Transparency Across International Courts and Tribunals: Enhancing Legitimacy or Disrupting the Adjudicative Process?
Open accessAbstract
Transparency in international adjudication is often lauded as the hallmark of an effective judicial process; the goal to which all adjudicative bodies ought to aspire in order to enhance their legitimacy. This paper scrutinizes this perspective: while transparency certainly provides benefits to the international legal order, it needs to be balanced against other objectives in the pursuit of justice. The paper proceeds in two parts. First, it considers the status of transparency in various international courts and tribunals, across five main areas (requests, submissions, hearings, awards and compliance), arguing that most adjudicatory mechanisms have already achieved adequate transparency in the majority of areas. Second, it reviews the drawbacks to transparency, and how unbridled access may disrupt the adjudicative process, which rather ought to facilitate the resolution of a specific dispute and not a ‘trial by media’. Overall, achieving a balance between transparency and confidentiality generates the most optimal outcome for international dispute settlement.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 1
- Authors
- Baetens, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Baetens, Freya
- ORCID
- Baetens, Freya
- Venue
- Nordic Journal of International Law
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2022-12-05
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 595-636
- ISSN
- 0029-151X (ISSN-L)
- 0902-7351
- 1571-8107
- OpenAlex
- W4313365358
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nordic Journal of International Law (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- University of Oxford
- Universiteit Leiden
- Norges Forskningsråd (223274)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › International Arbitration and Investment Law
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Law and Human Rights
- Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
- Keywords
- transparency, international courts and tribunals, international dispute settlement, confidentiality, judicial legitimacy, international adjudication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review