Objective. The objective of this article is to explain judicial decision making at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia by analyzing the impact of individual, national, and international factors. Methods. We use regression and probit analysis of data on the verdicts and sentences handed down by the judges. Results. We find that international factors best explain judicial decision making, especially regarding sentencing. Conclusions. International tribunals and courts are becoming increasingly important and prevalent and it is critical that scholars better understand how their judges make decisions.

Commentators now regularly declare that the International Criminal court (ICC) – and international criminal law as a whole – is in crisis. It is certainly the case that the ICC faces a number of operational challenges, and that these challenges worry its defenders. However, one unexamined rationalist assumption is that the Court’s inability to deliver consistent outputs will mean waning influence. This article explores an alternative constructivist theory that the ICC produces diffuse social impacts that are not necessarily tied to its operating effectively. This theory is tested statistically using Google Trends data. Specifically, the article examines whether ICC intervention in a country is associated with more internet search for ‘human rights’. Taking this to be a measure of changing discourse in countries, the article finds that some types of ICC involvement are associated with a far higher interest in human rights, and that this interest only increases as ICC involvement extends in time. In short, despite its disappointments, evidence suggests that the ICC still serves a socio-pedagogical function. Though it does not fit well within a rational evaluation framework, this kind of information should be considered in ICC performance reviews.

No abstract