This research conducts an exploratory study of the individual leadership competences of judicial actors comprised of the Presidency of the Court, Office of the Prosecutor, and Registry and its support staff within the International Criminal Court (ICC) located at The Hague, Netherlands.
The research objectives of this study are not only to identify leadership competencies of current and former president of the court, office of the prosecutor, and registry or court administrator and their support staff but also to generate a body of knowledge that explores judicial actors as leaders within the national and international judicial systems.
By developing a conceptual roadmap this study benefits the international community by creating a body of knowledge that bridges the disciplines of leadership and judicial processes that addresses the emerging complexity and global significance of transitional justice in post conflict environments.
This study lays the foundation for transitional justice scholar-practitioners to determine the role leadership traits and competencies play within the international judicial community to prosecute human rights violations, protect victims from further human rights violations, and sustain the rule of law in a post conflict environment.
The aim of this study is to advance knowledge in the field of global leadership by introducing the application of institutional and organizational leadership competences into the discipline of International Law. Also, to generate new knowledge of the critical role that individual leadership traits and competencies play as transitional justice practitioners seek to achieve national reconciliation in a post conflict environment. In other words, this study will make a significant contribution to the fields of leadership and international justice by understanding the role that individual leadership traits play within the ICC as transitional justice theorists seek to understand and develop legitimate legal capacities in a post conflict environment.
Table of Contents
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
Chapter One
Introduction
Background of the Study
Problem Statement
Purpose of the Study
Definitions
Theoretical Framework
Research Questions
Significance of the Study
Limitations and Delimitations
Researcher's Perspective
Assumptions of the Study
General Plan of the Study
Chapter Two
Introduction
Transitional Justice Historical Background
Definition of Transitional Justice
Concept of Transitional Justice
Development of International Criminal Court
Transitional Justice Literature Gap
Leadership Development
Leadership Deterrence within the International Criminal Court
General Deterrence Principles
Tailored Deterrence Principles
Judicial Strategic Leadership
Judicial Accountability
Leadership Framework
Authentic Leadership
Leadership and Judicial Knowledge, Skills, and Competences
Chapter Three
Research Methodology
Research Question
Research Design
Step One: Horizontalism
Step Two: Phenomenological Reduction and Elimination
Step Three: Clustering of Units to Form Themes
Step Four: Validation
Step Five: Textural and Structural Description
Step Six: Synthesis of Meaning and Essentials
Organization of Data Analysis
Phenomenological Analysis
Pilot Study
Study Participants
Research Participant Characteristics
Interview Procedures
Interviews
Data Management
Data Analysis
Reliability and Validity
Ethical Considerations
Role of the Researcher
Plan for Narrative
Chapter Four
Data Analysis and Findings
Overview
Horizontalization
Interviewee participant A
Interviewee participant B
Interviewee participant C
Interviewee participant D
Interviewee participant E
Interviewee participant F
Interviewee participant G
Interviewee participant H
Interviewee participant I
Invariant meaning horizons and themes
Textural Descriptions
Individual textural descriptions
Interviewee textural description A
Interviewee textural description B
Interviewee textural description C
Interviewee textural description D
Interviewee textural description E
Interviewee textural description F
Interviewee textural description G
Interviewee textural description H
Interviewee textural description I
Composite textural description
Structural Description
Individual structural description A
Individual structural description B
Individual structural description C
Individual structural description D
Individual structural description E
Individual structural description F
Individual structural description G
Individual structural description H
Individual structural description I
Composite structural description
Textural-Structured Description of Essence
Textural-Structural Synthesis: How Justice Leaders Develop
International Judicial Leadership Competences
Study Results
Study Outcomes
Study outcome one: Individual global leadership competence
Institutional Leadership
Institutional and organizational vision
Political savvy and diplomacy
External awareness
Strategic thinking and planning
Partnership and collaboration
Interpersonal relationship skills and self-awareness
Organizational Leadership
Human capital
Influence and negotiation
Integrity, honesty, and ethics
Judicial decisiveness
Conflict resolution
Study Outcome Two: Global Individual Leadership Practices
Study Outcome Three: Global Individual Leadership Competences That Guide Organizational Performances
Study Outcome Four: Impact of Multicultural Leadership Competences 166 Limitation of Study Findings
Summary
Chapter Five
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overview
Court Complexity
Operational and Organizational
Study Implication
Implication for Theory
Implication for Practice
Implication One
Implication Two
Implication Three
Implication Four
Implication Five
Recommendations for Further Research
Concluding Remarks
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A: Semi-Structured Interview Questions
B: Consent Form for Participation in Research Study
C: The Rights of Research Subjects
VITAE
Dedication
This doctoral dissertation is dedicated to my wife Deanna Campbell. This dissertation is also dedicated to my children Holly Rose and Ryan Andrew for the unwavering support, encouragement, and belief in me. Words cannot express how much I love you all.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to my academic and faculty advisor, Dr. Ken Rauch, for the patient guidance and mentorship he provided to me, all the way through the doctoral journey to completion of this degree. His intellectual weight is matched only by his servant leadership and genuinely good nature. I am truly fortunate and humbled in having the opportunity to work with and mentored by him. I would also like to thank my committee members, Drs. Faith Ngunjiri and Mary Bradshaw for the friendly guidance, thought provoking suggestions, and the general collegiality that each of them offered to me. I would like to thank my fellow doctoral students—those who have moved on, those in the quagmire, and those just beginning—for their support, feedback, and friendship. In a similar vein, I would like to thank my friends, especially Major General John Barnett, Dr. Connie Clifton, Dr. Shelly Roy, International Leadership Association, Coalition of the International Criminal Court, European Consortium for Political Research, and World Society of Victimology for the contributions that each of them made to my intellectual growth during my years of study at the Indiana Institute of Technology. I'd like to recognize Steve Paschall and friendship of Mr. Simon Vorhoof from The Hague, Netherland for the guidance, mentorship, and motivation of accepting nothing less than completion from me. Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge Mrs. Paula Dill for the all the editorial assistance writing of this dissertation and extraordinary guidance, patience, and friendship she has bestowed along this journey.
