Abstract
Most judges on international tribunals lack scientific expertise. In response, commentators have implored international tribunals to use their power to appoint independent experts. The rules of procedure of international human rights tribunals provide for the appointment of independent experts. Yet the European Court of Human Rights rarely uses this power. Although financial constraints are often cited as a reason for this, they are rarely confirmed. There is reason to suspect that concerns about practical constraints justify the European Court of Human Rights' lukewarm approach to the use of independent experts, given that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) makes frequent use of these powers. Using a comparative approach, this presentation will examine the arguments in favor of liberal recourse to independent experts by regional human rights tribunals in environmental cases, and analyze the considerations to be borne in mind when exercising such a power. It will examine whether the use of experts brought in by the parties as witnesses or of amici curiae can be considered a meaningful alternative to the above approach, and what each of these solutions means from the point of view of the legitimacy of decision-making. Finally, he will explain why the " externalization " of scientific fact-finding does not mean that human rights lectures can do without science.
