., ‘Climate Change Policies and Foreign Investment: Some Salient Legal Issues’ in Levashova, Y, Lambooy, T, Dekker, I (eds.), Bridging the Gap between International Investment Law and the Environment (Eleven Publishing, 2015), pp. 145–86.Google Scholar
Asteriti, A., ‘Environmental Law in Investment Arbitration: Procedural Means of Incorporation’ (2015) 16 The Journal of World Investment & Trade 248–73.Google Scholar
Babione, J. C., ‘Mission Accomplished? Fifty-Four Years of Suffering for the People of the Marshall Islands and the Latest Round of Endless Reconciliation’ (2000) 11 115–43.Google Scholar
Behn, D. and Langford, M, ‘Trumping the Environment? An Empirical Perspective on the Legitimacy of Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2017) 18 The Journal of World Investment & Trade 14–61.Google Scholar
Benvenisti, E., ‘Community Interests in International Law’ in Benvenisti, E, Nolte, G (eds.), Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 70–85.Google Scholar
Berkes, A., ‘A New Extraterritorial Jurisdictional Link Recognised by the IACtHR’, EJIL Talk! (March 28 2018), available at www.ejiltalk.org/a-new-extraterritorial-jurisdictional-link-recognised-by-the-iacthr/.Google Scholar
Bertea, S., ‘Certainty, Reasonableness and Argumentation in Law’ (2004) 18 Argumentation 465–78.Google Scholar
Beven, K., ‘Facets of Uncertainty: Epistemic Uncertainty, Non-Stationarity, Likelihood, Hypothesis Testing, and Communication’ (2016) 61 Hydrological Sciences Journal 1652–65.Google Scholar
Bjorge, E., ‘Been There, Done That: The Margin of Appreciation and International Law’ (2015) 4 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 181–90.Google Scholar
Blackaby, N. and Wilbraham, A, ‘Practical Issues Relating to the Use of Expert Evidence in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2016) 31 ICSID Review 655–69.Google Scholar
Blackshield, T., ‘Judicial Reasoning’ in Coper, M, Blackshield, T, Williams, G (eds.), The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Bodansky, D., ‘Deconstructing the Precautionary Principle’ in Caron, D, Scheiber, H. N. (eds.), Bringing New Law to Ocean Waters (Martinus Nijhoff, 2004), pp. 381–91.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D., ‘OSPAR Arbitration of the MOX Plant Dispute’ (2008) 08–002 University of Georgia School of Law Research Paper Series 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D., ‘Scientific Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle’ (1991) 33 Environment 4.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D., ‘The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law?’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J, and Hey, E, ‘International Environmental Law Mapping the Field’ in Bodansky, D. M., Brunnée, J, Hey, E (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J, and Rajamani, L, International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Bogdandy, A. von and Venzke, I (eds.), In Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Boisson de Chazournes, L., ‘Plurality in the Fabric of International Courts and Tribunals: The Threads of a Managerial Approach: A Rejoinder – Fears and Anxieties’ (2017) 28 European Journal of International Law 1275–81.Google Scholar
Boisson de Chazournes, L., Mbengue, M. M, Das, R, and Gros, G, ‘One Size Does Not Fit All: Uses of Experts before International Courts and Tribunals – An Insight into the Practice’ (2018) 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 477–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boisson de Chazournes, L., Ruiz Fabri, H., Mbengue, M. M., Das, R., and Gros, G., ‘The Expert in the International Adjudicative Process: Introduction to the Special Issue’ (2018) 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 339–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossche, P. V. den and Zdouc, W, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Bottini, G. and Scheltema, M, ‘Future Outlook: Bridging Gaps between Environment and International Investment Law or Juxtaposing Different Topics?’ in Levashova, Y, Lambooy, T, Dekker, I (eds.), Bridging the Gap between International Investment Law and the Environment (Eleven Publishing, 2015), pp. 467–83.Google Scholar
Boyle, A., ‘Forum Shopping for UNCLOS Disputes Relating to Marine Scientific Research’ in Nordquist, M. H., Long, R, Heidar, T, Moore, J. N. (eds.), Law, Science and Ocean Management (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 519–40.Google Scholar
Boyle, A., ‘Human Rights and the Environment: Where Next?’ (2012) 23 European Journal of International Law 613–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, A., ‘The Environmental Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Symposium to Mark the Tenth Anniversary ITLOS: The Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea: Assessment and Prospects’ (2007) 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 369–82.Google Scholar
Boyle, A. and Harrison, J, ‘Judicial Settlement of International Environmental Disputes: Current Problems’ (2013) 4 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 245–76.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. A., ‘Causal Chains and Statistical Links: The Role of Scientific Uncertainty in Hazardous-Substance Litigation’ (1987) 73 Cornell Law Review 469.Google Scholar
Brewer, S., ‘Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process’ (1998) 107 Yale Law Journal 1535–681.Google Scholar
Briggle, A. and Mitcham, C, Ethics and Science (Cambridge University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. D., ‘Prospects for the Open Treatment of Uncertainty in Environmental Research’ (2010) 34 Progress in Physical Geography 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, S., ‘The Project for an International Environmental Court’ in Tomuschat, C, Mazzeschi, R. P., Thürer, D (eds.), Conciliation in International Law (Brill, 2017), pp. 133–70.Google Scholar
Brunnée, J., ‘ESIL Reflection: Procedure and Substance in International Environmental Law: Confused at a Higher Level?’ June 2016. Available at: https://esil-sedi.eu/post_name-123/.Google Scholar
Brunnée, J., ‘International Environmental Law and Community Interests: Procedural Aspects’ in Benvenisti, E, Nolte, G (eds.), Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 151–75.Google Scholar
Brunnée, J. and Toope, S. J., Legitimacy and Legality in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Brunner, L., ‘The Rise of Peoples’ Rights in the Americas: The Saramaka People Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2008) 7 Chinese Journal of International Law 699–711Google Scholar
Buchanan, A., ‘The Legitimacy of International Law’ in Besson, S, Tasioulas, J (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
Buergenthal, T., ‘The Evolving International Human Rights System Centennial Essays: In Honor of the 100th Anniversary of the AJIL and the ASIL’ (2006) 100 American Journal of International Law 783–807.Google Scholar
Cannizzaro, E., ‘Proportionality and Margin of Appreciation in the Whaling Case: Reconciling Antithetical Doctrines?’ (2016) 27 European Journal of International Law 1061–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caron, D. and Shirlow, E, ‘Dissecting Backlash’ in Føllesdal, A, Ulfstein, G (eds.), The Judicialization of International Law: A Mixed Blessing? (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 159–82.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R. A., ‘Uncertainty in Managing Ecosystems Sustainably’ in Lemons, J (ed.), Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving (Blackwell Science, 1996), pp. 118–59.Google Scholar
Carruth, R. S. and Goldstein, B. D., ‘Relative Risk Greater than Two in Proof of Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation’ (2000) 41 Jurimetrics 195.Google Scholar
Ceder, M. A., ‘Dose of Reality: The Struggle with Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation, A’ (2013) 51 Houston Law Review 1381.Google Scholar