Abstract
This research conducts an exploratory study of the individual leadership competences of judicial actors comprised of the Presidency of the Court, Office of the Prosecutor, and Registry and its support staff within the International Criminal Court (ICC) located at The Hague, Netherlands. The research objectives of this study are not only to identify leadership competencies of current and former president of the court, office of the prosecutor, and registry or court administrator and their support staff but also to generate a body of knowledge that explores judicial actors as leaders within the national and international judicial systems. By developing a conceptual roadmap this study benefits the international community by creating a body of knowledge that bridges the disciplines of leadership and judicial processes that addresses the emerging complexity and global significance of transitional justice in post conflict environments.
This study lays the foundation for transitional justice scholar-practitioners to determine the role leadership traits and competencies play within the international judicial community to prosecute human rights violations, protect victims from further human rights violations, and sustain the rule of law in a post conflict environment (Homan & Ducasse-Rogier, 2012). The aim of this study is to advance knowledge in the field of global leadership by introducing the application of institutional and organizational leadership competences into the discipline of International Law. Also, to generate new knowledge of the critical role that individual leadership traits and competencies play as transitional justice practitioners seek to achieve national reconciliation in a post conflict environment. In other words, this study will make a significant contribution to the fields of leadership and international justice by understanding the role that individual leadership traits play within the ICC as transitional justice theorists seek to understand and develop legitimate legal capacities in a post conflict environment.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE ONE: Comparative Analysis of Transitional Justice and Leadership
FIGURE TWO: Comparative General Deterrence and Leadership Analysis
FIGURE THREE: Comparative Tailored Deterrence and Leadership
FIGURE FOUR: Elements of Authentic Leadership
FIGURE FIVE: Complexity of International Criminal Court Organizational Structure
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ONE: Judicial and Leadership Knowledge, Skills, and Competences
TABLE TWO: Invariant Meaning Horizons
TABLE THREE: Research Subjects Invariant Meaning Horizons
TABLE FOUR: Justice Leadership Approaches
TABLE FIVE: Results of Data Analysis
TABLE SIX: Research Methodology and Timeline
Chapter One
Introduction
In the 21st century, the global environment will continue to experience an increase in political and economic turmoil resulting in regional instability, failed states, asymmetric conflict, and global terrorism (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, 2008; Crocker, Hampson, & Aall, 2007; Kramer, 2011). For example, intrastate conflict using asymmetrical tactics within Syria has the potential of a spillover effect along ethnic lines within Turkey, while attacks by Boko Horam in the Niger Delta threatens regional and international economic security in that region (Benson, 2012). As a result, conflict resolution scholars claim transitional justice is a critical tool of international statecraft as transitional government and civil society leaders are challenged not only in coming to terms with the aftermath of structural violence and conflict but also in holding perpetrators of human rights violations accountable within international legal norms.
Okafor and Ngwaba (2015) suggest that transitional justice involves how societies respond either through retributive or restorative legal means to redress legacies of genocide, crimes against humanity, aggression, and past human rights violations as a means to stabilize and reconstruct sectoral institutions in a post conflict environment. Similarly, as a means of political stability and confidence building measures, transitional government leaders apply domestic and international legal processes as a conflict resolution mechanism to sustain both a political settlement and national reconciliation within post conflict environment (Buckley-Zistel, Beck, Braun, & Meith, 2014; Fukuyama, 2004; Moyes, 2010; Schiff, 2008; Skaar & Weibelhaus- Brahm, 2013; Toft, 2010). In fact, with the increase of interstate and intrastate conflict resulting in human rights violations, the international community established the international criminal court as one of the key drivers of transitional justice that hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and other human rights violations (Clark, 2005; Welch & Watkins, 2011). In simpler terms, seminal research by conflict resolution theorist recognized that transitional justice is a critical enabler for nation-building of governance institutions and national reconciliation within post conflict societies (Baylis et al., 2008; Crocker et al., 2007; Henham, 2008).
Legal scholars claim that international legal institutions are in need of judicial reform (Del Preore, 2012; Duthie, 2009; Widner, 2011). More importantly, judicial reformers argue that leadership is a key ingredient in developing legal institutions emerging from a post conflict environment (Keilitz & Meeks, 2012; Widner, 2011). In fact, transitional justice practitioners and legal scholars contend that there is no clear understanding of how leadership elements apply within the judicial process (Fischer, 2011; Office of the High Commissioners for Human Rights in Cooperation with the International Bar Association, 2003; Wigneswaran, 2009).
As transitional justice practitioners and legal scholars move into an era where the international criminal court plays a central role in national reconciliation, stronger leadership will be required (Duthie, 2009). For example, Lenzen (2009) argued that national reconciliation and confidence building measures are developed in partnership with local leaders, civil society organizations, and other developmental actors as transitional government leaders move to transform a conflictual society toward peace. In fact, Doss (2011) stated that "post conflict peacebuilding does require individual leaders be able to inspire trust and hope, capable of both adapting and changing their countries' post conflict prospects. Personalities and personal leadership skills are an inescapable part of the equation of peacebuilding" (p. 1). Given the wide-ranging effects of international conflict and the need for strong leaders within transitional justice frameworks, this research project explores the individual leadership competences exhibited by the current and former presidency of the court, office of the prosecutor, and registry and its support staff within the international criminal court.
Background of the Study
Recognizing the rising tide of human rights violations in the aftermath of intrastate and regional conflicts, the international community in 1998 established a permanent International Criminal Court with a mandate to prosecute international crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (Alexander, 2009; Bell, 2009; Clark, 2005; Hall, 2004; Schiff, 2008; Skaar & Weibelhaus-Brahm, 2013). The International Criminal Court is comprised of judicial actors among three independent organs referenced here as: the Presidency of the Court, Office of the Prosecutor, and the Registry or court administrator plus its support staff. These judicial actors play a critical leadership role in not only shaping the direction and performance of the Court (Clark, 2005; Hall, 2004; Schiff, 2008; Skaar & Weibelhaus-Brahm, 2013) but also the political terrain of prosecutorial intervention strategies.
