[IOT] IOT - Regular meeting Tuesday January 19th, 2021 17:00 UTC

[Nigel Roberts]

It seems to me that the role of intervener expresses the role better
than "amicus" -- a term that appears, at least to me, to be very US-centric.

If the role in reality lies between amicus (very limited role) on the
one hand, and "full intervener" on the other, perhaps some qualification
such as "limited intervener" might suit?

"Interested non-party" may also work.

But I would, personally, prefer something more akin to "intervener",
since the basic rationale for intervention is that a outcome in a
particular case may affect the rights of nonparties, who ideally should
have the right to be heard.


On 19/01/2021 13:55, Lee, Helen via IOT wrote:
> a concept that the degree of participation should be flexible and
> encompass that participation necessary fully to protect the rights and
> interests of the amici, including, where appropriate t