Chenwi, L., ‘The Right to a Satisfactory, Healthy, and Sustainable Environment in the African Regional Human Rights System’ in Knox, J. H., Pejan, R (eds.), The Human Right to a Healthy Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chircop, A., ‘Advances in Ocean Knowledge and Skill: Implications for the MSR Regime’ in Nordquist, M. H., Long, R, Heidar, T. H., Moore, J. N. (eds.), Law, Science and Ocean Management (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 575–618.Google Scholar
Cohen, H. G., Føllesdal, A, Grossman, N, and Ulfstein, G, ‘Legitimacy and International Courts: A Framework’ in Cohen, H. G., Føllesdal, A, Grossman, N, Ulfstein, G (eds.), Legitimacy and International Courts (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Colson, D. A. and Vohrer, B. J., ‘In Re Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom)’ (2015) 109 American Journal of International Law 845–51.Google Scholar
Contesse, J., ‘Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System Subsidiarity in Global Governance’ (2016) 79 Law and Contemporary Problems 123–46.Google Scholar
Cook, C. N., Mascia, M. B., Schwartz, M. W., Possingham, H. P., and Fuller, R. A., ‘Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge-Action Boundary: Achieving Effective Conservation Science’ (2013) 27 Conservation Biology 669–78.Google Scholar
Cook, J. R., ‘In re Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India)’ (2014) 108 American Journal of International Law 308–14.Google Scholar
Council of Europe, Manual on Human Rights and the Environment, 2nd ed. (Council of Europe Publishing, 2012).Google Scholar
Coustasse, J. G. S. and Sweeney-Samuelson, E, ‘Adjudicating Conflicts Over Resources: The ICJ’s Treatment of Technical Evidence in the Pulp Mills Case’ (2011) 3 Goettingen Journal of International Law 447–71.Google Scholar
Craik, N. A., ‘Recalcitrant Reality and Chosen Ideals: The Public Function of Dispute Settlement in International Environmental Law’ (1998) 10 The Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 551–80.Google Scholar
Craik, N., ‘Transboundary Pollution, Unilateralism, and the Limits of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: The Second Trail Smelter Dispute’ in Bratspies, R, Miller, R. A. (eds.), Transboundary Harm in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 109–24.Google Scholar
Cranor, C. F., ‘The Challenge of Developing Science for the Law of Torts’ in Goldberg, R (ed.), Perspectives on Causation (Hart, 2011), pp. 261–81.Google Scholar
Cranor, C. F., Toxic Torts Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Crawford, E., Hutton, G, and Stephens, T, ‘Australian Cases before International Courts and Tribunals Involving Questions of Public International Law 2011’ (2013) 31 Australian Yearbook of International Law 173–8.Google Scholar
Crawford, J., ‘In Dubio Pro Natura: The Dissent of Judge Herczegh’ in Kovács, P (ed.), International Law: A Quiet Strength (Pázmány Press, 2011), pp. 251–69.Google Scholar
Crawford, J., State Responsibility – The General Part (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Crawford, J., The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
D’Aspremont, J. and Mbengue, M. M., ‘Strategies of Engagement with Scientific Fact-Finding in International Adjudication’ (2014) 5 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 240–72.Google Scholar
Desgagné, R., ‘International Decisions’ (1995) 89 American Journal of International Law 788–91.Google Scholar
Desierto, D., ‘Environmental Damages, Environmental Reparations, and the Right to a Healthy Environment: The ICJ Compensation Judgment in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and the IACtHR Advisory Opinion on Marine Protection for the Greater Caribbean’, EJIL Talk! (14 February 2018) Available at https://bit.ly/2LOvJT1.Google Scholar
Desierto, D., ‘Evidence but Not Empiricism? Environmental Impact Assessments at the International Court of Justice in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)’, EJIL Talk! (26 February 2016) Available at https://bit.ly/2ZsD2bi.Google Scholar
Donoghue, J. E., ‘Expert Scientific Evidence in a Broader Context’ (2018) 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 379–87.Google Scholar
Douhan, A., ‘Liability for Environmental Damage’ in R. Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2013.Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M. and Vinuales, J. E. (eds.), Harnessing Foreign Investment to Promote Environmental Protection (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M. and Vinuales, J. E., International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
Durden, J. M., Lallier, L. E., Murphy, K, Jaeckel, A, Gjerde, K, and Jones, D. O. B., ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Process for Deep-Sea Mining in “the Area”’ (2018) 87 Marine Policy 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duvic-Paoli, L.-A., The Prevention Principle in International Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duvic-Paoli, L.-A. and Vinuales, J. E., ‘Prevention’ in Vinuales, J. E. (ed.), The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 107–38.Google Scholar
Dwyer, D., The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence (Cambridge University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebobrah, S. T., ‘International Human Rights Courts’ in Romano, C, Alter, K. J., Shany, Y (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 225–49.Google Scholar
Esty, D. C., ‘Good Governance at the World Trade Organization: Building a Foundation of Administrative Law’ (2007) 10 Journal of International Economic Law 509–27.Google Scholar
Faigman, D. L., ‘Where Law and Science (and Religion) Meet’ (2014) 93 Texas Law Review 1659.Google Scholar
Faure, M. G. and Nollkaemper, A, ‘International Liability as an Instrument to Prevent and Compensate for Climate Change’ (2007) 43 Stanford Journal of International Law 123–79.Google Scholar
Feldman, R., ‘Evidentialism, Higher-Order Evidence, and Disagreement’ (2009) 6 Episteme 294–312.Google Scholar
Feldschreiber, P., Mulcahy, L.-A., and Day, S, ‘Biostatistics and Causation in Medicinal Product Liability Suits’ in Goldberg, R (ed.), Perspectives on Causation (Hart, 2011), pp. 179–94.Google Scholar
Fels, E. and Vu, T.-M., ‘Introduction: Understanding the Importance of the Disputes in the South China Sea’ in Fels, E, Vu, T.-M. (eds.), Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters (Springer, 2016), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
Fisher, E., ‘Science, Environmental Law, and Legal Cultures: Fostering Collective Epistemic Responsibility’ in Lees, E, Vinuales, J. E. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 749–68.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, M., ‘International Responsibility and Liability’ in Bodansky, D. M., Hey, E, Brunnée, J (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 1011–35.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, M., ‘Principle 13 Liability and Compensation’ in Vinuales, J. E. (ed.), The Rio Development on Environment and Development (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 351–81.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, M., ‘The European Court of Human Rights, Environmental Damage and the Applicability of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Dubetska and Others v. Ukraine, European Court of Human Rights (Application No. 30499/03), Judgment of 10 February 2011, Not Yet Reported’ (2011) 13 Environmental Law Review 107–14.Google Scholar
Foerster, A. F. and Gregorski Rolph, C (eds.), Toxic Tort Litigation (American Bar Association Publishing, 2013).Google Scholar
Foster, C. E., ‘Adjudication, Arbitration and the Turn to Public Law “Standards of Review”: Putting the Precautionary Principle in the Crucible’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 525–58.Google Scholar
Foster, C. E., ‘International Adjudication – Standards of Review and Burden of Proof: Australia-Apples and Whaling in the Antarctic’ (2012) Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, C. E., ‘New Clothes for the Emperor? Consultation of Experts by the International Court of Justice’ (2014) 5 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 139–73.Google Scholar