The Presidency of the Court has the responsibility to administer the Court, set ethical governance standards among peer judges, and supervise the Chamber Judges as well as represent the Court to external actors (Cour Penale Internationale - Judges, 2013). The Registry serves as the court administrator with the responsibility to support all non-judicial aspects as well as maintain external relations with civil societies and non-governmental organizations (Cour Penale Internationale - International Criminal Court - The Registry, 2013). Finally, the Office of the Prosecutor has the responsibility to establish and manage investigative teams that collect information on human rights violations, issue indictments, and issue independent and impartial prosecutorial strategic policies as well as set governance standards within the court. Moreover, Office of the Prosecutor diplomatically encourages transitional societies to voluntarily cooperate with Court indictment and apprehension of perpetrators and maintains cooperative relationships with the United Nations and Civil Societies on court activities (Barnes, 2011; Clark, 2005; Hall, 2004; Schiff, 2008). However, it is important to note that the International Criminal Court does not replace but, rather, complements national courts that either lacks the political will or the legal capacity to prosecute human rights violations in a post conflict environment (Cour Penale Internationale - International Criminal Court, 2013).
With an increase in the lethality of transnational conflict among states and non-state actors, the international community has struggled in responding to the resulting rise of human rights violations (Bensouda, 2013; Fukuyama, 2004). To illustrate, “Amnesty International Report 2013, The State of the World's Human Rights” reports that international conflict increased from 13% , in 2012 to 31% in 2013 with an estimated rise of 15 million refugees by 2013. As a result, domestic political pressure within powerful states and regional players demanded response to reported atrocities, gross human rights, and crimes of humanity from intrastate conflict (Brinkerhoff, 2011; Duthie, 2009).
Civil society organizations and transitional justice practitioners believe the politicization of the rule of law damages the reputation of the international court along with its significance amongst donor states (Kaye, 2011). Furthermore, Kaye (2011) noted that the organizational tension between of the Office of the Prosecutor, Registry, and International Court Judges tends to isolate strategic innovative ideas by subordinates, caused organization discourse among court officials and supporters, and adversely impacts the judicial performance as a global court. Therefore, Kaye (2011) suggest that the Office of the Prosecutor, Registry, and International Judges needs to include more than prosecutorial skills; political, diplomatic, leadership, and management skills are also needed to address the myriad of challenges the court will face in the 21st century.
Problem Statement
Transitional justice practitioners claim that the International Criminal Court, as an international institution, is not only in crisis but is also ineffective and lacks legitimacy within the international community (Brinkerhoff, 2011; Skaar, 2012). One of the problems could be that judicial actors do not view leadership as a component within the legal portfolio. Analysis by Hall and Suskin (2010 ) notes that judicial practitioners believe leadership is inappropriate within international courts. Foundational research by Henham (2008), Ingadottir (2002), and Schiff (2008) argued that due to a lack of leadership, the tripartite organs within the ICC are politically polarized, poorly coordinated, often technically incompetent, bureaucratically stovepiped, and organizationally inefficient. For that reason, transitional justice practitioners note that greater leadership and cooperation is needed between the different divisions of the court (Schiff, 2008).
Arguably, a problem exists in understanding how leadership contributes to the court's operational performance, effectiveness, and perceived legitimacy within the international community (Buckley-Zistel et al., 2014; Ostrom, Hanson, Ostrom, & Kleiman, 2013). Hence, judicial reformers argue that lawyers, judges, and court administrators need to take a stronger leadership role in executing the rule of law (Diacoff, 2012; Ostrom et al., 2013). For that reason, a call within the Office of the Prosecutor Strategic Plan 2012-2015 (2013) , urges that trial lawyers must "be able to lead without micro-managing, manage multi-disciplinary teams, and integrate different interests while at the same time providing legal guidance" (p. 26). In other words, without examining the knowledge gap that integrates leadership elements within international judicial processes, challenges within the international criminal court will persist (Buckley-Zistel et al., 2014; Burke, 2012; Del Preore, 2012).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this phenomenological study is to explore individual leadership competences of current, former, and support staff of international judicial actors within the International Criminal Court at The Den Haag. At this stage in the research, judicial leadership competences will be generally defined as a core set of consistent characteristics or attributes that directs, shapes, and guides legal professionals to accomplish tasks across organizational functions within a multicultural environment (Bass & Bass, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Rhode, 2010).
Definitions
The following is a list of important terms and conceptual definitions used in this dissertation:
Justice - Justice as a model is administered by legitimate diplomatic, political, and legal institutions that comply with the rule of law that is consistent with international human rights standards. Additionally, justice in a root form is grounded in truth-seeking and national efforts to initiate the redressing of wrongs in an effort to hold perpetrators accountable for past violent actions in a conflict (Tolbert & Wierda, 2010).
Transitional Justice - As a consequence of massive and systematic crimes against humanity, genocide, war crimes, and other human rights violations against any socio-ethnic group of people, transitional justice is comprised of processes, mechanisms, and instruments used to hold past perpetrators accountable during interstate and intrastate conflict. The full spectrum of transitional justice instruments spans from international ad hoc tribunals, truth commissions, national truth-telling ceremonies, reparations, and other activities that restore the dignity of victims of past human rights abuse. Simply put, transitional justice is any activity that brings about socio-political local and national reconciliation (Buckley-Zistel et al., 2014; Grieff, 2010).
Genocide- The International Criminal Court applies genocide as a human rights violation that deliberately inflicts physical or emotional harm through national, racial, religious, and ethnic cleansing in part or whole, in accordance with Rome Statute, Article 6 (Schiff, 2008).
Crimes Against Humanity - The International Criminal Court describes crimes against humanity as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with intention and/or knowledge of an attack resulting in murder, torture, rape, sex slavery, forced pregnancy or sterilization, and enforced disappearance of persons, in accordance with Rome Statute, Article 7 (Schiff, 2008).
War Crimes - The International Criminal Court categorizes war crimes as indiscriminate killing, torture or inhuman treatment causing widespread personal and physical suffering outside of military operations, unlawful deportation or confinement, and taking hostages, in accordance with Rome Statute, Article 8 (Schiff, 2008).
International Judicial Actors - International judicial actors comprise judges, prosecutors, court administrators, and support staff at multiple levels within the court. As judicial actor an International Judge interprets the law as well as ensures the integrity and ethical behavior in day- to-day operational judgments of the court. As judicial actor an International Prosecutor investigates and prosecutes human rights violations, coordinates with external interests of the court, and presents evidence against a defendant within the chambers of the court. Finally, as judicial actors a court administrator and support staff administer the day-to-day functional operations of the court in order to maintain judicial unity (Leveson, 2007; Schiff, 2008; Weidong, 2013).
