Thread by @mabecker17

The #ICJ has named the four experts that it has commissioned to produce a report on #DRC’s damages claims in the #ArmedActivities case. I previously discussed the decision to seek this opinion. Now we have the list of names, which is very interesting. 1/14 icj-cij.org/public/files/c…

https://twitter.com/mabecker17/status/1308810722428751872

Recall that the expert opinion is supposed to address three heads of damages sought by the #DRC from #Uganda: (i) civilian deaths and compensation due; (ii) quantity and valuation of natural resources plundered; and (iii) scale and cost of property damage. 2/14

Questions have been raised within and beyond the Court about whether the task assigned to the experts amounts to derogation of the judicial function, unduly assists the DRC, or represents a prudent move on the Court's part to seek technical expertise in pursuit of justice. 3/14

My preliminary take is that this list of names suggests a reasonable & good faith effort by the Court to obtain relevant technical expertise, including in the fields of epidemiological modelling, financial accounting, and demography, in a complex case. Here are the experts: 4/14

Debarati Guha-Sapir brings expertise in epidemiology and the human impact of disasters and crisis events. She directs the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (@CREDUCL) at @UCLouvain_be. cred.be/staff/debarati… 5/14

Geoffrey Senogles is a Geneva-based chartered accountant with considerable international experience regarding damages calculations in relation to human rights violations. He’s also been a damages expert at the UNCC and Iran-US Claims Tribunal. senogles.com/geoffrey-senog… 6/14

Henrik Urdal directs the Peace Research Institute Oslo (@PRIOUpdates) and his expertise includes the demographic consequences of armed conflict. prio.org/People/Person/… 7/14

Michael Nest brings expertise in conflict minerals and has written extensively about the role of natural resources in African conflicts, including in the #DRC. Here’s his website (michaelnest.com/employment-con…) and an interesting interview from 2016: oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/blog/the-polit… 8/14

#Uganda objected to the #ICJ's decision to seek an expert opinion in the first place, and Uganda then further objected to three of the above experts proposed by the Court, alleging either bias based on views expressed in prior publications or lack of relevant expertise. 9/14

In its Order, the ICJ explained that it considered and rejected Uganda’s objections. Uganda will be able to reiterate its concerns when commenting on the expert opinion, but the Court stated that it was within its discretion to choose its own experts. (This is correct.) 10/14

So where does this leave us? Ultimately, it is hard to evaluate the Court’s decision to seek an expert opinion, or its specific choice of experts, when the party pleadings remain confidential and the Court’s prior order did not explain precisely why expertise was required. 11/14

When more information becomes available, it may become clearer whether the experts have primarily been asked to analyse the DRC’s damages claims and Uganda’s responses, or instead have been asked to construct a damages case from the ground up. Or both. 12/14

On a related note, will the experts be primarily applying their expertise to the existing case file and evidence adduced by the parties, or will they, in effect, conduct additional fact-finding (from the public record) to come up with proposed damages figures? 13/14

Ultimately, the most prudent course may be for the expert panel to give the #ICJ a range of options, explaining the different methodological possibilities and the assumptions/values implicit in those choices. This may be how it could best serve the Court. We shall see. 14/14