The research examines publically known investor-state cases, supplemented by views of leading commentators, to identify evidentiary principles dealing with burden of proof, standard of proof,... Show moreThe research examines publically known investor-state cases, supplemented by views of leading commentators, to identify evidentiary principles dealing with burden of proof, standard of proof, presumptions and inferences. In this research, I conclude that investor-state tribunals have indeed recognized and applied evidentiary principles on burden of proof, standard of proof, presumptions and inferences. These principles do not always flow from the generally accepted view on arbitral discretion. Rather, these principles have been generally recognized under the rubric of general principles of law. I conclude that the failure to meet the evidentiary principle can have consequences, although the precise consequence varies based on the principle. For example, the failure to meet some of the principles (e.g., burden of proof) can have very severe consequences (e.g., annulment of an ICSID award) but for other principles like whether or not a tribunal should draw an inference would depend on its assessment of the evidence and, therefore, as a general matter cannot be the subject of an annulment. Show less
The aim of this study is to specify the strategic function of stance adverbs when qualifying a standpoint in an argumentative discussion. Stance adverbs are words like __clearly__, __obviously__, _... Show moreThe aim of this study is to specify the strategic function of stance adverbs when qualifying a standpoint in an argumentative discussion. Stance adverbs are words like __clearly__, __obviously__, __perhaps__, __technically__, __frankly__, and __fortunately__. They have been extensively studied in the fields of semantics and syntax as well as pragmatics and discourse analysis. However, they have not specifically been studied with an interest in their effect on the progress of an argumentative discussion when they are used to qualify the standpoint. In this study a specific argumentative perspective is adopted, according to which the strategic function of stance adverbs is described with respect to the burden of proof that an arguer incurs when advancing a standpoint. In this view, an arguer chooses a particular way to qualify the standpoint in an attempt to successfully meet his obligation to defend the standpoint at the end of the argumentative discussion. The proposed theoretical account provides a basis for assessing whether the use of a stance adverb to qualify a standpoint observes the standards that should be followed for a reasonable resolution of a difference of opinion. Show less