Universal Jurisdiction- Universal jurisdiction is the ability of a court to prosecute perpetrators who committed human rights violations in interstate and intrastate conflict cases against humanity as a whole, that is, those cases that cross borders, rather than being limited to a particular socio-ethnic group, state, or nation. Additionally, universal jurisdiction binds the obligations of all states to protect human rights and uphold international laws without being changed by treaty (Burke-White, 2008; Second International Conference on DDR and Stability in Africa Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2007).
Reparations - Reparations are a set of judicial and non-judicial measures that provide compensation, restitution, and rehabilitation services to victims of gross human rights violations. Reparations are a social acknowledgement and recognition between victims, perpetrators, and transitional governmental leaders that human rights violations occurred in respect to international humanitarian and criminal law (Second International Conference on DDR and Stability in Africa Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2007).
Truth Commissions - The purpose of a truth commission is to investigate, report, and provide policy or prosecutorial recommendations as a non-judicial or semi-judicial fact-finding body to identify state or non-state actors responsible for past human rights abuses. Additionally, a truth commission provides a historical acknowledgement and account of an event from the victims' stories in an attempt to understand the causes, patterns of past violations, and their consequences (Second International Conference on DDR and Stability in Africa Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, 2007).
Global Mindset- Literature described global mindset "as an individual's ability to influence individuals, groups, organizations and systems that are unlike his or her own (Javidan & Teagarden, 2011, p. 14). Cohen (2010), and Mendenhall, Osland, Bird, Oddou, Maznevski, Stevens, and Stahl (2013) expanded Javidan and Teagarden's definition to include an individual's ability to understand the local and cultural complexities, acumen to change cognitive perspectives in one's situational understanding and decision making, and capability to adapt one's intellectual, social, emotional, and psychological intelligence in a highly contextual multifaceted environment. However, global mindset here is defined as an individual within multilayers of an organization who thinks and acts with global awareness as well as thinks and acts with local interests to solve political, legal, diplomatic, and organizational challenges (Cohen, 2010; Javidan & Teagarden, 2011; Mendenhall et al., 2013).
Global Leadership - Leadership literature revealed that there are as many definitions and connotations of leadership as researchers and cultural languages (Mendenhall et al., 2013; Story, 2011). To illustrate, leadership scholars define a global leader as "an individual who inspires a group of people to willingly pursue a positive vision in an effectively organized fashion while fostering individual and collective growth in a context characterized by significant levels of complexity, flow and presence" (Mendenhall et al., 2013, p. 75). At the same time, Javidan and Teagarden (2011) define global leadership as “a process of influencing individuals, groups, and organizations (inside and outside the boundaries of the global organization) representing diverse cultural/political/institutional systems to contribute toward achievement of the global organization” (p. 17). While this definitional stream describes global leader as an individual with the responsibility to organize a group toward a singular organizational outcome, Javidan and Teagarden (2011) conversely provide a definitional expansion of global leadership to include individuals, groups, and organizations influencing others across geographical boundaries as the central tenet rather than traditional lines of authority. However, a global leader here is defined as an individual at multiple levels of an organization who interacts and influences the exchange of ideas and actions across cultural boundaries with internal and external stakeholders for a positive change. Furthermore, a global leader builds strategic diplomatic and political alliances as well as coalitions that span multiple cultural and organizational boundaries, ultimately creating a shared vision toward an organizational outcome (Mendenhall et al., 2013; Story, 2011).
Theoretical Framework
An extensive literature review pointed out that the International Criminal Court is a key instrument of international transitional justice and national reconciliation as a society transitions from a post conflict environment (Buckley-Zistel,et al., 2014; Roht-Arriaza & Mariezcurrena, 2006; Mariniello, 2013; Schiff, 2008; Skaar & Wiebelhaus-Brahm, 2013). Transitional justice is an evolving field of study and is still in its infancy stage of theoretical development (Skarr & Wiebelhaus-Brahm, 2013). In the past twenty years, however, a proliferation of literature by pivotal international theorists and transitional justice scholars have presented debates on the value and impact of transitional justice instruments as a means of global governance (Bar-On, 2013; Roht-Arriaza & Mariezcurrena, 2006; Teital, 2002; Teital, 2008; Uprimny & Saffon, 2005). The debate stems from the fact that transitional justice as a concept is contextually normative rather than empirically tested (Buckley-Zistel et al., 2014). The reason is that transitional justice practices toward national reconciliation are politically, socio-ethnically, and judicially different from one conflict to another. In fact, transitional justice instruments are carried out by political appointed leaders with different interests and priorities. However, the International Criminal Court as a central transitional justice instrument, judicial actors does not view leadership as a component within the legal portfolio.
Much of the literature noted that the International Criminal Court plays a significant leadership role in not only holding perpetrators accountable for committing human rights violations but also reconstituting a nation's judicial capacity in a post conflict environment. For example, scholars assert that the international criminal court is supposed to be the model for national courts to emulate (Schabas, 2011). Arguably leadership competences are interdisciplinary and that leadership would not only improve operational end states of the international court but also set the example for other courts to emulate (Bass & Bass, 2008; Morrisette & Oberman, 2013; Shoemaker et al, 2013; Van Velsor et al., 2010). Therefore, Keilitz and Meeks (2012), and Ostrom et al (2013) postulate that international courts need to be reformed and judicial actors need to not only integrate leadership skills within jurisprudence portfolios but also acknowledge that court operations function as public organizations requiring strong ethical and accountable leaders. As a result, an emergence body of knowledge recognizes the role leadership plays in the execution of transitional justice instruments. The literature is extensive in leadership interdisciplinary applications and theoretical studies (Bass & Bass, 2008; Bishop, 2013). However, there is no clear leadership theory that directly applies to transitional justice concepts. Given the fact that the literature does not reveal theoretical research or individual leadership competences for international judicial actors, one can extrapolate judicial competences with leadership competences.
The literature postulates that situational leadership as a model is to determine which effective strategy a leader should implement in any complex environment that develops legal strategies within the international criminal court. In fact, Obolensky (2010) argues that a key ingredient of leadership “is to be able to move effortlessly between each leadership strategy. It is not about which style is better or worse. It is about which strategy has the best chance for success. There are no magic bullets and guarantees” (p. 165). Given the legal complexity and multicultural environment, research by organizational leaders could argue that effective leaders within the tripartite organs examine the situation and "adapt their leadership style according to the development level of the people they are managing” (Blanchard, 2008, p. 19). In short, the literature showed that situational leadership competences are anchored not only in the organizational operations inside the tripartite organs but also the external political and diplomatic environment within the international criminal court (Glanfield et al., 2013).
