The chapter considers the process of nomination and election of judges, as well as their qualifications and the outcomes of the election process. It then examines the way in which the Court engages as a judicial body with the parties, with specific reference to the Court’s exercise of its advisory jurisdiction. Finally, it discusses the process of decision making, before drawing conclusions on the outcomes of that process, i.e. the judgments and opinions of the Court.

This chapter shows that different ICJ judges seem to assign different weight to teachings. The judges vary greatly in how often they cite teachings (if they cite them at all), and in how they use teachings when citing them. The chapter places the judges in three categories: those who frequently cite teachings and assign them considerable weight, those who occasionally cite teachings and assign them less weight, and those who never cite teachings. The chapter also suggests factors that can explain the variations, with the best one being the judges’ personal philosophies and styles. Judges who are former academics cite more teachings than others, and non-Western judges cite more teachings than their Western counterparts. These correlations may also contribute to explaining the variations between the judges.