Foster, C. E., Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Foster, C. E., ‘The Consultation of Independent Experts by International Courts and Tribunals in Health and Environmental Cases’ (2009) 20 Finnish Yearbook of International Law 391–417.Google Scholar
Francioni, F., ‘The Private Sector and the Challenge of Implementation’ in Dupuy, P.-M., Vinuales, J. E. (eds.), Harnessing Foreign Investment to Promote Environmental Protection (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 24–49.Google Scholar
Franklin, A., Can that Be Right?: Essays on Experiment, Evidence, and Science, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Springer-Science, 1999), vol. 199.Google Scholar
Fravel, T., ‘U.S. Policy towards the Disputes in the South China Sea Since 1995’ in Fels, E, Vu, T.-M. (eds.), Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters (Springer, 2016), pp. 389–402.Google Scholar
Freestone, D., ‘Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area International Decisions’ (2011) 105 American Journal of International Law 755–60.Google Scholar
French, R., ‘Conference on Judicial Reasoning: Art or Science?’ (2010) 42 Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 5–9.Google Scholar
French, D., ‘Environmental Dispute Settlement: The First (Hesitant) Signs of Spring?’ (2006) 19 Hague Yearbook of International Law 3–32.Google Scholar
Fukunaga, Y., ‘Standard of Review and “Scientific Truths” in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and Investment Arbitration’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 559–76.Google Scholar
Fukushima, T., ‘The Role of Science for Environmental Impact Evaluation Resulting from Ocean Mining’ (2018) 14 The Marine Environment and United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 251–62.Google Scholar
Galaz, V., Tallberg, J, Boin, A, Ituarte‐Lima, C, Hey, E, Ollson, P, and Westley, F, ‘Global Governance Dimensions of Globally Networked Risks: The State of the Art in Social Science Research’ (2017) 8 Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrido-Munoz, A., ‘Managing Uncertainty: The International Court of Justice, “Objective Reasonableness” and the Judicial Function’ (2017) 30 Leiden Journal of International Law 457–74.Google Scholar
Gattini, A., ‘Breach of International Obligations’ in Nollkaemper, A, Plakokefalos, I (eds.), Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law: An Appraisal of the State of the Art (Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 25.Google Scholar
Gattini, A., ‘Breach of the Obligation to Prevent and Reparation Thereof in the ICJ’s Genocide Judgment’ (2007) 18 European Journal of International Law 695–713.Google Scholar
Gautier, P., ‘Environmental Damage and the United Nations Claim Commission: New Directions for Future International Environmental Cases?’ in Ndiaye, T. M., Wolfrum, R (eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A Mensah (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 177–214.Google Scholar
Gavouneli, M., ‘Protection Standards for the Marine Environment: Updating Part XII of the Law of the Sea Convention?’ in Minas, S and Diamond, J (eds.), Stress Testing the Law of the Sea (Brill Nijhoff, 2018), pp. 254–66.Google Scholar
Gerstetter, C., ‘Substance and Style: How the WTO Adjudicators Legitimize Their Decisions’ in Føllesdal, A, Ulfstein, G (eds.), The Judicialization of International Law: A Mixed Blessing? (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 64–85.Google Scholar
Ghaleigh, N. S., ‘Science and Climate Change Law: The Role of the IPCC in International Decision-Making’ in Gray, K, Tarasofsky, R, Carlarne, C (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 56–72.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T., ‘Boundaries of Science’ in Jasanoff, S, Markle, G. E., Pinch, T (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (SAGE Publications, 1995), pp. 393–443.Google Scholar
Gogarty, B. and Lawrence, P, ‘The ICJ Whaling Case: Missed Opportunity to Advance the Rule of Law in Resolving Science-Related Disputes in Global Commons?’ (2016) 77 ZaöRV 161–97.Google Scholar
Gogarty, B. and Lawrence, P, ‘The ICJ Whaling Case: Science, Transparency and the Rule of Law’ (2014) 23 Journal of Law, Information and Science 134.Google Scholar
Gold, S. C., ‘The More We Know, the Less Intelligent We Are? How Genomic Information Should, and Should Not, Change Toxic Tort Causation Doctrine’ (2010) 34 Harvard Environmental Law Review 369.Google Scholar
Gomula, J., ‘Environmental Disputes in the WTO’ in Fitzmaurice, M, Ong, D. M., Merkouris, P (eds.), Research Handbook on International Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2010), pp. 401–25.Google Scholar
Gray, C., ‘The 2016 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 415–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. D., ‘The Future of Proportional Liability: The Lessons of Toxic Substances Causation’ in Madden, M. S. (ed.), Exploring Tort Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 352–99.Google Scholar
Greenland, S., ‘Relation of Probability of Causation to Relative Risk and Doubling Dose: A Methodological Error that Has Become a Social Problem’ (1999) 89 American Journal of Public Health 1166–9.Google Scholar
Greenland, S. and Robins, J. M., ‘Epidemiology, Justice, and the Probability of Causation’ (2000) Jurimetrics 321–340.Google Scholar
Griss, I., ‘How Judges Think: Judicial Reasoning in Tort Cases from a Comparative Perspective’ (2013) 4 Journal of European Tort Law 247–58.Google Scholar
Grodsky, J. A., ‘Genomics and Toxic Torts: Dismantling the Risk-Injury Divide’ (2007) Stanford Law Review 1671–1734.Google Scholar
Grossman, D. A., ‘Tort-Based Climate Litigation’ in Burns, W. C. G., Osofsky, H. M. (eds.), Adjudicating Climate Change: State, National, and International Approaches (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 193–229.Google Scholar
Grossman, N., ‘Legitimacy and International Adjudicative Bodies’ (2009) 41 George Washington International Law Review 107–80.Google Scholar
Grossman, N., ‘Solomonic Judgments and the Legitimacy of the International Court of Justice’ in Grossman, N, Cohen, H. G., Føllesdal, A, Ulfstein, G (eds.), Legitimacy and International Courts (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 43–61.Google Scholar
Grossman, N., Cohen, H. G., Føllesdal, A, and Ulfstein, G (eds.), Legitimacy and International Courts (Cambridge University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
Grubler, A., Ermoliev, Y, and Kryazhimskiy, A, ‘Coping with Uncertainties: Examples of Modeling Approaches at IIASA’ (2015) 98 Technological Forecasting and Social Change 213–22.Google Scholar
Gruszczynski, L., ‘How Deep Should We Go? Searching for an Appropriate Standard of Review in the SPS Cases’ (2011) 2 European Journal of Risk Regulation 111–14.Google Scholar
Gruszczynski, L., Regulating Health and Environmental Risks under WTO Law: A Critical Analysis of the SPS Agreement (Oxford University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruszczynski, L., ‘Science and the Settlement of Trade Disputes in the World Trade Organization’ in Mercurio, B, Kuei-Jung, N (eds.), Science and Technology in International Economic Law: Balancing Competing Interests (Routledge, 2014), pp. 11–29.Google Scholar
Gruszczynski, L., ‘Standard of Review and Scientific Evidence in WTO Law and International Investment Arbitration’ in Gruszczynski, L, Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 153–73.Google Scholar
Gruszczynski, L., ‘Standard of Review of Health and Environmental Regulations by WTO Panels’ in Van Calster, G, Prévost, D (eds.), Research Handbook on Environment, Health and the WTO (Edward Elgar, 2014), pp. 731–57.Google Scholar
Gruszczynski, L., ‘The Role of Experts in Environmental and Health Related Trade Disputes in the WTO: Deconstructing Decision-Making Processes’ in Ambrus, M, Arts, K, Hey, E, Raulus, H (eds.), Irrelevant, Advisors or Decision-Makers? The Role of ‘Experts’ in International Decision-Making (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 216–37.Google Scholar
