This chapter takes the reader to the innermost chamber of the court: the deliberation room. There, the story untangles the maze of interactions that occur among the adjudicators as they finally decide the merits of the case. What commentators usually describe as the moment of truth is, in fact, a delicate dance of assertions and contestations, argument and counterargument, lunges and sidesteps. Amid the confrontation, judicial bureaucrats work staunchly and discreetly to guide the flow of the debate, broker compromises, and overcome stumbling blocks. The decisions and instructions that eventually emerge from deliberations may well be the truth – but a carefully constructed one. The deliberative practices of the various courts and tribunals, all described in this chapter, are more than simple logistical matters or mere conveyors of content. Rather, they have a crucial impact on the way adjudicators arrive at their decisions and, therefore, on the substantive outcomes of each dispute.

This chapter discusses the weight of teachings in the ICJ generally, drawing the conclusion that teachings have generally low weight in the ICJ. Various patterns in the use of teachings are drawn on to support this conclusion. The most striking pattern is the contrast between majority opinions, which almost never cite teachings, and majority opinions, where many judges cite teachings. An attempt is made to explain this, with the most promising explanation being that this is part of the Court’s institutional culture. The Court’s use of teachings is also compared with the use of judicial decisions and works by the International Law Commission, which are generally assigned more weight than teachings. This is because of teachings do not have the official authority of those sources.