ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the ethical principles guiding cultural expertise in legal contexts, focusing on the critical balance experts must achieve between neutrality, duty to the court, and advocacy for affected communities. The chapter begins with the foundational “Do No Harm” principle, tracing its origins from anthropology’s engagement with vulnerable populations to its current applications in legal settings. It emphasises the importance of maintaining independence to ensure impartiality and credibility while acknowledging challenges such as power imbalances and the risk of cultural determinism. Through case studies, the chapter explores ethical controversies that have shaped cultural expertise, including conflicts arising from collaboration with state and military institutions. The concept of procedural neutrality is proposed as a framework allowing experts to provide scientifically rigorous and unbiased testimony while retaining the flexibility to critically affirm or question institutional narratives. This approach, combined with critical affirmation, enables experts to contribute meaningfully to legal proceedings without compromising ethical commitments. By addressing these ethical complexities, the chapter calls for a reflective and accountable practice of cultural expertise, where the integrity of the legal process supports and preserves the voice of affected communities.