After an extensive literature review, the most appropriate theoretical leadership framework to explore the leadership competences of individual leaders within the International Criminal Court is authentic leadership. The reason is because transactional leadership focuses on individual to individual leadership, transformational leadership centers on developing followers into leaders, and servant leadership looks at leaders that serve the organization rather than selfserving interests (Avolio, 2010; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Bass & Bass, 2008). Authentic leadership builds upon and integrates these theories into a singular leadership theory that looks at the individual leader's relationship at the individual, team, and organizational level (Avolio, 2010; Bishop, 2013; Cerne, Jaklic, & Skerlavaj, 2013). In short, the authentic theoretical framework and its leadership principals are relevant to the International Criminal Court as a learning organization. (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Emuwa, 2013; Kliuchnikov, 2012; Mazutis & Slawinski, 20077).
According to Mazutis and Slawinski (2007), "authentic leadership has emerged as a relatively new and popular stream of research with the positive organizational scholarship movement" (p. 665). However, it is important to note an extensive literature review indicated that there was no authentic leadership studies directly relate to international transitional justice or judiciary disciplines. Conversely, the literature did reflect a limited amount of organizational quantitative studies related to authentic leadership. To illustrate, research by Kliuchnikov (2011) revealed a positive correlation between an organizational leader that shares and displays one's values, beliefs, and moral integrity with trust and a continuous organizational commitment. Thus, exploring the tenets of authentic leadership will provide the empirical underpinning of key individual leadership competencies within the judicial processes.
Research Questions
This study explores the leadership competencies within the International Criminal Court. The following primary research question will guide this research study.
- What are the leadership competences exhibited by judicial actors within the International Criminal Court?
The following are supporting questions will guide this study to answer the primary questions:
- What leadership practices shape international judicial actors as organizational leaders within the International Criminal Court?
- How do leadership competencies guide organizational performance of international judicial actors within the International Criminal Court?
- How do multicultural leadership competencies impact international judicial actors as organizational leaders within the International Criminal Court?
This study uses an exploratory method that describes the leadership phenomenon as a means to answer the research question.
Significance of the Study
There are three significant contributions this study will provide for the leadership discipline and transitional justice concepts. First, the theoretical significance of this study is to begin laying an empirical foundation for understanding the role leadership competencies play within the international judicial community (Homan & Ducasse-Rogier, 2012). Second, it creates a body of knowledge that will contribute to an educational roadmap that conceptually integrates leadership competencies not only within international judicial processes but also as transitional justice theorists seek to strengthen legitimate legal capacities in a post conflict environment. Finally, this study will make a significant contribution for national and international justice systems to understand the theoretical role that individual leadership competences play within the international criminal court as transitional justice theorists seek to create and develop legitimate legal capacities in a post conflict environment.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are five notable limitations identified in executing this research study within the International Criminal Court. First, the center of gravity for this exploratory study rests in the access to conduct the research within the international criminal court as well as availability and cooperation of study respondents to participate in the data collection process. The second constraint is that institutional confidentiality policies for research participants assigned to the international criminal court may limit the transparency of information in answering the interview questions. The accuracy of data collected is dependent on the good faith, integrity, and openness of research participants. Therefore, it is important the researcher conveys that the study respondents' information is handled in strict confidence and reported with anonymity as a protection measure when answering interview questions. The third limitation of this research is that this study will target a small specific target of international judicial actors in particular departments or support staff and is not representative of a cross section within the international criminal court. Thus, the findings from the small sample size of participants across the international criminal court are not representative of other judicial populations. For that reason, the ability to generalize the study's findings will be a limitation to this research study (Benard & Ryan, 2010; Marczyk et al., 2005). Fourth, the research participants' conceptions and understanding of leadership related to the role of judicial actors day-to-day organizational activities within the international court may impact the research findings. Finally, financial constraints to sustain the length of time for the researcher to collect data will impair the researcher's ability not only to observe day-to-day judicial actors leadership abilities between each tripartite organ but also multi-cultural leadership competences on the organizational climate within the international criminal court.
This study will focus on current and former judicial actors within the International Criminal Court at The Hague since it is internationally recognized as the central clearinghouse of conflict resolution and transitional justice processes. The research participants span across various departments and support staff within the court with a snowball research sample size of twelve to eighteen current and former judicial actors. This will not only garner availability of research participants but also minimize the operational intrusion of court operations. Scholars suggested that in a qualitative study the data is more manageable in synthesizing and analyzing the information gathered by establishing a limited parameter of research participants (Benard & Ryan, 2010). Additionally, limited financial resources by the researcher may restrict data collection through targeted research participants participating in semi-structured interviews without conducting an in-depth observance of exhibited leadership competences by judicial actors across organizational boundaries. Additionally, Creswell (2013) suggest that researchers exploring a phenomenon use a semi-structured interview instead of a structured interview construct in order to probe and seek clarification of meaning and understanding of leadership competencies executed by judicial actors within the court. Finally, a new qualitative data analysis computer software platform instead of Nvivo not only strengthens the study's analysis with expanded multi-functionality of large amounts of information but also comprises an increase user-friendly platform.
Researcher's Perspective
Across a career in the United States Government, my experience as an expert in the subject matter of interstate and intrastate conflict management views leadership as a strategic enabler in executing transitional justice instruments as a nation transitions from conflict to sustainable peace. Along with the professional experience, the educational knowledge in international conflict resolution and management expanded the researcher's interests to include examining not only organizations that manage transitional justice instruments but also how these international organizations are led and its impact on national reconciliation. The professional and educational experiences led the researcher to believe that resolution of interstate and intrastate discourse is influenced by global leadership. These research interests led to scholarly writing and presentation at several international and regional conferences, such as the 14th International Symposium on the World Society of Victimology and the 2013 Symposium: Post Conflict and International Transitional Justice, both at the Clingendeal International Institute in The Hague. Concomitantly, transitional justice scholar-practitioners from these conferences equipped the researcher with the requisite expertise and background on the international criminal court.
