Groupthink Bias in International Adjudication

Abstract One of the most common assumptions about decision-making is that groups usually enhance the quality of the outcomes of deliberative processes. The research on groupthink behaviour challenges this belief by hypothesizing that certain group constellations excessively seek concurrence and ther...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of international dispute settlement 2020-03, Vol.11 (1), p.91-126
1. Verfasser: Günther, Philipp
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 126
container_issue 1
container_start_page 91
container_title Journal of international dispute settlement
container_volume 11
creator Günther, Philipp
description Abstract One of the most common assumptions about decision-making is that groups usually enhance the quality of the outcomes of deliberative processes. The research on groupthink behaviour challenges this belief by hypothesizing that certain group constellations excessively seek concurrence and thereby increase the probability of faulty decision-making. Since the decision-making process in international adjudication almost always involves group choices, it is crucial to consider the group environment of collegial court decision-making. This article utilizes the General Group Problem Solving model (GGPS) to ascertain how strong the different group conformity antecedents are pronounced in five international courts (the ICJ, the ITLOS, the WTO AB, the ECtHR and the ICC). The results of the GGPS analysis indicate that the WTO AB and the ICC are most likely susceptible to groupthink effects while the other courts are relatively resilient.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/jnlids/idaa001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_jnlids_idaa001</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/jnlids/idaa001</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/jnlids/idaa001</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-b66991e0b48ebd0455a36671fa83859ca9e7f54a1551f1d7ef357f98d5916c573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFjzFPwzAQRi0EElXpypyVIe1dbcfxWCpoK1VigTm6xLZwCE5lpwP_nkA6sHHL3Sd976TH2D3CEkHzVRs6b9LKGyIAvGKzNQjIudT8-s99yxYptTAORyFAzVi-i_35NLz78JE9ekqZD9khDDYGGnwfqMs2pj0b3_zGO3bjqEt2cdlz9vb89Lrd58eX3WG7OebNWvEhr4tCa7RQi9LWBoSUxItCoaOSl1I3pK1yUhBKiQ6Nso5L5XRppMaikYrP2XL628Q-pWhddYr-k-JXhVD9-FaTb3XxHYGHCRhl_ut-A4TSWDc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Groupthink Bias in International Adjudication</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Günther, Philipp</creator><creatorcontrib>Günther, Philipp</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract One of the most common assumptions about decision-making is that groups usually enhance the quality of the outcomes of deliberative processes. The research on groupthink behaviour challenges this belief by hypothesizing that certain group constellations excessively seek concurrence and thereby increase the probability of faulty decision-making. Since the decision-making process in international adjudication almost always involves group choices, it is crucial to consider the group environment of collegial court decision-making. This article utilizes the General Group Problem Solving model (GGPS) to ascertain how strong the different group conformity antecedents are pronounced in five international courts (the ICJ, the ITLOS, the WTO AB, the ECtHR and the ICC). The results of the GGPS analysis indicate that the WTO AB and the ICC are most likely susceptible to groupthink effects while the other courts are relatively resilient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2040-3593</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2040-3593</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idaa001</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>Journal of international dispute settlement, 2020-03, Vol.11 (1), p.91-126</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-b66991e0b48ebd0455a36671fa83859ca9e7f54a1551f1d7ef357f98d5916c573</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1578,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Günther, Philipp</creatorcontrib><title>Groupthink Bias in International Adjudication</title><title>Journal of international dispute settlement</title><description>Abstract One of the most common assumptions about decision-making is that groups usually enhance the quality of the outcomes of deliberative processes. The research on groupthink behaviour challenges this belief by hypothesizing that certain group constellations excessively seek concurrence and thereby increase the probability of faulty decision-making. Since the decision-making process in international adjudication almost always involves group choices, it is crucial to consider the group environment of collegial court decision-making. This article utilizes the General Group Problem Solving model (GGPS) to ascertain how strong the different group conformity antecedents are pronounced in five international courts (the ICJ, the ITLOS, the WTO AB, the ECtHR and the ICC). The results of the GGPS analysis indicate that the WTO AB and the ICC are most likely susceptible to groupthink effects while the other courts are relatively resilient.</description><issn>2040-3593</issn><issn>2040-3593</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFjzFPwzAQRi0EElXpypyVIe1dbcfxWCpoK1VigTm6xLZwCE5lpwP_nkA6sHHL3Sd976TH2D3CEkHzVRs6b9LKGyIAvGKzNQjIudT8-s99yxYptTAORyFAzVi-i_35NLz78JE9ekqZD9khDDYGGnwfqMs2pj0b3_zGO3bjqEt2cdlz9vb89Lrd58eX3WG7OebNWvEhr4tCa7RQi9LWBoSUxItCoaOSl1I3pK1yUhBKiQ6Nso5L5XRppMaikYrP2XL628Q-pWhddYr-k-JXhVD9-FaTb3XxHYGHCRhl_ut-A4TSWDc</recordid><startdate>20200301</startdate><enddate>20200301</enddate><creator>Günther, Philipp</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200301</creationdate><title>Groupthink Bias in International Adjudication</title><author>Günther, Philipp</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c273t-b66991e0b48ebd0455a36671fa83859ca9e7f54a1551f1d7ef357f98d5916c573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Günther, Philipp</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of international dispute settlement</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Günther, Philipp</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Groupthink Bias in International Adjudication</atitle><jtitle>Journal of international dispute settlement</jtitle><date>2020-03-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>91</spage><epage>126</epage><pages>91-126</pages><issn>2040-3593</issn><eissn>2040-3593</eissn><abstract>Abstract One of the most common assumptions about decision-making is that groups usually enhance the quality of the outcomes of deliberative processes. The research on groupthink behaviour challenges this belief by hypothesizing that certain group constellations excessively seek concurrence and thereby increase the probability of faulty decision-making. Since the decision-making process in international adjudication almost always involves group choices, it is crucial to consider the group environment of collegial court decision-making. This article utilizes the General Group Problem Solving model (GGPS) to ascertain how strong the different group conformity antecedents are pronounced in five international courts (the ICJ, the ITLOS, the WTO AB, the ECtHR and the ICC). The results of the GGPS analysis indicate that the WTO AB and the ICC are most likely susceptible to groupthink effects while the other courts are relatively resilient.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/jnlids/idaa001</doi><tpages>36</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2040-3593
ispartof Journal of international dispute settlement, 2020-03, Vol.11 (1), p.91-126
issn 2040-3593
2040-3593
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_jnlids_idaa001
source HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
title Groupthink Bias in International Adjudication
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T08%3A56%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Groupthink%20Bias%20in%20International%20Adjudication&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20international%20dispute%20settlement&rft.au=G%C3%BCnther,%20Philipp&rft.date=2020-03-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=91&rft.epage=126&rft.pages=91-126&rft.issn=2040-3593&rft.eissn=2040-3593&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jnlids/idaa001&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.1093/jnlids/idaa001%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jnlids/idaa001&rfr_iscdi=true