Deepfakes in International Arbitration: How Should Tribunals Treat Video Evidence and Allegations of Technological Tampering?

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 860-890
Author(s):  
Markus Burgstaller ◽  
Scott Macpherson
Keyword(s):  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Circumstantial Evidence ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Potential Use

Abstract Deepfakes can be described as videos of people doing and saying things that they have not done or said. Their potential use in international arbitration leads to two competing threats. Tribunals may be conscious of the difficulties in proving that a deepfake is, in fact, fake. If the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard of proof is applied, it may be very difficult, if not impossible, to prove that a sophisticated deepfake is fake. However, the burgeoning awareness of deepfakes may render tribunals less inclined to believe what they see on video even in circumstances in which the video before it is real. This may encourage parties to seek to deny legitimate video evidence as a deepfake. The ‘balance of probabilities’ standard, while not perfect, would appear to address this concern. In order to properly assess deepfakes, tribunals should apply this standard while assessing both technical and circumstantial evidence holistically.

Part V Safeguarding the Process, 11 Exclusionary Rules of Evidence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sourgens Frédéric Gilles ◽  
Duggal Kabir ◽  
Laird Ian A
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
High Standard ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Evaluation Of Evidence ◽  
Material Evidence ◽  
Do So

This chapter outlines the exclusionary rules of evidence. In the context of investor-state arbitration proceedings, all evidence proffered by the parties is admitted into the record in the absence of exceptional circumstances. A party seeking to exclude evidence typically carries the burden to convince the tribunal that it should exclude the evidence in question. In seeking to do so, it will have to meet a reasonably high standard of proof. Consequently, exclusion of evidence is warranted only in the limited circumstances when its inclusion would violate another party’s right to be heard, the equality of the parties, or fundamental principles of international public policy. Given the exceptional nature of excluding relevant and material evidence in international arbitration, the burden is on the party seeking to exclude evidence. The exceptional nature of these limitations indicates the premium placed by international arbitration on the free evaluation of evidence by the arbitrators.

scholarly journals Application of the Balance of Probabilities Standard of Proof in Judicial Practice

2020 ◽  
pp. 227-233
Author(s):  
Illia But
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
The Uk

The paper describes key standards of proof used in common law countries: balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt,applied in judicial practice in the UK, and the criminal standard beyond reasonable doubt, civil standard preponderance of evidence,and interim standard clear and convincing evidence, applied in judicial practice in the USA. The author identifies main conditions for application of the balance of probabilities standard in foreign judicial practice: 1) thisstandard is not merely a surmise based on guesses or suspicions; such surmise shall be based on certain evidence, which in total is notenough to establish presence or absence of a certain fact unequivocally; 2) the graver is an allegation, the less probable is the occurrenceof the fact, and hence it must be proved with harder evidence; 3) the less probable is an event, the more evidence there must be to provethat it might have truly occurred; 4) there is no direct connection between graveness of an allegation (consequences) and probability ofan event: some grave harmful conduct may be fairly common or, on the contrary, may happen rather infrequently.The paper identifies step-by-step implementation of standards of proof in practice of the European Court of Human Rights(ECHR): at the first stage one can find references to standards of proof only in cases against the United Kingdom; at the second stagethere are judgments made on complaints against other countries, though in such judgments the ECHR does not assess standards ofproof, but merely reflects that those have been applied by national courts. At the third (contemporary) stage the ECHR only distingui -shes between application of standards of proof in criminal and quasi-criminal cases.The author concludes on the basis of study of empirical data that the balance of probabilities standard of proof is already appliedin the national judicial practice, however principles of its application in the judicial practice have not been developed yet. It is notedthat though the doctrine of the standards of proof was developed in the common law countries, application thereof does not contradictthe concept of judicial activism: an idea, according to which a decision must be made in favour of the party, whose statements are reliablenot per se, but in comparison with statements of the adverse party, enables courts to make judgments in cases when positions ofboth sides are impeccable, and evidence for unequivocal conclusions is not enough.

