I am delighted to share my latest research, โDecision Making on the World Court: Are International Judges Geopolitically Biased?โ published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. Do judges on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) align with the foreign policy interests of their home countries? Using Item Response Theory (IRT) and a dataset of nonunanimous ICJ votes up to 2023, this study reveals that judicial disagreements largely reflect the same geopolitical divides observed in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Judges from pro-Western states tend to cluster on one side, while those from anti-Western nations align on the opposite end of what forms the Courtโs main dimension of disagreement. Moreover, state voting patterns in the UNGA are robust predictors of judicial voting behaviour, reinforcing the view that international judicial decision-making is not immune to geopolitical influences.
Key Findings:
โ
ICJ judges exhibit significant geopolitical alignment with their home states.
โ
UNGA voting patterns are a reliable proxy for judicial preferences.
โ
Judges from ideologically distant nations are more likely to disagree in ICJ rulings.
โ
Estimated judicial points are congruent with accounts of ICJ candidates in leaked US diplomatic cables.
โ
The median judgeโs ideological position has shifted over time, potentially explaining variations in state attitudes towards the Court.
This study contributes to ongoing debates about judicial neutrality in international adjudication and has implications for how we understand legal decision-making in high-stakes inter-state disputes.
hashtag#ICJ hashtag#InternationalLaw hashtag#JudicialDecisionMaking hashtag#Geopolitics hashtag#Research hashtag#NewPublication hashtag#LawAndPolitics
