In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

70 Chapter 3 Serving Two Masters DualAdministration,Oversight,and Funding International and hybrid tribunals need much more than agreed legal provisions and procedural rules to operate effectively. They also require significant funding support and functioning bureaucratic institutions subject to sound oversight. Every public judicial hearing or decision is akin to the tip of an iceberg; beneath the surface are scores of administrative tasks. These are particularly important given the complexity and high profile of many of the cases. Teams of staff investigators must travel to the field, documents must move securely around the building, records must be kept, numerous visitors must be led safely in and out of the premises, and court personnel must be paid, just to name a few necessary functions.These routine-­sounding processes pose significant challenges for newly created tribunals that do not have the luxury of relying on preexisting administrative practices. Donors and court officials have to act quickly—­raising money, hiring manpower, and establishing bureaucratic procedures to meet the myriad demands of administering transitional justice. Hybrid tribunals have some potential administrative advantages. Most have been located in the country where atrocities occurred. They are thus closer to crime sites and potential witnesses, reducing the logistical difficulty and cost of mounting field investigations. They also tend to be less expensive, because national staffers generally draw lower salaries, and the cost of operations are usually lower in postconflict countries than they are in The Hague.The ECCC’s proximity to the locus delicti and involvement of Cambodian personnel offer these possible benefits. Serving Two Masters / 71 Hybrid courts also face serious administrative challenges, however. Each is largely sui generis, blending different organizational ingredients from the host country and the United Nations and opening space for jockeying between and among national and international officials about personnel, resource allocation, and procedures. The ECCC’s institutional design contains particularly serious shortcomings that would be difficult for appointed court officials to overcome. These include a split administrative structure, weak international oversight system , and shaky financial foundation. Those institutional features have adversely affected the ECCC’s function in areas including human resources, financial management, and translation.1 The ECCC’s Managerial and Financial Structures Like many of the ECCC’s institutional features, its administrative setup, oversight mechanisms, and funding structures are unique. Its administrative apparatus is divided between national and international“sides,” each funded through a separate stream and each reporting to different political masters. David Tolbert , former UN Special Expert to advise on the UN Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials, argues that this represents the “worst possible design” for an effective Court.2 Two-­Headed Administration At the top of the ECCC’s administrative structure is an Office of Administration (OA) responsible for providing administrative support to the various organs of the ECCC. The OA wields considerable power due to its role in allocating resources and responsibility for providing an array of non-­ judicial services essential for the ECCC’s work. Authority is segregated within the office. The Cambodian-­appointed OA Director is the tribunal’s top administrator but does not have ultimate authority over “matters that are subject to United Nations rules and procedures.”3 That authority belongs to an international Deputy Director, who is charged with the “recruitment and administration of all foreign staff.”4 The Framework Agreement is silent on how to resolve any conflicts between the Director and Deputy Director,5 merely asserting that they “shall cooperate in order to ensure an effective and efficient functioning of the ad- 72 / Hybrid Justice ministration.”6 The ECCC Law also offers no guidance. In practice, Cambodian staff members have generally reported to the Director, and international staffers have treated the Deputy Director as their superior.7 This possibility was clearly foreseen by the drafters of the Framework Agreement and reduces the likelihood of unity and coherence in the office.8 Beneath the OA are seven distinct administrative sections, each composed of a mix of national and international personnel. Cambodian appointees head Public Affairs, which manages communication, and the Court Management section responsible for records and archives, translation, witness and expert support, and related functions. UN appointees lead the units for information technology, safety and security, and “general services,” which refers to facilities management, transportation, mail, procurement, and related issues. The two remaining units—­ Personnel and Budget & Finance—­ have two heads each to manage their respective sides of the court.9 The ECCC also has two special stand-­alone administrative units: the Cambodian-­led Victims Support Section, which...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.