Gruszczynski, L., ‘WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as an International Standard under the TBT Agreement?’ (2012) 9 Transnational Dispute Management 1–14.Google Scholar
Gruszczynski, L. and Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Gruszczynski, L. and Werner, W, ‘Introduction’ in Gruszczynski, L, Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Haack, S., Defending Science within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (Prometheus Books, 2007).Google Scholar
Haas, P. M., ‘Epistemic Communities’ in Krieger, J (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Relations (Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 351–59.Google Scholar
Haas, P. M., ‘Ideas, Experts and Governance’ in Ambrus, M, Arts, K, Hey, E, Raulus, H (eds.), The Role of Experts in International and European Decision-Making Processes (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 19–43.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., ‘The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment’ in Adler, J. E., Rips, L. J. (eds.), Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 1024–52.Google Scholar
Hamamoto, S., ‘From the Requirement of Reasonableness to a “Comply and Explain” Rule: The Standard of Review in the Whaling judgment’ in Fitzmaurice, M, Tamada, D (eds.), Whaling in the Antarctic: The Significance and Implications of the ICJ Judgment (Brill Nijhoff, 2016), pp. 38–52.Google Scholar
Harris, D., O’Boyle, M, Bates, E, and Buckley, C, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Harrison, J., ‘Addressing the Procedural Challenges of Environmental Litigation in the Context of Investor-State Arbitration’ in Levashova, Y, Lambooy, T, Dekker, I (eds.), Bridging the Gap between International Investment Law and the Environment (Eleven Publishing, 2015), pp. 87–113.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. and Honoré, T, Causation in the Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
Harwood, J. and Stokes, K, ‘Coping with Uncertainty in Ecological Advice: Lessons from Fisheries’ (2003) 18 Trends in Ecology & Evolution 617–22.Google Scholar
Hey, E., ‘International Institutions and Global Environmental Governance’ (2006) 100 American Society of International Law Proceedings 303–16.Google Scholar
Hill, A. B., ‘The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?’ (2015) 108 Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 32–7.Google Scholar
Howse, R., ‘The World Trade Organization 20 Years On: Global Governance by Judiciary’ (2016) 27 European Journal of International Law 9–77.Google Scholar
Huguenin, M. T., Donlan, M. C., van Geel, A. E., and Paterson, R. W., ‘Assessment and Valuation of Damage to the Environment’ in Payne, C, Sand, P. H. (eds.), Gulf War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Environmental Liability (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
Hunter, D., ‘The Implications of Climate Change Litigation: Litigation for International Environmental Law-Making’ in Burns, W. C. G., Osofsky, H. M. (eds.), Adjudicating Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Ioannidis, M., ‘Beyond the Standard of Review: Deference Criteria in WTO Law and the Case for a Procedural Approach’ in Gruszczynski, L, Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 91–112.Google Scholar
Irwin, A., ‘STS Perspectives on Scientific Governance’ in Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O, Lynch, M, Wajcman, J (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (The MIT Press, 2008), pp. 583–607.Google Scholar
Jacur, F. R., ‘Remarks on the Role of Ex Curia Scientific Experts in International Environmental Disputes’ in Broschiero, N (ed.), International Court and the Development of International Law: Essays in Honour of Tullio Treves (T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), pp. 441–55.Google Scholar
Jaeckel, A., ‘An Environmental Management Strategy for the International Seabed Authority: The Legal Basis’ (2015) 30 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 93–119.Google Scholar
Jaeckel, A., ‘Deep Seabed Mining and Adaptive Management: The Procedural Challenges for the International Seabed Authority’ (2016) 70 Marine Policy 205–11.Google Scholar
Jaeckel, A. and Rayfuse, R, Conceptions of Risk in an Institutional Context: Deep Seabed Mining and the International Seabed Authority (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Jarret, M., Contributory Fault and Investor Misconduct in Investment Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., ‘In a Constitutional Moment: Science and Social Order at the Millennium’ in Joerges, B and Nowotny, H (eds.), Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back, Ahead (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), pp. 155–80.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., ‘Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society’ in Jasanoff, S (ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order (Routledge, 2004), pp. 13–45.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., ‘The Practices of Objectivity in Regulatory Science’ in Camic, C, Gross, N, Lamont, M (eds.), Social Knowledge in the Making (University of Chicago Press, 2011), pp. 307–38.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., ‘Serviceable Truths: Science for Action in Law and Policy’ (2014) 93 Texas Law Review 1723.Google Scholar
Johnston, D. M., ‘Fishery Diplomacy and Science and the Judicial Function’ (2000) 10 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 33–9.Google Scholar
Kammerhofer, J., Uncertainty in International Law: A Kelsenien Perspective (Routledge, 2011).Google Scholar
Kazazi, M., ‘Environmental Damage in the Practice of the UN Compensation Commission’ in Bowman, M, Boyle, A (eds.), Environmental Damage in International and Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 111–31.Google Scholar
Kazazi, M., ‘The UNCC Follow-up Programme for Environmental Awards’ in Ndiaye, T. M., Wolfrum, R (eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 1109–29.Google Scholar
Kellner, M. and Durant, I. C., ‘Causation’ in Fenyves, A, Karner, E, Koziol, H, Steiner, E (eds.), Tort Law in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 449–92.Google Scholar
Kheng, S. L., ‘China’s Nationalist Narrative of the South China Sea: A Preliminary Analysis’ in Fels, E, Vu, T.-M. H. (eds.), Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters (Springer, 2016), pp. 159–72.Google Scholar
Kiss, A. C., ‘Environmental Disputes and the Permanent Court of Arbitration’ (2003) 16 Hague Yearbook of International Law 41–6.Google Scholar
Kiss, A., ‘Present Limits to the Enforcement of State Responsibility for Environmental Damage’ in Francioni, F, Scovazzi, T (eds.), International Responsibility for Environmental Harm (Graham and Trotman, 1991), pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Klabbers, J., ‘Changing Futures? Science and International Law’ (2009) 20 Finnish Yearbook of International Law 211–13.Google Scholar
Klein, A. R., ‘Causation and Uncertainty: Making Connections in a Time of Change’ (2008) 49 Jurimetrics 5–50.Google Scholar
Knudsen, S. H., ‘The Long-Term Tort: In Search of a New Causation Framework for Natural Resource Damages’ (2014) 108 Northwestern University Law Review 1–67.Google Scholar
Koe, A., ‘Damming the Danube: The International Court of Justice and the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia)’ (1998) 20 Sydney Law Review 612.Google Scholar
Koh, T. and Lin, J, ‘The Land Reclamation Case: Thoughts and Reflections Speech’ (2006) 10 Singapore Year Book of International Law 1–8.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M., ‘Peaceful Settlement of Environmental Disputes’ (1991) 60 Nordic Journal of International Law 73.Google Scholar
Kritzer, H., ‘The Arts of Persuasion in Science and Law: Conflicting Norms in the Courtroom’ (2009) 72 Law and Contemporary Problems 41–61.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1970 ed. (The University of Chicago 1962).Google Scholar
Kulovesi, K., ‘Fragmented Landscapes, Troubled Relationships: The WTO Dispute Settlement System and International Environmental Law’ (2008) 19 Finnish Yearbook of International Law 29–62.Google Scholar
