The Influence of the Expert Witness in International Criminal Justice

Journal article

International criminal courts and tribunals rely on a wide array of expert witnesses, themselves representing diverse professions. However, significant disparities exist in the deference these experts receive, often based on their field of expertise and perceptions of credibility. These variations reflect a more fundamental question: should courts ever defer to experts or should the courts be educated by them? This debate — deference versus education — ties into fundamental differences in procedural approaches, principally adversarial versus inquisitorial procedure. Thus, the emergence of a hybridized international criminal justice procedure adds a unique layer to the ongoing discussion. Therefore, this study — adopting an explicitly normative perspective — delves into the deference and education debate, distilling best practices, and applying the resulting criteria to the distinct set of practices for evaluating expert testimony within the international criminal justice field: practices that are shaped by the unique goals and norms of the international courts. The study interrogates these practices by considering the courts’ reference to explicit normative standards, the role of the trier of fact, and the utility of a division of epistemic labour. It concludes by recommending a hybrid epistemic approach that may enable judges to interact more ably with the wide range of experts encountered in the international criminal justice arena.

Authors: Richmond, KM

• Alternative title: Deference or Education?
• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Journal: Journal of International Criminal Justice
• Article number: mqaf038
• Publication date: 2025-10-01
• DOI: 10.1093/jicj/mqaf038
• EISSN: 1478-1395
• ISSN: 1478-1387
• Language: English