Do international adjudicators align with the foreign policy interests of their home country? This article contributes new evidence that judges on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) diverge along similar lines as their home states in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Ideal points for judges and countries are estimated from nonunanimous judicial votes up to January 2023 using Item Response Modelling and then related to country ideal points estimated from UNGA votes in earlier research. The analysis reveals that, as with countries in the UNGA, a pro-anti-Western divide order constitutes the main dimension of disagreement on the Court. Moreover, ideal points derived from UNGA voting patterns are themselves robust predictors of voting affinity among judges as well as between judges and the parties involved in litigation. Judges originating from nations exhibiting greater geopolitical divergence are more likely to disagree. Just as judges from more pro-Western states are less likely to favour anti-Western litigant states.

中文翻译：

---

世界法院的决策：国际法官是否存在地缘政治偏见？


国际裁决者是否符合本国的外交政策利益？本文提供了新的证据，表明国际法院 （ICJ） 的法官在联合国大会 （UNGA） 中的分歧与他们所在的国家相似。法官和国家的理想分数是使用项目响应模型根据截至 2023 年 1 月的非一致司法投票估计的，然后与早期研究中根据联合国大会投票估计的国家理想分数相关联。分析表明，与联合国大会中的国家一样，亲反西方的分裂令构成了最高法院分歧的主要维度。此外，从联合国大会投票模式中得出的理想点本身就是法官之间以及法官与诉讼当事人之间投票亲和力的有力预测指标。来自地缘政治分歧较大的国家的法官更有可能不同意。正如来自更亲西方国家的法官不太可能偏袒反西方的诉讼国家一样。