Kundis Craig, R., Klein, A. R., and Sanders, J, Toxic and Environmental Torts Cases and Materials (West, 2010).Google Scholar
Latour, B., ‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World’ in Knorr-Cetina, K, Mulkay, M (eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (Sage, 1983), pp. 141–70.Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, H., The Development of International Law by the International Court (Stevens & Sons, 1958).Google Scholar
Lawrence, J., ‘The Structural Logic of Expert Participation in WTO Decision-Making Processes’ in Ambrus, M, Arts, K, Hey, E, Raulus, H (eds.), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 173–93.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. J., ‘Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Future’ (2008) 94 Cornell Law Review 1153.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. J., The Making of Environmental Law (The University of Chicago Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. J., The Rule of Five Making Climate History at the Supreme Court (Harvard University Press, 2020).Google Scholar
Lefeber, R., Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability (Kluwer Law International, 1996).Google Scholar
Legg, A., The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Létourneau-Tremblay, L. and Behn, D. F., ‘Judging the Misapplication of a State’s Own Environmental Regulations’ (2016) 17 The Journal of World Investment & Trade 823–32.Google Scholar
Lévesque, C., ‘Science in the Hands of International Investment Tribunals: A Case for “Scientific Due Process”’ (2009) 20 Finnish Yearbook of International Law 259–90.Google Scholar
Levashova, Y., ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and the Protection of the Environment: Recent Trends in Investment Treaties and Investment Cases’ in Levashova, Y, Lambooy, T, Dekker, I (eds.), Bridging the Gap between International Investment Law and the Environment (Eleven Publishing, 2015), pp. 53–84.Google Scholar
Levine, M., ‘Investor-State Arbitration and Domestic Environmental Governance: Recent Developments in Canada’ in Craik, N, Jefferies, C. S. G., Seck, S. L., Stephens, T (eds.), Global Environmental Change and Innovation in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 296–314.Google Scholar
Lin, J., ‘Climate Change Litigation in Asia and the Pacific’ in Van Calster, G, Vandenberghe, W, Reins, L (eds.), Research Handbook on Climate Change Mitigation Law (Edward Elgar, 2015), pp. 578–99.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, A. B., ‘Adjudication of Environmental Impact Assessment Claims before International Courts and Tribunals’ in Voigt, C (ed.), International Judicial Practice on the Environment: Questions of Legitimacy (Cambridge University Press, 2019), pp. 288–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louka, E., International Environmental Law Fairness, Effectiveness, and World Order (Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Ludwig, D., Mangel, M, and Haddad, B, ‘Ecology, Conservation, and Public Policy’ (2001) 32 Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 481–517.Google Scholar
Malintoppi, L., ‘Fact Finding and Evidence before the International Court of Justice (Notably in Scientific-Related Disputes)’ (2016) 7 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 421–44.Google Scholar
Mangel, M., ‘Whales, Science, and Scientific Whaling in the International Court of Justice’ (2016) 113 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 14523–7.Google Scholar
Marceau, G. Z. and Hawkins, J. K., ‘Experts in WTO Dispute Settlement’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 493–507.Google Scholar
Matheson, M. J., ‘Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission: Damage Awards’ (2009) 13 ASIL Insights.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C., ‘The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight: The Not So Magnificent Seven of the WTO Appellate Body’ (2017) 27 European Journal of International Law 1107–18.Google Scholar
Mbengue, M. M., ‘International Courts and Tribunals as Fact-Finders: The Case of Scientific Fact-Finding in International Adjudication’ (2011) 34 Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 53.Google Scholar
Mbengue, M. M., ‘Scientific Fact-Finding at the International Court of Justice: An Appraisal in the Aftermath of the Whaling Case’ (2016) 29 Leiden Journal of International Law 529–50.Google Scholar
Mbengue, M. M., ‘Scientific Fact-Finding by International Courts and Tribunals’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 509–24.Google Scholar
Mbengue, M. M., ‘The South China Sea Arbitration: Innovations in Marine Environmental Fact-Finding and Due Diligence Obligations’ (2016) 110 ASIL Unbound 285–9.Google Scholar
Mbengue, M. M. and Das, R, ‘The ICJ’s Engagement with Science: To Interpret or Not to Interpret?’ (2015) 6 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 568–77.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, S. C., ‘Of Paradoxes, Precedents, and Progeny: The Trail Smelter Arbitration 65 Years Later’ in Bratspies, R, Miller, R. A. (eds.), Transboundary Harm in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 34–45.Google Scholar
McIntyre, O., ‘The Contribution of Procedural Rules to the Environmental Protection of Transboundary Rivers in Light of Recent ICJ Case Law’ in de Chazournes, Laurence Boission (ed.), International Law and Freshwater (Edward Elgar, 2013), pp. 239–66.Google Scholar
Meetarbhan, M. J. N., ‘Re-examining the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration: The Lancaster House Undertakings’ (2015) 45 Environmental Policy and Law 248–55.Google Scholar
Mensah, T. A., ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment’ (1999) 8 Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 1–15.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K., ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ in Storer, N. W. (ed.), The Sociology of Science (The University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 267–78.Google Scholar
Milanovic, M., Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Miles, K., The Origins of International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Moussa, J., ‘Implications of the Indus Water Kishenganga Arbitration for the International Law of Watercourses and the Environment’ (2015) 64 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 697–715.Google Scholar
Négre, C., ‘Responsibility and International Environmental Law’ in Crawford, J, Pellet, A, Olleson, S (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 803–13.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. and Burgers, L., ‘A New Classic in Climate Change Litigation: The Dutch Supreme Court Decision in the Urgenda Case’, EJIL Talk! (6 January 2020) Available at https://bit.ly/3c1XO4h.Google Scholar
Nollkaemper, A. and Plakokefalos, I (eds.), Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
‘Note: Market Share Liability: An Answer to the DES Causation Problem’ (1981) 94 Harvard Law Review 668.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, J., Brysse, K, Oppenheimer, M, and Oreskes, N, ‘Characterizing Uncertainty in Expert Assessments: Ozone Depletion and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Characterizing Uncertainty in Expert Assessments’ (2011) 2 Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 728–43.Google Scholar
Ogburn, W. F., ‘How Technology Changes Society’ (1947) 249 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 81–8.Google Scholar
Oliphant, K., ‘Uncertain Factual Causation in the Third Restatement: Some Comparative Notes’ (2010) 37 William Mitchell Law Review 1599.Google Scholar
Oliphant, K. and Ludwichowska, K, ‘Damage’ in Fenyves, A, Karner, E, Koziol, H, Steiner, E (eds.), Tort Law in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 397–448.Google Scholar
