<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Tehran</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Law Quarterly</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2588-5618</Issn>
				<Volume>42</Volume>
				<Issue>1</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2012</Year>
					<Month>03</Month>
					<Day>20</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>STANDARD OF PROOF IN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>STANDARD OF PROOF IN INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>161</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>179</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">29822</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22059/jlq.2012.29822</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Seyed Hossein</FirstName>
					<LastName>Sadat Meidani</LastName>
<Affiliation></Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>1970</Year>
					<Month>01</Month>
					<Day>01</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>There is no provision in the Statute and the Rules of the Court with respect to the standard of proof. Furthermore, the Court has not introduced any standard for proving the claims in many of its past factual-based cases. However, it is noticed that in order to establish somehow a predictable conduct in the field of fact-finding, the Court has enlighten aspects of this issue during the recent years. As it is elaborated through the jurisprudence of the Court no one could extract a unified a standard to establish the facts and claims in the proceedings before the Court and the standard depend on the subject of the case. It might be expressed that there is a direct relation between the subject of the case and the degree of proof, in a way that when the claim of applicant State is exceptional, a higher level of proof was needed.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">There is no provision in the Statute and the Rules of the Court with respect to the standard of proof. Furthermore, the Court has not introduced any standard for proving the claims in many of its past factual-based cases. However, it is noticed that in order to establish somehow a predictable conduct in the field of fact-finding, the Court has enlighten aspects of this issue during the recent years. As it is elaborated through the jurisprudence of the Court no one could extract a unified a standard to establish the facts and claims in the proceedings before the Court and the standard depend on the subject of the case. It might be expressed that there is a direct relation between the subject of the case and the degree of proof, in a way that when the claim of applicant State is exceptional, a higher level of proof was needed.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">burden of proof</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Conclusive Proof</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">International Court of Justice</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">International Litigation</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">law of evidence</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Prima Facie Proof</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Proof beyond reasonable doubt.</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Standard of proof</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Sufficient Proof</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://jlq.ut.ac.ir/article_29822_9d0e1e2a665dfa352c027eafb048b0a5.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