Part III Guide to Key Jurisdictional Issues, 13 Burden and Standard of Proof at the Jurisdictional Stage

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasani Baiju S ◽  
Foden Timothy L ◽  
Zayyan Hafsa
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Long Line

This chapter considers a situation where a respondent party argues that the tribunal is without jurisdiction to hear the claims or counterclaims in the first place. In this case, does the respondent party, as the ‘moving party’, have to prove the lack of jurisdiction? Or is it the claimant who is in fact claiming jurisdiction, who has to prove its existence? Or in light of the fact that jurisdiction is a matter for the tribunal to decide for itself, even sua sponte, does neither party hold the burden of proof on this issue? Recent decisions in international arbitration law demonstrate that the burden of proof at the jurisdictional phase is an issue in flux. Despite a long line of decisions holding, perhaps simplistically, that the burden lies with the claimant, many recent cases have suggested that it can lie with either party, depending on which party is asserting the particular fact.

scholarly journals On understanding of proof in English and American law

2018 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-27
Author(s):  
O. V. Tiaglo
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Logical Connection ◽  
American Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
Legal Proof

This research paper is devoted to explication of understanding of proof in English and American law by means of study of its evolution and current condition. To get this aim the comparative analysis of few similar fragments from the Black’s law dictionary is completed. It is concluded, firstly, that concept of judicial proof grasps both process of presentation of legal evidence and its effects – conclusion, supported by system of the evidence, and belief to this conclusion, induced in minds of relevant persons. Secondly, cluster of (concepts and relevant) terms, by which proof in English and American law is (realized and) expressed, includes, among others, «truth», «proof» and «evidence», «to prove» and «to evidence», «burden of proof», «degree of proof», «standard of proof», «standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt», «standard of proof by preponderance of the evidence», «standard of proof by clear and convincing evidence», «legality», «admissibility», as well as «belief», «conviction», «to convince» and «to persuade». Thirdly, this cluster had been shaped and develops further – in addition to natural space and time – in at least three dimensions: logical, legal, and rhetorical. If during the late XIX – the first half of the XX century in this cluster were prevailing that was laying in logical and legal dimensions, then since the middle of XX century there is an expansion of rhetorical content through, at least partially, extrusion of the logical. Fourthly, on this way the concept of judicial proof has lost – as necessary components of its content – immanent signs of the logical proof, namely, truth of the premises-evidence and necessary logical connection between system of the evidence and conclusion. Concept of standard of proof has undergone significant change: it is divided into three subordinate concepts, usage of which depends on situation. And even those of these subordinate concepts, which correspond to criminal cases and include the strongest requirements, do not require truth or absolute certainty of the conclusion, agreeing only on absence of reasonable doubt that by nature is subjective and practically never avoid some dependence on rhetorical influence. Finally, the history of understanding and expression of legal proof shows that real legal proof goes more and more away from its analog in logic.

Addressing Corruption Allegations in International Arbitration

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-93
Author(s):  
Brody K. Greenwald ◽  
Jennifer A. Ivers
Keyword(s):  
International Arbitration ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Resource Guide ◽  
The Public ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Key Issues

AbstractIn Addressing Corruption Allegations in International Arbitration, Brody K. Greenwald and Jennifer A. Ivers provide a comprehensive overview of the key issues that arise in international arbitrations involving allegations of corruption drawing upon their significant experience in these high-stakes cases, including in the only two reported investment treaty cases dismissed specifically as a result of corruption. Their monograph is a valuable resource guide that analyzes, among other things, the public policy against corruption, the requirements for establishing corruption, issues relating to the burden and standard of proof, how corruption has been proved in practice, and the legal consequences where corruption is established. Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Ivers also assess issues that arise where a sovereign State raises an arbitration defense based on alleged corruption, but does not prosecute the alleged wrongdoers in its domestic courts.

