The process of judicial selection is attracting increasingly significant attention in the domestic sphere, becoming one of those rare matters of judicial theory that reach beyond the academic literature into the mainstream media. There is no such resonance, however, with respect to the international judicial selection processes, where, as the authors note, the lack of public awareness is “mirrored by an almost complete absence of academic research on the subject” (p. 1). This book speaks to that gap in the literature, though does so in a way that is unusual in legal jurisprudence, by adopting a thoroughly empirical approach. The self-proclaimed aim of the work is to produce a “systematic empirical picture of the workings of the judicial appointment process in the international courts” (p. 3), focusing on the two leading courts, the International Court of Justice (the ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (the ICC). The book records the findings of a three year research project into the judicial selection processes of those courts, and as the “first extensive empirical study in this field” (p.181) provides a valuable resource in the practical understanding of these processes. The project has been designed to gather detailed information on the nomination and election processes for international judges, focussing on “what happens in practice”, rather than assessing formal legal rules (p. 180). Importantly, the book outlines the research methodology adopted for the project, an exposition that, like empirical research itself, is too often rare in legal research. This methodology involved the sourcing of baseline empirical data through a series of questionnaires, case-studies and over 100 interviews. Ultimately, the scope of the project constrains the scope of the book, with the focus on broad processes and practices, rather than specific cases or theory. The self-described “dest” aim of the book is to “set out the formal rules for the appointment of judges to the ICJ and ICC and to explore how those rules are actually applied in practice” (p. xi). The assessment of this work and its success demands this “dest” aim be kept in mind, and it is important not to expect of the book that which it does not seek to deliver.The book itself is essentially divided into four main parts. The first of these provides a brief outline of the origins and historical context of the two principal courts, before going on to discuss the composition of those courts. The selection criteria introduced in this section, including geographical and gender representation, become important recurrent themes in the book. The real substance of the book is contained, however, in the chapters on the nomination and election processes. The first of these issues, the nomination of individuals as candidates for judicial office, is a subject that has received remarkably little attention beyond the hushed conversations found in the halls of the United Nations or the offices of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. The chapter successfully sheds light on that nomination process, drawing on the words of insiders who have been directly involved as candidates, decision-makers or observers. The broad diversity of approaches that emerge from this survey is intriguing, with a range from the overtly political to the open and transparent. The authors argue that those states that adopt more “open” processes are “more likely to prioritise selection on merit” (p. 98) though note that there is little evidence that such practices are being broadly followed. Nonetheless, the material succeeds in providing a thorough insight into a rarely seen world. The light the book shines on the judicial election processes in the third part is, if anything, even more revealing and disconcerting. The process is exposed as an essentially political enterprise with the judicial nature having relatively little impact on the character of the election process (p. 101). Instead it is revealed to be an exercise governed by back-room dealings – endorsements, vote-swaps and negotiations on withdrawal of candidates. The limited scope of the project was particularly apparent in this section as the authors sought to rely only on the voice of their interviewers. For example, in the brief discussion of the appropriateness of campaigning in judicial elections (p. 119) the authors posed some interesting questions, though referred only to interviewees responses in replying to them. Nonetheless, the material evidences the clear normative judgment of the authors in the selection and use of materials, and the text would have been greatly improved by making such judgements explicit. Undoubtedly, though, the work does succeeding in revealing the dirty practices that underpin judicial elections. This is perhaps most apparent with regards to vote-trading, with the evidence suggesting that states trade votes for bodies both within and outside the UN system, as well as for other benefits (p. 122) including “international development aid” and perhaps most outrageously, for material possessions such as cars (p. 124). The view of judicial positions as ‘just another international pawn’ (p128) clearly emerges as the dominant view in practice, a view that raises real and serious concerns about the election process and its impact on the competence, legitimacy and independence of the courts. The final section of the book attempts to address some of these concerns by analysing the views of interviewees on the merits of recent trends, challenges and reforms. This is perhaps the weakest aspect of the book, at it sits uneasily with the deliberately limited scope of the project, instead hovering between advocacy and reporting. For example, in discussing potential reform of national nomination bodies, the authors suggest that steps should be taken to “increase the independence of the selection process” by creating independent bodies responsible for identifying, assessing and designating potential candidates without governmental interference (p. 145). Such advocacy goes beyond the empirical aims of the project, and founders as a result. The work avoids the very theoretical foundations that would allow a clear discussion of why, for example, “independence” matters in this process, and why it may be desirable or indeed feasible.

The book does not attempt to provide the heavy theoretical lifting required to support such suggested reforms and critiques, and as a result is at times undermined by the unanalysed assumptions of the authors. For example, the authors assert that the significance of the candidate's “international profile” results in a disproportionately high number of successful candidates emerging from an international network of UN bodies (p. 174). However, as there is no sustained analysis of what makes an effective international judge, it cannot be taken for granted that those attributes are not more likely to be found in such “sources”, and thereby inappropriate to label such a distribution as “disproportionate”. While the basis of judicial merit is recognisably “slippery”, by failing to engage with that difficult theoretical question the analysis of the authors as to the consequences of their work is greatly weakened. They may well be right to suggest that “weakness in the selection process may sometimes lead to a failure to select the very best possible candidates” (p. 177), yet to assert an inverse relationship between quality and political considerations (p. 179) is to adopt an implicit view of merit that largely excludes the political. While this may very well be the better conception of judicial merit, it is not unarguably so, and the book would have been enriched if these issues had been drawn more into the open. The conclusions are far stronger when they are restricted to the data, such as the powerful and indisputable picture of elections barely distinguishable from political elections (p. 173). The demonstration of such conclusions remains a significant achievement of the book that should be applauded.

This book is that rare thing in international law scholarship – a work of thorough empiricism. Legal scholars remain far more comfortable with normative discourse, and it is understandable, therefore, that the authors slip occasionally into that more familiar mode. The great strength of this book is, though, in the picture it paints through the empirical data. That picture of a growing and pervasive role for extraneous political factors in the selection of international judges is vividly illustrated. The empirical data does, at times, make the work difficult to read, with the quoted material disrupting the flow of the narrative, though by and large the book is well structured and written. A better sub-title may have been ‘Practice, Process and Politics’, for there is very little in the way of theoretical analysis or exposition of principles in the book. While such discussion may have enriched the analysis, particularly in the final chapter, it is important to recall that the “modest” aim of the book was to provide empirical data and analysis. In this goal it certainly succeeds. The book is perhaps best conceived of as a critical resource upon which further work can be based. It undoubtedly provides an invaluable snapshot of perspectives and insight into the actual operation of the mechanisms of judicial selection for international tribunals. That insight is not always flattering. As Romano notes in the preface, the research indicates a process of international judicial selection that possesses “a troubling lack of transparency” and “absence of common or minimum standards in practice” (p. ix). The overt politicisation of the process is rightfully a matter of concern, and as Lord Woolf suggests, the book should be a “catalyst for reform” and a basis for further research (p. vii).