Assumptions of the Study
This study will be conducted under the following assumptions. First, the researcher assumes that the International Criminal Court will provide unfettered access to interview former and current judicial actors, department heads, and support staffs as well as study participants cooperation to voluntary participate in the research study. Second, the information conveyed to the researcher by study participants about supervisors, personal stories and experiences, and observable behavior is attributable for data collection and reporting. Therefore, the researcher assumed that, within an informed consent, information explicitly expressed by study participants to the researcher was strictly confidential and reported with coding constructs to preserve personal attribution of study respondents (Benard & Ryan, 2010; Marczyk et al., 2005). Third, the researcher had access to published and unpublished secondary information from historical documents, speeches, videos, and applicable transcripts to review for thematic analysis and patterns of demonstrated leadership competences by department heads and support staff. Fourth, the research participants in tripartite organs within the international criminal court are culturally diverse to explore and report intercultural leadership competences necessary to lead in a multicultural environment. Finally, the researcher presumed that study participants understood the context and meaning between management and leadership principles and behaviors in the execution of organizational goals and objectives.
General Plan of the Study
Chapter one has provided an introduction as a scene setter for a research study by conceptually examining leadership within the international transitional justice system. Furthermore, background of the study, statement of the problem, research purpose and questions, significance of the study, definition of terms and assumptions, limitations, and delimitations were presented and discussed. Chapter Two provides a literature review of current theoretical leadership frameworks and international transitional justice constructs. Chapter Three describes the methodology of the research and data collection procedures employed to answer the research question.
Chapter Two
Introduction
In a post conflict environment, the challenge for leaders of international institutions and transitional governments is how to prioritize the demands between political interests, economic development, and legal accountability toward sustainable peace and security. This literature review examines transitional justice instruments as a critical pillar of legal accountability in the aftermath of state or non-state conflict. Recently, an emerging body of knowledge recognized the role leadership plays in the execution of transitional justice instruments. The purpose of this study is to explore individual leadership competences of current, former, and support staff of international judicial actors within the International Criminal Court.
This literature review begins by presenting the international criminal court (ICC) as not only a critical transitional justice instrument but also weave strands of leadership concepts to understand the competences of international judicial actors as leaders. Therefore, addressing the historical development of transitional justice as a conceptual means toward redressing past human rights violations provides an understanding of the creation for an international criminal court. Next, review of the literature revealed that formative researchers view the development of the international criminal court and its general and tailored deterrence principles shape the leadership competences within Office of the Prosecutor, Registry, and President of the Court organs of the international criminal court (Bell, 2009; DeGreiff, 2009; Henham, 2008). Third, the literature indicated that accountability is not only a leadership competence but also one of the central pillars of transitional justice concepts (Gready, Boesten, Crawford, &Wilding, 2012; Meernik, Nichols, & King, 2010; Quinn, 2009; Thoms, Ron, & Paris, 2010). Thus, exploring the accountability of judicial actors between the different of organs contributes to answering the research question on leadership competences. Finally, this literature review concludes by presenting a framework identifying individual leadership competences and characteristics along with internationally accepted professional competences and characteristics of judicial actors.
Bell (2009) notes that transitional justice practices are fragmented with no coherent integration between international humanitarian law and operational leadership practices of transitional justice instruments. However, scholars argue that it is important to understand the leader's competencies and their significant role in the execution of transitional justice instruments in order to develop effective political reconciliation and democratized governance structures in the aftermath of state discourse (Chatagnier, Mintz, & Samban 2012; Chiozza & Goemans, 2011; Markowitsch & Plaimauer 2009; Mendenhall et al., 2013).
Research studies by the Human Rights and Transitional Justice 2011 World Development Report (2011) present arguments that if a leader's role to prosecute human rights violations is not researched, the cycle of violence will continue. For that reason, critics and scholars agree that the significance of transitional justice as a strategic tool of statecraft is dependent on the judicial actors' individual leadership ability to build coalitions, persuade state leaders to cooperate, along with problem solving, strategic decision making, and the diplomatic skills (Buckly-Zistel, et al., 2014; Cashman, 2014; Mendenhall et al., 2013; Zaccaro, 2007). Hence, pivotal research by Eberlin and Tantum (2008) shows that delivering social justice is influenced by the individual leadership competencies of judicial actors. Thus, there is a demand signal to understand how organizational leaders shape transitional justice outcomes. In this next section, the researcher presents the historical development of transitional justice as a conceptual means toward redressing past human rights violations.
Transitional Justice Historical Background
The historical transitional justice literature suggests the loosely confederated mechanisms for governance and societal development spanned several hundred years (DiCicco, 2003; Duthie, 2009). For the purposes of this research, reviewing the historical background provides a backdrop of how jurists' leadership competences play an important role in shaping the development and codification of legal regimes in the aftermath of interstate conflict (Livy et al., 2002). In this study, a jurist refers to a judge, prosecutor, and court administrator within the context of an international criminal court. Hence, academic literature shows jurists as presenting legal opinions, commentaries as edicts, and playing advisory roles in negotiating treatises, while the role of judges and magistrates was to render judgments and penalties (Livy et al., 2002).
The academic literature clearly points out that, historically, legal regimes were developed to resolve territorial disputes, economic disparity, and religious tension through treaties, cease fire ceremonies, and ethnic rituals to prevent conflict. In particular, Baylis et al. (2008) provide a historical context that depicts the emergence of Greek, Roman, Chinese, and Ottoman empires and how leaders controlled legal regimes through a set of inter-communal customary laws to resolve certain kinds of interstate discourse. To illustrate, research by Jeff Matteson (2013) in Roman Emperors: The Complete Guide to List of Roman Emperors, Holy Emperors, Best Roman Emperors and More argue that different individual leadership styles by Roman leaders influenced the jurisprudence development of the Empire. On the one hand, DiCicco (2003) and Livy, De Sincourt, Olivie, and Oakley (2002) note that Roman leaders developed the Law of Twelve as the primary legal regime, rooted in Etruscan religion at the time, and codified in 451450 B.C. as a basis for social protection and civil rights between different classes of Roman society. One the other hand, Baylis et al. (2008) and DiCicco (2003) posit that scholars know very little of the role prosecutors and magistrates played as leaders within the development of Roman society. At first, the reference to Roman leadership was generally discussed in the literature with no specific mention of judicial individual leader competencies or behaviors. Lane (2011), Matteson (2013), and James (2007) suggest that apprenticeship and mentoring programs provided leadership training and education. In particular, apprenticeship and mentoring programs in the study of law formed a pool of magistrates and jurists. This is an important point that comparative to today's judicial actors within the international court, magistrates and jurists are considered to have played critical roles as civil leaders, negotiators, and diplomats within Roman society (James, 2007; Matteson, 2013). Above all, Roman society viewed magistrates and jurists as civil servant leaders and impartial protectorates of the Law of Twelve. In essence, archival studies note that in the deliverance of justice and execution of state affairs, constructive or destructive leaders steer the direction of political, economic, and human security (Tsai, 2009).
