Matter of Opinion: Assessing the Role of Individual Judicial Opinions at the International Criminal Court

Abstract

This article takes a closer look at the individual opinions of judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The issuance of separate opinions is one of the most effective ways to investigate individual judicial behaviour, because a judge will only issue opinions if in her/his estimation the benefits outweigh the costs. The number of opinions a judge issues is an important measurement as is their timing. Building on an original dataset, the article identifies patterns by uncovering the predominant issuers, the cases and trial phases where individual opinions are most frequently issued, the dominant topics, and developments over time. Using a probabilistic topic modelling approach, this article suggests that opinions are a common way for several ICC judges to engage in judicial politics about several topics with limited judicial restraint and finds that a small group of judges is most avid in using opinions as a judicial tool.