Analysing the first case of the International Criminal Court from a network-science perspective

This paper analyses the multi-level network composed of the legal decisions taken by the International Criminal Court since its creation in 2002. As many real-world networks, legal networks lend themselves to the use of graphs in which nodes represent the decisions taken by the Court and links stand for citations between decisions. Although useful, this framework does not account for the inherent complexity and hierarchy commonly observed in real data. In the context of legal networks in particular, interactions between decisions take place at various levels, inducing a two-level structure. We propose here to rely on a hybrid version of bipartite graphs, which allows to represent different types of links in multi-level networks. We assess the relevance of this approach by analysing the hybrid structure of the first case of the Court and by confronting it with standard approaches focusing on direct citation processes. We validate the outcomes by providing juridical interpretations of the results, which shed some light on the procedural aspects of the International Criminal Court and put an emphasis on the key themes addressed by this jurisdiction. Thus, for the first time, this work converges two very different approaches to account for the multi-level complexity in legal networks. Complex networks, bipartite graph, legal network, International Criminal Court.

[1]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs , 1985 .

[2]  Tore Opsahl.  Triadic closure in two-mode networks: Redefining the global and local clustering coefficients , 2013, Soc. Networks.

[3]  Marek Sergot,et al.  The Use of Logical Models in Legal Problem Solving , 1990 .

[4]  M. Newman,et al.  Random graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications. , 2000, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[5]  Romain Boulet,et al.  A network approach to the French system of legal codes—part I: analysis of a dense network , 2011, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[6]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Abstract Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Social Networks 30 (2008) 16–30 The authority of Supreme Court precedent , 2022 .

[7]  Fabien Tarissan,et al.  Comparing Overlapping Properties of Real Bipartite Networks , 2015 .

[8]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[9]  Ramon Ferrer i Cancho,et al.  The small world of human language , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[10]  Tim S. Evans,et al.  Transitive Reduction of Citation Networks , 2013, J. Complex Networks.

[11]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Towards a bipartite graph modeling of the internet topology , 2013, Comput. Networks.

[12]  M. Tumminello,et al.  Statistically Validated Networks in Bipartite Complex Systems , 2010, PloS one.

[13]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Defining and evaluating network communities based on ground-truth , 2012, KDD 2012.

[14]  T. Neale.  Citation Analysis of Canadian Case Law , 2013 .

[15]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Flavor network and the principles of food pairing , 2011, Scientific reports.

[16]  Gilbert Guillaume,et al.  The Use of Precedent by International Judges and Arbitrators , 2011 .

[17]  Thomas A. Smith.  The Web of Law , 2005 .

[18]  Tommaso Agnoloni,et al.  The Case Law of Italian Constitutional Court between Network Theory and Philosophy of Information , 2016 .

[19]  Radboud Winkels,et al.  Determining Authority of Dutch Case Law , 2011, JURIX.

[20]  Dorothea Wagner,et al.  Finding, Counting and Listing All Triangles in Large Graphs, an Experimental Study , 2005, WEA.

[21]  Alex Whiting,et al.  International Criminal Law: Cases and Commentary , 2011 .

[22]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs: Notation , 2001 .

[23]  Neo D. Martinez,et al.  Two degrees of separation in complex food webs , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  John Zeleznikow,et al.  Integrating artificial intelligence, argumentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment , 2004, 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.

[25]  Andreas Dengel,et al.  Analysis and forecasting of trending topics in online media streams , 2013, ACM Multimedia.

[26]  Vincent A. Traag,et al.  Structure of an elite co-occurrence network , 2014, ArXiv.

[27]  Emmanuel Lazega,et al.  Catching up with big fish in the big pond? Multi-level network analysis through linked design , 2008, Soc. Networks.

[28]  Fabien Tarissan,et al.  The Network of the International Criminal Court Decisions as a Complex System , 2014 .

[29]  Arno R. Lodder,et al.  DiaLaw: a dialogical framework for modeling legal reasoning , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[30]  Dorothea Wagner,et al.  Approximating Clustering Coefficient and Transitivity , 2005, J. Graph Algorithms Appl..

[31]  S H Strogatz,et al.  Random graph models of social networks , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  Alessandro Lomi,et al.  A model for the multiplex dynamics of two-mode and one-mode networks, with an application to employment preference, friendship, and advice , 2013, Soc. Networks.

[33]  Matthieu Latapy,et al.  Basic notions for the analysis of large two-mode networks , 2008, Soc. Networks.

[34]  Seth J. Chandler,et al.  The Network Structure of Supreme Court Jurisprudence , 2007 .

[35]  Anne-Marie Kermarrec,et al.  Clustering in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Workloads , 2004, IPTPS.

[36]  Pierre Mazzega,et al.  Codification, Law Article and Graphs , 2007, JURIX.

[37]  A Vázquez,et al.  The topological relationship between the large-scale attributes and local interaction patterns of complex networks , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  Fan Chung Graham,et al.  A random graph model for massive graphs , 2000, STOC '00.

[39]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Bipartite graphs as models of complex networks , 2006 .

[40]  John Zeleznikow,et al.  Building intelligent legal information systems : representation and reasoning in law , 1994 .

[41]  S. Mangan,et al.  Structure and function of the feed-forward loop network motif , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  Dawn Iacobucci,et al.  Statistical Modelling of One-Mode and Two-Mode Networks: Simultaneous Analysis of Graphs and Bipartite Graphs , 1991 .

[43]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  Knowledge Discovery from Legal Databases , 2005 .

[44]  Peng Wang,et al.  Exponential random graph model specifications for bipartite networks - A dependence hierarchy , 2013, Soc. Networks.

[45]  David Krackhardt,et al.  Heider vs Simmel: Emergent Features in Dynamic Structures , 2006, SNA@ICML.

[46]  Elisa Bellotti,et al.  Getting funded. Multi-level network of physicists in Italy , 2012, Soc. Networks.

[47]  John Zeleznikow,et al.  Building Decision Support Systems in Discretionary Legal Domains , 2000 .

[48]  Martin G. Everett,et al.  The dual-projection approach for two-mode networks , 2013, Soc. Networks.

[49]  S. Battiston,et al.  Statistical properties of corporate board and director networks , 2004 .

[50]  Ryan Whalen,et al.  Modeling Annual Supreme Court Influence: The Role of Citation Practices and Judicial Tenure in Determining Precedent Network Growth , 2012, CompleNet.

[51]  Ioannis Anagnostopoulos,et al.  Network Analysis in the Legal Domain: A complex model for European Union legal sources , 2015, J. Complex Networks.