Definition of Transitional Justice
Transitional justice scholars such as Jon Elster and Gary Bass contend that historical judicial processes conducted over the last two milieus have shaped contemporary formulas of transitional justice in response to interstate conflict (Arthur, 2009). The analysis noted that the integration of international legal norms, application of conflict resolution measures, the political pressure for accountability, and accurate narratives of committed mass atrocities are shaped by leaders executing transitional justice instruments. In the evolution of transitional justice, multiple concepts and definitions have emerged. In an effort to conceptualize the evolution, Teital (2003) defines transitional justice as "justice associated with periods of political change, characterized by legal responses to confront the wrongdoings of past repressive regimes" (p. 69). According to DeGrieff (2010), transitional justice is defined as “the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society's attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation” (p. 17).
According to Skarr and Weilhabahm (2013), the definition of transitional justice comprises a "set of judicial and non-judicial measures that have been implemented by different countries in order to redress the legacies of massive human rights abuses. These measures include criminal prosecutions, truth commissions, reparations programs, and various kinds of institutional reforms" (p. 119). In broader context, Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General (2004) defines transitional justice as: the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society's attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation. These may include both judicial and non-judicial mechanisms, with differing levels of international involvement (or none at all) and individual prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, vetting and dismissals, or a combination thereof. (para. 8)
Given the multiple definitions and lack of operationalized consensus by transitional justice scholars, one can infer that definitional and operational fragmentation may reflect the challenge of reaching a consensus on the conceptual development, methodological research, and conduct of empirical analysis. Nevertheless, Teital (2002), Teital (2008), and Villalba (2011) argue that the concept of transitional justice as an instrument to redress human rights violations in a post conflict environment has evolved as an integral pillar within the international security architecture. Furthermore, the concept of transitional justice is gaining prominence as a field of study.
Concept of Transitional Justice
The concept of transitional justice was coined by Ruti Teital in the early 1990s in response to a wave of increased violence resulting from societal and political shifts within Latin America, Eastern Europe, and African countries as well as developing countries after the fall of the Soviet Union (Fletcher, Weinstein, & Rowen, 2009; Teital, 2008; Teital, 2010). Moreover, Arthur (2009) argues that the concept of transitional justice has roots from the ancient Athenian times through Nuremberg to present times as a means to redress the legacy of past human rights violations. Therefore, political and social scholars have struggled to not only define and understand transitional justice but also develop effective ways for societies to transition from the effects of state or intrastate conflict toward a sustainable peace (Roht-Arriaza & Mariezcurrena, 2006; Skaar & Wiebelhaus-Brahm, 2013a). According to Bonacker and Buckley-Zistel (2013), the concept of transitional justice is referred to as processes of dealing with the aftermath of violent conflicts and human rights abuses in order to provide for a peaceful future. It makes use of a number of instruments and mechanisms - including tribunals, truth commissions, memory work, and reparations which aim at uncovering the truth about past crimes, putting past wrongs right, holding perpetrators accountable, vindicating the dignity of victim-survivors, and contributing to reconciliation. (p. 4) The goal of transitional justice is to holistically transform the predecessor regime into a new regime through "political, economic, cultural, sociological, and psychological actions: prosecutions, truth and reconciliation commissions, lustration, public apology, public access to police and government records, public memorials, reburials of victims, compensations, reparations, literary and historical writings, and blanket or individual amnesty" (Andrieu, 2010, para. 6). The conception of transitional justice derived from three interrelated principles: human rights, conflict resolution, and international intervention strategies for human security (Bell, 2009; Posner & Vermeule, 2010).
These principles discussed by Posner and Vermeule (2010) argue that the concepts of transitional justice mechanisms are "to reveal the identities of collaborators or perpetrators, and the nature of their activities " (p. 5). As a result, practitioners spanned "across a range of disciplines, including studies in anthropology, development , economics, education, ethics, history, philosophy, political science, psychology, sociology and theology" (p. 9). Consequently, the evolution of transitional justice broadened as an interdisciplinary field of study (Bell, 2009). To this end, transitional justice instruments developed as an interdisciplinary field that conceptually created societal confidence building measures within a national and international legal architecture to hold perpetrators accountable. In essence, the central aim of transitional leaders is to use soft power as a means to provide human security and infrastructure development, rebuilding legal institutions, and national reconciliation and forgiveness as a sense of closure for victims who experienced war crimes, genocide, and other mass atrocities (Andrieu, 2010; Nye, 2010; Skarr &Weilhabahm, 2013; Teital, 2003; Villalba, 2011).
Bell confirms that the concept of transitional justice is a distinct brand of justice that draws on social sciences and other disciplinary fields. However, the criticism is that transitional justice research is problematic because of the complexity and dependency of the leaders ability integrating the relationship of national instruments of power and donor pressure for immediate results. Bell (2009) contends that research aims to determine how we can measure whether transitional justice delivers on the goals on which it lays claim. Emerging empirical works attempt to study the phenomenon of transitional justice through qualitative research methods while also increasingly trying to quantify the relationship between transitional justice and its asserted goals. (p. 11)
In the same way, Bell (2009) criticizes transitional justice as a field of study, thereby challenging conventional perspectives and positions. One of the major challenges is that the international criminal court (ICC) lacks the authority to apprehend and execute arrest warrants (Schiff, 2008; Skarr &Weilhabahm, 2013). That said, a starting point for Bell's (2009) criticism is that transitional justice is contextually manipulated by political leaders. For example, in research by Wegner (2012) indicates the political leadership within the Government of Uganda (GoU) and the international community has a valid claim that the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has engaged in systematic crimes against humanity and war crimes against non-combatants in northern Uganda. Both the leadership with the GoU and the international community has an interest in seeing culpable persons brought to justice. On the other hand, the GoU leadership has been unable to end a devastating insurgency over a protracted period of time. The Rome Statute does not address amnesty and it is not clear whether the GoU would still grant it to Kony (leader of the Lord's Resistance Army). Moreover, the LRA leaders have been unwilling to end the rebellion without legal protection from the International Criminal Court. This places the International Criminal Court in a difficult position, wanting to see justice but not wanting to be an obstacle to peace in a war torn region.
