Epistemic complexities of using scientific input in international environmental litigation

Using scientific evidence in science-heavy litigation proves challenging for legally-trained judges in terms of crafting persuasive reasoning. When courts evaluate rival expert evidence and choose among competing science-based positions of the parties, they need to rely on epistemic rationalities to accept certain scientific claims as the basis of their adjudicatory findings. The presentation maps the benefits and risks of using different epistemic rationalities in judicial reasoning, such as scientific, legal, intuitive and hybrid epistemic benchmarks.