Oral, N., ‘The South China Sea Arbitral Award, Part XII of UNCLOS, and the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment’ in Jayakumar, S, Koh, T, Beckman, R, Davenport, T, Phan, H (eds.), The South China Sea Arbitration: The Legal Dimension (Edward Elgar, 2018), pp. 223–46.Google Scholar
Orellana, M. A., ‘Saramaka People v. Suriname’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 841–7.Google Scholar
Orellana, M. A., ‘The EU and Chile Suspend the Swordfish Case Proceedings at the WTO and the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea’ (2001) 6(1) ASIL Insights.Google Scholar
Orellana, M. A., ‘The Role of Science in Investment Arbitrations Concerning Public Health and the Environment’ (2006) 17 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 48–72.Google Scholar
Orellana, M. A., ‘The Swordfish Dispute between the EU and Chile at the ITLOS and the WTO’ (2002) 71 Nordic Journal of International Law 55–81.Google Scholar
Orford, A., ‘Trade, Human Rights and the Economy of Sacrifice’ in Orford, A (ed.), International Law and Its Others (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 156–96.Google Scholar
Osofsky, H. M., ‘Climate Change and Dispute Resolution Processes’ in Rayfuse, R, Scott, S. V. (eds.), International Law in the Era of Climate Change (Edward Elgar, 2012), pp. 350–70.Google Scholar
Osofsky, H. M., ‘The Intersection of Scale, Science, and Law in Massachusetts v. EPA’ in Burns, W. C. G., Osofsky, H. M. (eds.), Adjudicating Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 129–44.Google Scholar
Osofsky, H. M., ‘The Inuit Petition as a Bridge? Beyond Dialectics of Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights’ in Burns, W. C. G., Osofsky, H. M. (eds.), Adjudicating Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 272–90.Google Scholar
Paik, J.-H., ‘South China Sea Arbitral Awards: Main Findings and Assessment’ (2017) 20 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 367–407.Google Scholar
Palmeter, D., ‘The WTO Standard of Review in Health and Safety Disputes’ in Bermann, G. A., Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 224–34.Google Scholar
Palombino, F. M., ‘Judicial Economy and Limitation of the Scope of the Decision in International Adjudication’ (2010) 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 909–32.Google Scholar
Pascual, P., Wagner, W, and Fisher, E, ‘Making Methods Visible: Improving the Quality of Science-Based Regulation’ (2013) 2 Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law 429–72.Google Scholar
Patel, B. N., Law of the Sea International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Jurisprudence: Case Commentary, Case-Law Digest and Reference Guide (1994–2014) (Eastern Book Company, 2016).Google Scholar
Paterson, J., ‘Law’s Approach to Harm under Uncertainty’ in Goldberg, R (ed.), Perspectives on Causation (Hart, 2011), pp. 383–408.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J., ‘Expert Advice in WTO Dispute Settlement’ in Bermann, G. A., Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 235–56.Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, J., ‘The WTO 20 Years On: “Global Governance by Judiciary” or, Rather, Member-Driven Settlement of (Some) Trade Disputes between (Some) WTO Members?’ (2017) 27 European Journal of International Law 1119–26.Google Scholar
Payne, C., ‘Environmental Claims in Context’ in Payne, C, Sand, P. H. (eds.), Gulf War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Environmental Liability (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Payne, C., ‘Mastering the Evidence: Improving Fact Finding by International Courts’ (2011) Environmental Law 1191–220.Google Scholar
Payne, M. R. et al., ‘Uncertainties in Projecting Climate-Change Impacts in Marine Ecosystems’ (2016) 73 ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 1272–82.Google Scholar
Peat, D., ‘The Use of Court-Appointed Experts by the International Court of Justice’ (2014) 84 British Yearbook of International Law 271–303.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. W., ‘The European Court of Human Rights and International Environmental Law’ in Knox, J. H., Pejan, R (eds.), The Human Right to a Healthy Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 86–98.Google Scholar
Peel, J., ‘Changing Conceptions of Environmental Risk’ in Vinuales, J. E. (ed.), The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 74–85.Google Scholar
Peel, J., ‘Issues in Climate Change Litigation’ (2011) 1 Carbon and Climate Law Review 15–24.Google Scholar
Peel, J., Science and Risk Regulation in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Pellet, A., ‘Should We (Still) Worry about Fragmentation?’ in Føllesdal, A, Ulfstein, G (eds.), The Judicialization of International Law: A Mixed Blessing? (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 228–42.Google Scholar
Perez, O., ‘Judicial Strategies for Reviewing Conflicting Expert Evidence: Biases, Heuristics, and Higher-Order Evidence’ (2016) 64 The American Journal of Comparative Law 75–120.Google Scholar
Plakokefalos, I., ‘Causation in the Law of State Responsibility and the Problem of Overdetermination: In Search of Clarity’ (2015) 26 European Journal of International Law 471–92.Google Scholar
Plakokefalos, I., ‘Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area Advisory Opinion’ (2012) 24 Journal of Environmental Law 133–43.Google Scholar
Press, A., ‘Science in the Court! The Role of Science in “Whaling in the Antarctic”’ in Fitzmaurice, M, Tamada, D (eds.), Whaling in the Antarctic (Brill Nijhoff, 2016), pp. 346–86.Google Scholar
Preston, B. J., ‘Climate Change Litigation (Part 1)’ (2011) 1 Carbon and Climate Law Review 798–809.Google Scholar
Preston, B. J., ‘The End of Enlightened Environmental Law?’ (2019) 31 Journal of Environmental Law 399–411.Google Scholar
Proelss, A. (ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (C. H. Beck Hart Nomos, 2017).Google Scholar
Rainey, B., Wicks, E, and Ovey, C (eds.), Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Ratliff, D. P., ‘The PCA Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 887–96.Google Scholar
Rayfuse, R., ‘Precaution and the Protection of Marine Biodiversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2012) 27 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 773–81.Google Scholar
Read, J. E., ‘The Trail Smelter Dispute (Abridged)’ in Bratspies, R, Miller, R. A. (eds.), Transboundary Harm in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 27–33.Google Scholar
Redgwell, C., ‘International Environmental Law’ in Evans, M (ed.), International Law (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 688–726.Google Scholar
Reed, L. and Wong, K, ‘Marine Entitlements in the South China Sea: The Arbitration between the Philippines and China’ (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law 746–60.Google Scholar
Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M, and Burgman, M. A., ‘A Taxonomy and Treatment of Uncertainty for Ecology and Conservation Biology’ (2002) 12 Ecological Applications 618–28.Google Scholar
Reid, E., ‘Risk Assessment, Science and Deliberation: Managing Regulatory Diversity under the SPS Agreement’ (2012) 4 European Journal of Risk Regulation 535–44.Google Scholar
Reinisch, A., ‘Human Rights Extraterritoriality: Controlling Companies Abroad’ in Benvenisti, E, Nolte, G (eds.), Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 396–413.Google Scholar
Ridell, A., ‘Scientific Evidence in the International Court of Justice: Problems and Possibilities’ (2009) 20 Finnish Yearbook of International Law 229–58.Google Scholar
Ridell, A. and Plant, B, Evidence before the International Court of Justice (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009).Google Scholar
Roach, J. A., ‘Marine Scientific Research and the New Law of the Sea’ (1996) 27 Ocean Development and International Law 59–72.Google Scholar
Roach, J. A., ‘Marine Scientific Research in the Area’ in Lodge, M, Nordquist, M. H. (eds.), Peaceful Order in the World’s Oceans (Brill Nijhoff, 2014), pp. 265–81.Google Scholar
Roesch, R., ‘The Ogiek Case of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Not So Much News After All?’ EJIL Talk! (June 16, 2017) Available at https://bit.ly/3gLUjCnGoogle Scholar