Bell's criticism acknowledges that transitional justice deals with legacy abuses as societies transition from autocratic to liberal democratic forms of government, but questions its conceptual value as an international tool for national reconciliation. One of the criticisms is that the international community established transitional justice as a global instrument to address the mass atrocities of autocratic leaders based on the cooperation of the international community.
Nye (2010) suggests that the use of soft power in the context of transitional justice employs intangible assets to influence and persuade the cooperation of rogue leaders away from coercive actions and toward adherence of international legal norms. The cooperation of deploying transitional justice instruments to address the legacy of ethnic and religious cleansing depends on the cessation climate of hostilities derived from peace agreements or from victory on the battlefield. The argument centers on the debate of the political pressure established by international governmental organizations and international policy makers to apply international law to hold perpetrators accountable along with other political goals at all costs.
Second, her criticism notes that there is a disconnect between judicial leaders applying ordinary international legal norms that address global criminal activity and the political will of implementing the rule of law when the leadership of many countries is marked with political corruption. However, research studies by Dancy (2010) and Fletcher, Weinstein, and Rowen (2009) posit that international and regional support for transitional leaders commitment to the rule of law and accountability of perpetrators who committed human rights violations.
Development of the International Criminal Court
Analysis of the academic literature showed that the first test for the international community in response to the moral condemnation of ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities was to establish a legal framework to address and prosecute those responsible for committing human rights violations during World War II. The International Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT) and International Military Tribunal (IMT) for the Far East were designed by the victors of World War II as an international judicial process to hold leaders responsible for the mass atrocities, war crimes, and crimes against humanity experienced during the conflict (Kritz, 1995, Schabas, 2008; Teital, 2002, Teital, 2008). Interview with International Criminal Court Deputy Prosecutor and Prosecutor Elect H. E. Ms. Fatou Bensouda (2012), Guerreiro (2013), Schabas (2011), and Schiff (2008) posit that experiences and lessons learned from both the IMT at Nuremberg and IMT for the Far East set the stage for the development of contemporary international humanitarian law, the International Criminal Court, and today's transitional justice system.
Transitional justice scholars point out that the international community created the International Criminal Court as the primary transitional justice instrument to conduct criminal trials in the prosecution of individuals who commit the gravest of international crimes, build trust for civic institutional reforms, and initiate national reconciliation policies (Buckley-Zistel et al., 2014; Greiff, 2010). As previously discussed, the Rome Statute, a treaty-based document, establishes the broad mandate and governance standards for the International Criminal Court with oversight by the All State Parties. According to Building the International Criminal Court by Schiff (2008), the International Criminal Court is an independent, permanent court established by the international community with the aim to hold accountable individuals who are accused of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Presently, there are 123 countries that have ratified the Rome Statute or accepted the court's jurisdiction.
The Rome Statute under Articles 36, 42, and 43 describes the qualifications of principal judicial actors within the tripartite organs, who are nominated by member states and elected by all state party (ASP) members. The Rome Statute highlights the critical individual competences for judicial actors within the international criminal courts as possessing high moral character, impartiality, integrity, and ethical behavior. According to the International Criminal Court Strategic Plan 2012, the court as a learning organization is to be administratively transparent and accountable, maintain judicial and prosecutorial independence, fight against impunity, and deter human rights violations (Tricomm, 2013).
Legal scholars indicate the sole responsibility within the international criminal court for judges is to maintain judicial independence as well as to apply and interpret the law in order to render a judgment in the cases that come before the court (Geyh, 2011; Terris el al., 2007). Additionally, international judges must exercise neutrality and interpret the law, while international prosecutors lead the court by investigating and maintaining the rule of law through independent decision making, presenting evidence that persuades decision makers to a certain outcome, and diplomatically negotiating with state actors to enforce the rule of law under international human rights legal principles (Geyh, 2011). More importantly, one of the leadership competencies of the international registry are to lead the court as administrator, operational manager, and liaison between external stakeholders in support of operational requirements.
Transitional Justice Literature Gap
Within a broader historical context, research suggests a lack of a theoretical understanding and application of transitional justice practices rests with insufficient leadership in the historical evolution of international law (Castillo, 2010; DeGuzman, 2008). The literature identifies transitional justice as a key human security and institutional development tool to address past human rights violations and deter the cycle of future violence. However, transitional justice as a concept is relatively new and no theoretical frame works exist (Bonacker & Buckley-Zistel, 2013; Buckley-Zistel et al., 2014; Greiff, 2010; Skarr, 2013a). As a result, "by 2004, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan publicly formalized the UN's normative commitment to transitional justice in his seminal report” (Bell, 2009, p. 9). As a practice oriented discipline "it almost seems as if theorists are needed. Theorists are so compelled to think that the field ought to slow down so that it can be investigated if the basic concepts used are to be really coherent and consistent" (Buckley-Zistel et al., 2014, p. 2). Dancy (2010) note that transitional justice "outcomes are inherently difficult to measure, such as reconciliation, justice, and healing ...better conceptual clarity is thus essential. That scholars cannot agree on what justice or reconciliation 'look like' is unsurprising ... reconciliation means different things to different people" (p. 367). Therefore, empirically measuring the supportive tools that influence the prosecutorial strategy and the impact of leaders within the court is politically problematic (Akhavan, 2009; Buckly-Zistel, et al.,2014; Chiozza & Goemans, 2011; Dancy, 2010; Mendenhall et al., 2013).
Scholars contend that the challenge of conducting empirical research for transitional justice stems from the fact that changes within the variables, such as jurisprudence strategies, state cooperation and perpetrator accountability, and national reconciliation efforts makes empirical research impossible. Thus, as there lacks a theoretical understanding of transitional justice instruments, one could argue that there lacks an empirical understanding of organizational leadership frameworks within the pillar of international judicial actors. That said, it is important to identify leadership competences of within the tripartite organs in order to generate a body of knowledge that explores judicial actors as leaders within the national and international judicial systems. In essence, this study bridges the theoretical leadership and conceptual transitional justice gap. The development of leaders within the International Criminal Court is discussed in the following section.
[...]
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.