New evidence from analyzing ECtHR dissents suggests international judges can be impartial despite personal motivations. There's no indication of cultural or geopolitical bias in rulings, but career insecurities may push some to favor their national government when involved. The strongest finding reveals that ECtHR judges act as policy seekers—varying in how they defer to member states regarding human rights implementation.
The study examines dissent patterns across cases involving different governments and countries. Using a novel dataset of dissents, we observe:
- No systematic cultural or geopolitical bias
- Career insecurity influencing government-favoring decisions
- Policy preferences shaping human rights application interpretations
Former socialist judges show distinct patterns: more likely to find violations against their own country AND other former socialist states.
This means international courts can maintain impartiality while reflecting policymakers' views on abstract vs concrete cases—similar to domestic review courts.