Romano, C. P. R., The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes: A Pragmatic Approach (Kluwer Law International, 2000).Google Scholar
Rosenberg, D., ‘The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A “Public Law” Vision of the Tort System’ (1984) 97 Harvard Law Review 849.Google Scholar
Rothwell, D. R., ‘The Contribution of ITLOS to Oceans Governance Through Marine Environmental Dispute Resolution’ in Ndiaye, T. M., Wolfrum, R (eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 1007–24.Google Scholar
Sand, P. H., ‘Environmental Dispute Settlement and the Experience of the UN Compensation Committee’ (2011) 54 Japanese Yearbook of International aw 151.Google Scholar
Sand, P. H. and Kammit, J. K., ‘Public Health Claims’ in Payne, C, Sand, P. H. (eds.), Gulf War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Environmental Liability (Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 1–39.Google Scholar
Sands, P., ‘Climate Change and the Rule of Law: Adjudicating the Future of International Law’ (2016) 28 Journal of Environmental Law 19–35.Google Scholar
Sands, P., ‘Human Rights, Environment and the Lopez-Ostra Case’ (1996) European Human Rights Law Review 597–618.Google Scholar
Sands, P., ‘International Environmental Litigation and Its Future’ (1998) 32 University of Richmond Law Review 1619.Google Scholar
Sands, P., Litigating Environmental Disputes: Courts, Tribunals and the Progressive Development of International Environmental Law (OECD Global Forum on International Investment, 2008).Google Scholar
Schatz, V., ‘Fishing for Interpretation: The ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Flag State Responsibility for Illegal Fishing in the EEZ’ (2016) 47 Ocean Development & International Law 327–45.Google Scholar
Schill, S. W., ‘Deference in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Re-conceptualizing the Standard of Review’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 577–607.Google Scholar
Schill, S. W. and Djanic, V, ‘International Investment Law and Community Interests’ in Benvenisti, E, Nolte, G (eds.), Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 221–48.Google Scholar
Schrefler, L., ‘Reflections on the Different Roles of Expertise in Regulatory Policy Making’ in Ambrus, M, Arts, K, Hey, E, Raulus, H (eds.), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes (Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 63–81.Google Scholar
Schreuer, C., ‘Investment Arbitration’ in Romano, C, Alter, K. J., Shany, Y (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 295–315.Google Scholar
Scott, J. and Sturm, S, ‘Courts as Catalysts: Re-Thinking the Judicial Role in New Governance’ (2007) 13 Columbia Journal of European Law 565–94.Google Scholar
Shany, Y., Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Shany, Y., ‘Stronger Together? Legitimacy and Effectiveness of International Courts as Mutually Reinforcing or Undermining Notions’ in Grossman, N, Cohen, H. G., Føllesdal, A, Ulfstein, G (eds.), Legitimacy and International Courts (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 354–71.Google Scholar
Shany, Y., ‘The First MOX Plant Award: The Need to Harmonize Competing Environmental Regimes and Dispute Settlement Procedures’ (2004) 17 Leiden Journal of International Law 815–27.Google Scholar
Shelton, D., ‘Complexities and Uncertainties in Matters of Human Rights and the Environment: Identifying the Judicial Role’ in Knox, J. H., Pejan, R (eds.), The Human Right to a Healthy Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
Shelton, D. L., ‘Developing Substantive Environmental Rights’ (2010) 1 Journal of Human Rights and the Environment 89–120.Google Scholar
Shelton, D. L., ‘Environmental Rights and Brazil’s Obligations in the Inter-American Human Rights System’ (2008) 40 George Washington International Law Review 733–77.Google Scholar
Shelton, D., ‘Righting Wrongs: Reparations in the Articles on State Responsibility’ (2002) 96 American Journal of International Law 833–856.Google Scholar
Simma, B., ‘The International Court of Justice and Scientific Expertise’ (2012) 106 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (ASIL), 230–3.Google Scholar
Singleton, B. E. and Lidskog, R, ‘Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Whaling, Purity, Pollution and Institutions in Marine Mammal Scientists’ Boundary Work’ (2018) 1 Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 165–85.Google Scholar
Smith, C., ‘Policy Implications of Uncertainty’ (2011) 369 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 4932–7.Google Scholar
Smyth, S. J., Kerr, W. A., and Phillips, P. W. B., ‘Recent Trends in the Scientific Basis of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Rules and Their Potential Impact on Investment’ (2011) 12 The Journal of World Investment& Trade 5–26.Google Scholar
Spellman, B. A. and Schauer, F, ‘Legal Reasoning’ in Holyoak, K. J., Morrison, R. G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 719–35.Google Scholar
Squintani, L., Darpö, J, Lavrysen, L, and Stoll, P.-T., Managing Facts and Feelings in Environmental Governance (Edward Elgar, 2019).Google Scholar
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R., ‘Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39’ (1989) 19 Social Studies of Science 397–420.Google Scholar
Stec, S. and Eckstein, G, ‘Of Solemn Oaths and Obligations: The Environmental Impact of the ICJ’s Decision in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project’ (1997) 8 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 41–57.Google Scholar
Steiner, E., ‘Just Satisfaction under Art. 41 of ECHR: A Compromise in 1950 – Problematic Now’ in Fenyves, A, Karner, E, Koziol, H, Steiner, E (eds.), Tort Law in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
Stephens, T., International Courts and Environmental Protection (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Stephens, T., ‘International Environmental Dispute Settlement’ in Vinuales, J. E. (ed.), The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 599–616.Google Scholar
Stephens, T., ‘The Settlement of Disputes in International Environmental Law’ in Alam, S, Bhuiyan, M. J. H., Chowdhury, T, Techera, E (eds.), Routledge Handbook of International Environmental Law (Routledge, 2012), pp. 175–87.Google Scholar
Stewart, R. B., ‘Remedying Disregard in Global Regulatory Governance: Accountability, Participation, and Responsiveness’ (2014) American Journal of International Law 211–70.Google Scholar
Straus, M., ‘Causation as an Element of State Responsibility’ (1984) 16 Law & Policy in International Business 893.Google Scholar
Strauss, A., ‘Climate Change Litigation: Opening the Door to the International Court of Justice’ in Burns, W. C. G., Osofsky, H. M. (eds.), Adjudicating Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 334–56.Google Scholar
Sulyok, K., ‘Managing Uncertain Causation: Lessons for the Strasbourg Court from US Toxic Tort Litigation?’ (2017) 18 Vermont Journal of Environmental Law 521–69.Google Scholar
Sulyok, K., Bögös, F., Paloniitty, T., and Eliantonio, M. Summary Report of the European Forum of Judges for the Environment – Answers to the questionnaire concerning the role of science in environmental adjudication, 2019. Available at https://bit.ly/2BnT8sB.Google Scholar
Sykes, A. O., ‘Domestic Regulation, Sovereignty and Scientific Evidence Requirements: A Pessimistic View’ in Bermann, G. A., Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 257–70.Google Scholar
Szabó, M., ‘The Implementation of the Judgment of the ICJ on the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Dispute’ (2009) 5 Iustum Aequum Salutare 15–25.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y., ‘Obligations and Liability of Sponsoring States Concerning Activities in the Area: Reflections on the ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011’ (2013) 60 Netherlands International Law Review 205–30.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y., ‘Provisional Measures Prescribed by ITLOS and Marine Environmental Protection’ (2014) 108 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting, published by the American Society of International Law 365–8.Google Scholar
