The Expertise Function of Amicus Curiae in International Criminal Justice

INTRODUCTION. While abroad over the past decades both comprehensive research and publications touching on individual aspects of amicus curiae in international law have been edited, it garnered only very little scholarly attention in Russian scientific literature. The frequency of its use and the nature of its impact on international judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings vary among branches of international law. This article considers one of the functions that an amicus curiae may perform in international criminal proceedings – the function of expertise.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article is based on the existing volume of scientific knowledge in different branches of international law, such as law of international treaties, international criminal law, law of international organizations, human rights law, international economic law, history of international law and others. The research is based on the conclusions and inferences achieved mainly in the foreign doctrine of international law including publications of this year, due to the low degree of development of the topic in Russian literature. The empirical basis of the research is formed by international legal acts, internal acts of international criminal tribunals, materials of proceedings relating to interstate disputes, international advisory proceedings, practice of international criminal courts. The methodology used is a combination of general scientific methods of cognition (methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, critical and dialectical) and private scientific methods typical for legal sciences (historical, comparative).

RESEARCH RESULTS. International criminal courts actively rely on the amicus curiae mechanism to obtain information, both legal and factual, on issues under consideration in criminal proceedings. The admission of amicus curiae to international criminal proceedings is entirely at the discretion of the judiciary. In practice, amicus curiae applications are submitted by subjects of international law, international non-governmental organizations, natural and legal persons and professional associations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Too frequent use of amicus curiae mechanism seems to be difficult to reconcile with the iura novit curia maxima. Its current practice provides fertile ground for all kinds of abuse and needs to be reviewed. In particular, the experience of the UN International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the UN Commission on International Trade Law could be instructive in this regard.

1. Bartholomeusz L. The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals. – Non-State Actors and International Law. 2005. Vol.5. P.209-286.

2. Cheng B. General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals. Cambridge, Grotius Publications. 1987. 490 p.

3. Clark R.S. The International League for Human Rights and South West Africa 1947-1957: The Human Rights NGO as Catalyst in the International Legal Process. – Human Rights Quarterly. 1981. Vol. 3(4). P. 101–136.

4. Crema L. Testing Amici Curiae in International Law: Rules and Practice. – The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 2013. Vol. 22(1). P. 91–132.

5. Editors. Introduction to volume 3, year 2000. – Journal of International Economic Law. 2000. Vol. 3. P. 1-2.

6. Ford C. What are Friends For? In NAFTA Chapter 11 Disputes, accepting amici would help lift the curtain of secrecy surrounding investor-state arbitrations. – Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in Americas. 2005. Vol. 11. P. 207.

7. Gomez K.F. Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest. – Fordham International Law Journal. 2012. Vol. 35(2). P. 510–564.

8. Kopylova E.A. Prestupleniya protiv mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo pravosudiya [Offences against the international criminal justice]. Moscow: Boslen Publ. 2019. 368 p. (in Russ.)

9. Lysenko V.V. Institut amicus curiae v teorii i praktike nepravitel'stvennyh organizacij i Evropejskij sud po pravam cheloveka [The amicus curiae in the theory and practice of the NGOs and the European Court of Human Rights]. – Rossijskij sud'ja. 2008. No. 9. P. 38–42. (in Russ.)

10. Marrus M. A Jewish Lobby at Nuremberg: Jacob Robinson and the Institute of Jewish Affairs, 1945-46. – The Nuremberg Trials: International Criminal Law since 1945 (Herbert R. Reginbogin, Christoph Safferling (eds.)) Walter de Gruyter. 2011. P. 63–71.

11. Mirgorodskii E.D. Amicus Curiae v mezhdunarodnom prave: istoriya i sovremennost' [The Amicus Curiae in International Law: History and Modernity]. – Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL). 2019. No. 10(62). P. 199-204. (in Russ.)

12. Reinisch A., Irgel C. The Participation of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in the WTO Dispute Settlement System. – Non State Actors and International Law. 2001. Vol. 1(2). P. 127–151.

13. Shelton D. 1The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings. – The American Journal of International Law. 994. Vol. 88(4). P. 611-642.

14. Tams C., Zoellner C.-S. Amici Curiae im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht. – Archiv des Volkerrechts. 2007. Vol. 45. P. 217–243.

15. Viljoen F., Abebe A. «Amicus Curiae» Participation Before Regional Human Rights Bodies in Africa. – Journal of African Law. 2014. Vol. 58(1). P. 22–44.

16. Wiik A. Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals. Nomos/Hart. 2018. 656 p.

17. Williams S., Woolaver H., Palmer E. The Amicus Curiae in International Criminal Justice. Hart Publishing. 2020. 368 p.