Authorities in International Law – Phd Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“Authorities” in International Dispute Settlement: a Data Analysis Damien Charlotin Corpus Christi College June 2020 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2 Preface This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in this Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. This thesis, including footnotes, does not exceed the permitted length. 3 Introduction This thesis regards legal argumentation in international law. Its main object are the precedents and doctrinal teachings that enter this argumentation as “authorities”. The argument starts with an uncontroversial observation: international litigation and arbitration, indeed every kind of international legal advocacy, to a large extent turns on the use (and, sometimes, misuse) of authorities. Parties and adjudicators spend time and effort marshalling supportive authorities, distinguishing or refuting unhelpful ones, and monitoring legal developments in unrelated cases and in academic debates to bolster their arguments. This practice is essentially the same before all international courts and tribunals, although the most relevant authorities can change. It has profound implications, for many important issues of international law (its sources, the role of precedents, its fragmentation, etc.) are also questions about the nature, scope and relevance of authorities in international law. In short, the practice of citing authorities warrants a comprehensive inquiry into its modes and consequences. There is little research on what parties, courts and tribunals do when they cite a case or a doctrinal authority, and even less empirical research on this practice. Likewise, very little research has tried to elucidate what makes an authority authoritative. As a result, assumptions – such as the idea that authorities are merely cited for their persuasive power – have yet to be scrutinised. This thesis closes those gaps in the literature: its main purpose is to investigate the practices of citing authorities in international dispute settlement, as well as their characteristics and consequences. Based on international judgments and awards (and the citations therein) treated as a dataset, this thesis sheds light on what makes an authority “authoritative”; how parties and adjudicators use authorities; and the broader consequences of authority-based argument for international law. Chapter I defines “authorities” as a material used in support of legal reasoning, and examines their place in international law. Chapter II reviews the gaps in the existing literature when it comes to authority-based argumentation, and describes the methodology underlying this thesis. Chapter III questions the idea that authorities are only cited in function of their inherent persuasiveness, and identifies and investigates the factors that may underlie the “authoritativeness” of authorities, such as the identity of the “author”, their age or language. The next three chapters consider the practice of citing authorities by three different actors in international disputes: courts and tribunals (Chapter IV); individual judges and arbitrators in opinions (Chapter V); and parties in their pleadings and submissions (Chapter VI). These practices vary alongside the strategic considerations of these different legal protagonists. Finally, Chapters VII and VIII review two systemic consequences of the use of authorities and conclude to their important role in two aspects of international law: in developing the judicial dialogue between international judicial bodies, and in developing and defining international law. 4 Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 10 Table of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter I – “Authorities” in legal argument ..................................................................................... 13 1. The definition of “authority” .................................................................................................... 15 A) A typology of authorities................................................................................................... 15 B) Content-independence ...................................................................................................... 17 C) “Authoritativeness” and “persuasiveness” ....................................................................... 19 2. Arguing from authority ........................................................................................................... 21 A) The argument from authority .......................................................................................... 21 B) The function of citation ..................................................................................................... 25 3. Regulating authorities in international law ........................................................................... 29 A) Good and bad authorities ................................................................................................. 29 B) Universe of authorities ..................................................................................................... 31 4. “Authorities” and “authority” .................................................................................................. 37 5. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 38 Chapter II – Methodology .................................................................................................................. 41 1. The existing literature ............................................................................................................. 42 A) Authorities in international law ...................................................................................... 43 B) Citation Analysis .............................................................................................................. 44 C) Citation analysis and domestic courts ............................................................................. 46 D) Citation Analysis and International Courts .................................................................... 47 2. The Dataset .............................................................................................................................. 51 A) The set of international courts and tribunals .................................................................. 51 5 B) The set of sources and authorities .................................................................................... 54 C) Limitations to the Dataset ............................................................................................... 59 3. The data-collection methods .................................................................................................... 63 A) Data and Metadata ........................................................................................................... 64 B) Citations ............................................................................................................................ 66 4. Methods of analysis and measures of authority ..................................................................... 68 A) Topic analysis ................................................................................................................... 68 B) Network analysis .............................................................................................................. 69 C) Measures of authority ....................................................................................................... 70 5. Empirical methodology and its limitations ............................................................................. 71 A) Empirical analyses and big data ...................................................................................... 72 B) The role of theory and literature ...................................................................................... 74 C) Data Collection and bias ................................................................................................... 76 D) Limitations of citation analysis ........................................................................................ 77 E) Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 82 Chapter III – Beyond persuasion: Reconceptualizing Authority .....................................................