¹ See Erik Voeten, The Politics of International Judicial Appointments, 9 Chi. J. Int'l. L. 387, 401–402 (2009)Google Scholar

² Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 4.Google Scholar

³ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 36.Google Scholar

⁴ Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Article 17(2).Google Scholar

⁵ The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 253.Google Scholar

⁶ See Voeten, supra note 1, at 401.Google Scholar

⁷ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 20, 22.Google Scholar

⁸ See Krenn, Christoph, Self-Government at the Court of Justice of the European Union: A Bedrock for Institutional Success, in this issue.Google Scholar

⁹ Following Resolution CM/Res(2010)26 on the Establishment of an Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Cali, Basak & Cunningham, Stewart, Judicial Self Government and the Sui Generic Case of the European Court of Human Rights, in this issue.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Posner, Eric A. & de Figueiredo, Miguel F. P., Is the International Court of Justice Biased?, 34 J. Legal Stud. 599, 608 (2005).Google Scholar

¹² See Voeten, Erik, The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights, 102 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 417, 420 (2008).Google Scholar

¹³ Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 20.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 36(9)(a).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 23(1) was amended by Protocol No. 14.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Posner & Figueiredo, supra note 11, at 608.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See Voeten, supra note 12, at 427.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See id. at 425; Posner & Figueiredo, supra note 11, at 624.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Voeten, supra note 12, at 426.Google Scholar

²⁰ Statute of the International Court of Justice Article 31Google Scholar

²¹ Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 26(4).Google Scholar

²² See Posner & Figueiredo, supra note 11 at 623-624.Google Scholar

²³ See Voeten, supra note 12 at 431.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Segal, Jeffrey A. & Spaeth, Harold J., The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited 44–114 (2002).Google Scholar

²⁵ See Gillman, Howard, What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the “Legal Model” of Judicial Decision Making, 26 L. & Soc. Inquiry 465, 485–486 (2001).Google Scholar

²⁶ See examples for factors studied by theories on judicial background at: Neal Tate, Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions 1946-1978, 75 Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 355, 355 (1981); Joel B. Grossman, Joseph Tanenhaus, Toward a Renascence of Public Law in Frontiers of Judicial Research 3, 14 (ed. Joel B. Grossman, Joseph Tanenhaus, 1969).Google Scholar

²⁷ See Segal & Spaeth, supra note 24 at 86.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Howard, J. Woodford Jr., On the Fluidity of Judicial Choice, 62 Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 43, 44 (1968). Howard argues that judges change their opinions following deliberations. For attitudinal responses to this argument see Maveety, Nancy & Maltese, John Anthony, J. Woodford Howard Jr.: Fluidity, Strategy and Analytical Synthesis in Judicial Studies in The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior 228, 234-237 (ed. Nancy Maveety, 2003).Google Scholar

²⁹ See Schubert, Glendon, The Judicial Mind Revisited – Psychometric Analysis of Supreme Court Ideology 11 (1974).Google Scholar

³⁰ See id. at 18-19.Google Scholar

³¹ See Segal & Spaeth, supra note 24 at 320.Google Scholar

³² Id. at 320-321.Google Scholar

³³ See Goldman, Sheldon, Voting Behavior on the Unites States Courts of Appeals 1961-1964, 60 Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 374, 379–380 (1966).Google Scholar

³⁴ See Segal, Jeffrey A. & Cover, Albert D., Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 83 Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 557 (1989).Google Scholar

³⁵ See Posner, Richard A., How Judges Think 20–22 (2008) (demonstrating how this investigation can be conducted in different ways and in varying levels of complexity).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Cross, Frank B. & Tiller, Emerson H., Judicial Partisanship and Obedience to Legal Doctrine: Whistleblowing on the Federal Courts of Appeals, 107 Yale L.J. 2155, 2158 (1998).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Hettinger, Virginia A, Lindquist, Stefanie A., Martinek, Wendy L., Comparing Attitudinal and Strategic Accounts of Dissenting Behavior on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 48 Amer. J. Pol. Sci. 123, 125–126 (2004).Google Scholar

³⁸ See id. at 126.Google Scholar

³⁹ See id., at 135.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Gibson, James L., Judges’ Role Orientations, Attitudes and Decisions: An Interactive Model, 72 Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 911 (1978).Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law (1961) 124-126.Google Scholar

⁴² See Leiter, Brian, Legal Realism, in A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory 261, 266 (Dennis Patterson ed., 1996); Dagan, Hanoch, The Realist Conception of Law, 57 U Toronto LJ 607, 614–615 (2007).Google Scholar

⁴³ See Leiter, supra note 42 at 266-267; Dagan, supra note 42 at 616.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument 590–591 (2005).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Bjorge, Eirik, The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties 21–22 (2014).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See id. at 21.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Barak, Aharon, Judicial Discretion 58–66 (1987) (Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See id. at 35-41.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See Cross & Tiller, supra note 36 at 2174. Another potential explanation for the same empirical finding is that even a minority judge can threaten to write a dissent which would increase the chances of appeal or legislative overruling and the other judges act strategically to preempt this by changing their judgments, see id. at 2173-2174. An alternative reason for why judges tend to lower their ideological commitments when sitting in a panel with judges who have other attitudes could be that judges negotiate a compromise to align the decision to the preferences of all panel member. Judge may even have a long-term strategy and consider the willingness of their panel members to compromise as part of an ongoing relationship where concessions are repaid in future cases, see Cass Sunstein, R., Schkade, David, Ellman, Lisa M. & Sawicki, Andres, Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary 64–66 (2006).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Posner, supra note 35 at 29.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Lee Epstein, Jack Knight & Andrew D. Martin, The Political (Science) Context of Judging, 47 St. Louis U. L. J. 783, 798 (2003).Google Scholar