Telesetsky, A., ‘The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Seeking the Legitimacy of State Consent’ in Grossman, N, Cohen, H. G., Føllesdal, A, Ulfstein, G (eds.), Legitimacy and International Courts (Cambridge University Press, 2018), pp. 174–215.Google Scholar
Thagard, P., ‘Explanatory Coherence’ in Adler, J. E., Rips, L. J. (eds.), Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 471–513.Google Scholar
The American Law Institute, Third Restatement of the Law of Torts for Physical and Emotional Harm (The American Law Institute Publishers, 2010), vol. i.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. A., ‘Of Facts and Phantoms: Economics, Epistemic Legitimacy, and WTO Dispute Settlement’ (2011) 14 Journal of International Economic Law 295–328.Google Scholar
Thomas, E. W., The Judicial Process: Realism, Pragmatism, Practical Reasoning and Principles (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Thornburgh, D., Reichardt, G, and Stanley, J, ‘The Nuclear Claims Tribunal of the Republic of the Marshall Islands: An Independent Examination and Assessment of Its Decision-Making Processes’ (2003) available at www.bikiniatoll.com/ThornburgReport.pdf.Google Scholar
Thorson, E. J., ‘The World Heritage Convention and Climate Change: The Case for a Climate-Change Mitigation Strategy beyond the Kyoto Protocol’ in Burns, W. C. G., Osofsky, H. M. (eds.), Adjudicating Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 255–71.Google Scholar
Tol, R. S. J. and Verheyen, R, ‘State Responsibility and Compensation for Climate Change Damages: A Legal and Economic Assessment’ (2004) 32 Energy Policy 1109–30.Google Scholar
Treves, T., ‘Law and Science in the Interpretation of the Law of the Sea Convention’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 483–91.Google Scholar
Treves, T., ‘Law and Science in the Jurisprudence of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’ in Nordquist, M. H., Long, R, Heidar, T, Moore, J. N. (eds.), Law, Science and Ocean Management (Brill Nijhoff, 2015), pp. 15–26.Google Scholar
Treves, T., ‘The Settlement of Disputes and Non-Compliance Procedures’ in Treves, T, Pineschi, L, Tanzi, A, Pitea, C, Jacur, F. R. (eds.), Non-Compliance Procedures and Mechanisms and the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (T. M. C. Asser Press, 2009), pp. 499–518.Google Scholar
Valles, C., ‘Different Forms of Expert Involvement in WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings’ (2018) 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 367–78.Google Scholar
Van Damme, I., ‘The Assessment of Expert Evidence in International Adjudication’ (2018) 9 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 401–10.Google Scholar
Van Harten, G. and Scott, D. N., ‘Investment Treaties and the Internal Vetting of Regulatory Proposals: A Case Study from Canada’ (2016) 12 Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series.Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E., ‘A Human Rights Approach to Extraterritorial Environmental Protection? An Assessment’ in Bhuta, N (ed.), The Frontiers of Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 177–221.Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E., Foreign Investment and the Environment (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E., ‘Foreign Investment and the Environment in International Law: An Ambiguous Relationship’ (2010) 80 British Yearbook of International Law 244–332.Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E., ‘Foreign Investment and the Environment in International Law: Current Trends’ in Miles, K (ed.), Research Handbook on Environment and Investment Law (Edward Elgar, 2019), pp. 12–37.Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E., ‘Legal Techniques for Dealing with Scientific Uncertainty in Environmental Law’ (2010) 43 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 437–503.Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E., ‘Observations sur le traitement des motifs scientifiques dans le contentieux environmental international’ in F. Couveinhes Matsumoto, , R. Nollez-Goldbach, (eds.), Les motifs non-juridiques des jugements internationaux. Actes de la 1ére journée de droit international de l’ENS (Pedone, 2016), pp. 113–25.Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E., ‘The Contribution of the International Court of Justice to the Development of International Environmental Law: A Contemporary Assessment’ (2008) 32 Fordham International Law Journal 232.Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E., ‘The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development’ in Vinuales, J. E. (ed.), The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 1–60.Google Scholar
Voeten, E., ‘International Judicial Behavior’ in Romano, C, Alter, K. J., Shany, Y (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 550–68.Google Scholar
Voigt, C., ‘Climate Change and Damages’ in Carlarne, C, Gray, K, Tarasofsky, R (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Climate Change Law (Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 465–94.Google Scholar
Voigt, C. (ed.), International Judicial Practice on the Environment: Questions of Legitimacy (Cambridge University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
Voigt, C., ‘State Responsibility for Climate Change Damages’ (2008) 77 Nordic Journal of International Law 1–22.Google Scholar
Von Burg, R., ‘The Supreme Court Cleans the Air: Legal and Scientific Standards for Argument in Massachusetts v. EPA’ (2017) 53 Argumentation and Advocacy 41–58.Google Scholar
Vos, E., ‘The European Court of Justice in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty and Complexity’ in Dawson, M, De Witte, B, Muir, E (eds.), Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice (Edward Elgar, 2013), pp. 142–66.Google Scholar
Vromman, P., ‘Responsibilities and Obligations of Sponsoring States United Nations Activities: UNCLOS’ (2012) 42 Environmental Policy and Law 90–6.Google Scholar
Walton, D. and Zhang, N, ‘The Epistemology of Scientific Evidence’ (2013) 21 Artificial Intelligence and Law 173–219.Google Scholar
Waseem, M. A., ‘ITLOS at 20: Provisional Measures and the Precautionary Approach’ in Minas, S, Diamond, J (eds.), Stress Testing the Law of the Sea (Brill Nijhoff, 2018), pp. 150–69.Google Scholar
Werner, W. G., ‘The Politics of Expertise’ in Ambrus, M., Arts, K, Hey, E, Raulus, H (eds.), The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 44–62.Google Scholar
Wilde, L., ‘Scientific and Technical Advice’ in Payne, C, Sand, P. H. (eds.), Gulf War Reparations and the UN Compensation Commission: Environmental Liability (Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Wilde, R., ‘Socioeconomic Rights, Extraterritorially’ in Benvenisti, E, Nolte, G (eds.), Community Interests Across International Law (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 381–95.Google Scholar
Will, G., ‘Distant Partners: Europe and the South China Sea’ in Fels, E, Vu, T.-M. (eds.), Power Politics in Asia’s Contested Waters (Springer, 2016), pp. 469–92.Google Scholar
Wolfrum, R., ‘Taking and Assessing Evidence in International Adjudication’ in Ndiaye, T. M., Wolfrum, R (eds.), Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 341–56.Google Scholar
Wright, R. W., ‘Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts’ (1987) 73 Iowa Law Review 1001.Google Scholar
Wright, R. W., ‘Proving Causation: Probability versus Belief’ in Goldberg, R (ed.), Perspectives on Causation (Hart, 2011), pp. 195–220.Google Scholar
Xue, H., Transboundary Damage in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Yodzis, P., ‘Must Top Predators Be Culled for the Sake of Fisheries?’ (2001) 16 Trends in Ecology & Evolution 78–84.Google Scholar
Zander, J., The Application of the Precautionary Principle in Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Zupančič, B. M., ‘Causation in Cases of Environmental Degradation: The Missing Link in Adjudicating Human Rights’ (2011) 3 The Yearbook of Polar Law Online 113–28.Google Scholar