Moral Certitude: Merits and Demerits of the Standard of Proof Applied in Roman Catholic Jurisprudence

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 300-325
Author(s):  
Judith Hahn
Keyword(s):  
Catholic Church ◽  
Canon Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Roman Catholic ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Anglo American

Abstract In Roman Catholic canon law, moral certitude describes the ecclesiastical judge’s full conviction that a defendant is guilty or that a statement of claim made by a civil plaintiff is rightful. Moral certitude is the requirement for a conviction or a civil sentence in favour of the party under the burden of proof. Secular legal orders apply other standards. Anglo-American legal cultures mostly refer to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases, the preponderance of evidence, or the clear and convincing evidence standard in civil matters. Continental European cultures predominantly refer to the standard of full conviction in criminal and civil matters alike. This article compares those standards of proof with moral certitude in order to better understand its merits and limits. Based on this comparison, it examines the arguments both in favour of and against abiding with moral certitude as a standard of proof in the Catholic Church.

The standard of proof at adjudication of abuse or neglect

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 22-56
Author(s):  
Ashley J. Provencher ◽  
Josh Gupta-Kagan ◽  
Mary Eschelbach Hansen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Child Abuse ◽  
District Of Columbia ◽  
The United States ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Number Of Visits ◽  
The Government ◽  
Home Placement

We measure the extent to which the standard of proof the CPS must meet at trial in a child abuse or neglect case influences the outcomes in the case. In the United States, the government of each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia sets its own standard of proof. We measure the influence of the standards of proof using survey data. We find that a higher standard of proof – one requiring the government to present clear and convincing evidence of abuse or neglect rather than only requiring a preponderance of the evidence of abuse or neglect—decreases the probability that the judge rules in favor of CPS. A clear and convincing standard also affects decisions before trial: it increases the number of visits made by CPS during an investigation; it lowers the odds that CPS substantiates the case; and it lowers the odds that a case reaches trial. After trial, it increases the probability of an out-of-home placement.

The Standard of Proof of Intellectual Disability in Georgia

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-167
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Ricciardelli ◽  
Kevin M. Ayres
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Adaptive Functioning ◽  
The United States ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
The State ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
The U.S

Despite being the first state to abolish the capital punishment of defendants with intellectual disability (ID), Georgia is currently the only state to uphold what is considered to be the most stringent standard of proof of ID in the United States: beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states have implemented less stringent standards of proof (i.e., a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence). Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the execution of persons with ID unconstitutional in the 2002 Atkins decision, states are at this juncture considered to have a great deal of discretion in defining what constitutes ID. In addition to raising concerns about the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, variation between state-determined definitions of ID raises important questions of equal protection of the law. On January 27, 2015, Mr. Warren Lee Hill was executed by method of lethal injection in the state of Georgia after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mr. Hill’s claim to have met the state’s legal definition of ID beyond a reasonable doubt. This article provides a historical and legislative background for the case of Warren Lee Hill, while examining the definitions of ID (including adaptive functioning) in the legal and clinical arenas. Last, this article will take a critical stance with regard to the current diagnostic criteria being used in the state of Georgia.

scholarly journals Development of an α-synuclein knockdown peptide and evaluation of its efficacy in Parkinson’s disease models

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Wuyang Jin ◽  
Xuelai Fan ◽  
Esther del Cid-Pellitero ◽  
Xing-Xing Liu ◽  
Limin Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Microglial Activation ◽  
Therapeutic Strategy ◽  
Therapeutic Potential ◽  
Neuronal Damage ◽  
Motor Impairment ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Disease Models ◽  
Potential Use

AbstractConvincing evidence supports the premise that reducing α-synuclein levels may be an effective therapy for Parkinson’s disease (PD); however, there has been lack of a clinically applicable α-synuclein reducing therapeutic strategy. This study was undertaken to develop a blood-brain barrier and plasma membrane-permeable α-synuclein knockdown peptide, Tat-βsyn-degron, that may have therapeutic potential. The peptide effectively reduced the level of α-synuclein via proteasomal degradation both in cell cultures and in animals. Tat-βsyn-degron decreased α-synuclein aggregates and microglial activation in an α-synuclein pre-formed fibril model of spreading synucleinopathy in transgenic mice overexpressing human A53T α-synuclein. Moreover, Tat-βsyn-degron reduced α-synuclein levels and significantly decreased the parkinsonian toxin-induced neuronal damage and motor impairment in a mouse toxicity model of PD. These results show the promising efficacy of Tat-βsyn-degron in two different animal models of PD and suggest its potential use as an effective PD therapeutic that directly targets the disease-causing process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document