⁵² See Epstein, Lee & Knight, Jack, Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, a Look Ahead, 53 Pol. Res. Q. 625, 632; Lee Epstein & Jack Knight, The Choices Justices Make 1–9 (1998).Google Scholar

⁵³ Hirst v. The United Kingdom (No. 2), judgment of 6 October 2005, 2005-IX EUR. Ct. H.R. 187.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See e.g. Ulmer, S. Sidney, Toward a Theory of Sub-Group Formation in the United States Supreme Court, 27 The Journal Of Politics 133.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Walker, Thomas G., Behavioral Tendencies in the Three-Judge District Court, 17 Amer. J. Pol. Sci. 407 (1973).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Danelski, David J., Social Psychology and Group Choice, in The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior 248, 252 (Nancy Maveety ed., 2003).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Murphy, Walter F., Elements of Judicial Strategy 90 (1964).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See McKaskle, Paul L., The European Court of Human Rights: What It Is, How It Works, and Its Future, 40 U.S.F. L. REV. 1, 26–31 (2005).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Cartier, Stéphanie & Hoss, Cristina, The Role of Registries and Legal Secretariats in International Judicial Institutions, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 712, 713-14 (Romano, Cesare P.R. et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Vauchez, Antoine, Communities of International Litigators, in The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication 655, 657 (Romano, Cesare P.R. et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Dothan, Shai, Luring NGOs to International Courts: A Comment on CLR v. Romania, 75 Heidelberg J. Int'l L. 635, 642–650 (2015).Google Scholar

⁶² See Dothan, Shai, A Virtual Wall of Shame: The New Way of Imposing Reputational Sanctions on Defiant States, 27 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l. L. 141 (2017).Google Scholar

⁶³ See Cohen, Felix S., Transcendental nonsense and the functional approach, 35 COLUM. L. REV. 809, 843 (1935).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See generally on the way institutional structure affect behavior: James March and Herbert Simon, Organizations (1958) chapter 6.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Atiyah, P. S. & Summers, Roberts, Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law – A Comparative Study of Legal Reasoning, Legal Theory and Legal Institutions 288 (1987).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Shai Dothan, Reputation and Judicial Tactics: A Theory of National and International Courts 39–45 (2015) (expanding on the theoretical analysis of dissents in strategic courts and providing multiple examples of judges who were pressured not to dissent to serve the court's strategic interest).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See Garoupa, Nuno & Ginsburg, Tom, Reputation, Information and the Organization of the Judiciary, 4 J. Comp. L. 228, 243 (2009) (arguing that Chief Justice Marshall directed the United States Supreme Court to use more unanimous decisions when the status of the court was relatively low); Robert Post, The Supreme Court Opinion as Institutional Practice: Dissent, Legal Scholarship, and Decisionmaking in the Taft Court, 85 Minn. L. Rev. 1267, 1314–1319 (2001) (showing how in the first half of the 1920s the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Taft suppressed dissents because the court came under heavy criticism. When the criticism subsided, the court became less unanimous. After the court's strategic analysis, pages 1319-1328 present alternative reasons for this phenomenon such as changes in the composition of the court and in Taft's leadership).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Clayton, Cornell & Gillman, Howard, Introduction, in The Supreme Court In American Politics – New Institutionalist Interpretations 1, 2 (Howard Gillman & Cornell Clayton ed., 1999).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Gillman, Howard & Clayton, Cornell W., Beyond Judicial Attitudes: Institutional Approaches to Supreme Court Decision-Making, in Supreme Court Decision-Making – New Institutionalist Approaches 1, 6-7 (Cornell W. Clayton & Howard Gillman ed., 1999).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Segal, Jeffrey A., Separation-of-Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Congress and Courts, 91 Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev. 28 (1997).Google Scholar

⁷¹ See e.g. Eskridge, William N. Jr., Reneging on History? Playing the Court/Congress/President Civil Rights Game, 79 Cal. L. Rev. 613 (1991); William N. Eskridge Jr., Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions, 101 Yale L. J. 331 (1991); Omri Yadlin, Judicial Activism and Judicial Discretion as a Strategic Game, 19 Bar Ilan Uni. Uw Rev. 665 (2003) (Hebrew).Google Scholar

⁷² See Helfer, Laurence R. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, 107 Yale L.J. 273 (1997).Google Scholar

⁷³ See Posner, Eric A. & Yoo, John C., Judicial Independence in International Tribunals, 93 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2005).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Helfer, Laurence R. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Why States Create International Tribunals: A Response to Professors Posner and Yoo, 93 Cal. L. Rev. 899 (2005).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ See Ginsburg, Tom, Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking, 45 Va. J. Int'l L. 631 (2005).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ See Shany, Yuval, Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts: A Goal-Based Approach, 106 Amer. J. Int'l. L. 225 (2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See Dothan, supra note 66, Dothan, Shai, Judicial Tactics in the European Court of Human Rights, 12 Chi. J. Int'l. L. 115 (2011).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See e.g Kosař, David, Selecting Strasburg Judges: A Critique, in Selecting Europe's Judges: A Critical Review of the Appointment Procedures to the European Courts 120 (Michal Bobek ed., 2015); Cosette Creamer & Zuzanna Godzimirska, The Job Market for Justice: Screening and Selecting Candidates for the International Court of Justice, 30 Leiden J. Int'l. L. 947 (2017).Google Scholar