We apply network analysis and topic modeling techniques to explore the evolution of the European Union's treaty making activity and the patterns of litigation they have given rise to. Our analysis reveals that, despite the expansion of the bloc's policy remit, its treaty-making activity retains a strong economic focus. Among the many agreements negotiated by EU institutions, the European Economic Agreement, the Ankara Agreement with Turkey and the World Trade Organization Agreement form the largest clusters of litigated cases. EU international agreements are disproportionately litigated in cases pertaining to residence rights and competition law.

The Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russia) case involves an unprecedented number of Article 63 declarations of intervention. We consider the specific arguments made in individual declarations, but also the mass nature of the declarations. In order to do this in a systematic manner, we employ empirical methods to identify those declarations and arguments that are more central and those that are more unique. Using citation network analysis, we identify the main and central arguments presented by states in their declarations. Moreover, we find evidence that states have co-operated in the preparation of their intervention declarations, using Article 63 as an opportunity to collectively condemn Russia as well as offer their joint interpretation of the Genocide Convention. But while all states come to support Ukraine, the interventions are not necessarily helpful to Ukraine’s case.

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.

The Afghanistan situation at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been plagued by misunderstandings and misinformation from the moment the Prosecutor announced her request to open an investigation. This article assesses how these phenomena relate in part to the ICC’s own decision-making. First, the ICC has itself been prone to misunderstandings of the situation and its stakeholders, illustrated by the manner in which the Pre-Trial Chamber and the Registry attempted to reach out to victims and the consequences which ensued. Secondly, these misunderstandings led to a vacuum that has been filled by misinformation and competing narratives which undermined victims’ interests and the possible impact of the ICC’s involvement in the situation, such as the ‘peace versus justice’ narrative. These misunderstandings and misinformation have led to disproportionate attention focused on the United States angle of the investigation as opposed to the actual situation in Afghanistan. Yet the ICC’s engagement may still constitute both a positive and substantial avenue if there is an active effort to conduct communication and outreach to victim communities.