Author Image

Dr James Devaney is a Lecturer in Law and member of the research group on International Law, Conflict and Security at the School of Law. He has studied law at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy (PhD 2015, LLM 2012), the University of Glasgow (LLM (distinction) 2010) and the University of Strathclyde (LL.B (Hons) 2009). He has previously been a visiting scholar at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge, and the University of Sydney, and is currently a fellow of the Berlin Potsdam Research Group “International Law – Rise or Decline?”

His research interests are varied and he has published on a range of areas of international law including State immunity, genocide, self-defence and the use of force, the law of the sea and State succession to treaties. His monograph, ‘Fact-Finding Before the International Court of Justice’, which focusses on the use of evidence before international courts and tribunals including the adjudicative bodies of the WTO and inter-State arbitration, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2016, and nominated for the Peter Birks Book Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship in 2017. He is a member of the International Law Association Committee on the Procedure of International Courts and Tribunals. Dr Devaney is also a member of the New York Bar.

Publications

Fact-finding before the International Court of Justice

Read more about this publication

Fact-Finding before the International Court of Justice examines a number of significant recent criticisms of the way in which the ICJ deals with facts. The book takes the position that such criticisms are warranted and that the ICJ's current approach to fact-finding falls short of adequacy, both in cases involving abundant, particularly complex or technical facts, and in those involving a scarcity of facts. The author skilfully examines how other courts such as the WTO and inter-State arbitrations conduct fact-finding and makes a number of select proposals for reform, enabling the ICJ to address some of the current weaknesses in its approach. The proposals include, but are not limited to, the development of a power to compel the disclosure of information, greater use of provisional measures, and a clear strategy for the use of expert evidence