Proliferation of Standards of Proof in International Administrative Tribunals

Abstract

All international organizations have or ought to have a code of conduct. When international civil servants breach their basic obligations and engage in misconduct, they may face disciplinary proceedings and be subject to a wide range of sanctions, including dismissal and other forms of separation from service. However, different international organizations apply dissimilar standards of proof for establishing the alleged facts that constitute misconduct. For instance, in some institutions, the applicable standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, while in others, it is a balance of probabilities. The lack of consistency is attributable to the jurisprudence of various international administrative tribunals. This article compares how six international administrative tribunals interpret and apply the evidential threshold to disciplinary cases. It identifies practical difficulties caused by a lack of a uniform approach and recommends remedial measures for international organizations and international administrative tribunals.