Without a doubt, in different chapters of our lives, we come in contact with naysayers. People who claim to have a solid grasp on a particular issue, and who belittle those that don’t conform to their narrow world view. In College, I entertained the idea of a Fulbright grant. I thought then, as I do now, a year abroad working on a project of my design sounded like a good a time as any. After taking one look at me, the Fulbright liaison at my college told me that I wouldn’t cut it and that I shouldn’t put my effort into an application. Besides the fact that this woman didn’t belong in a place of nurturing like a university, I felt rejected, and I never did apply for that grant.
Without much sense, I allowed this woman’s lack of belief to stick around for a number of years. By the summer of 2011, my internal feelings and beliefs about rejection had shifted. Law school gave me a lot of experience in rejection, and I had a stack of letters to prove it. Almost numb to, and certainly not fearful of, the idea of another rejection letter, I bucked that women’s senseless burden, and I came up with a proposal for a Fulbright Grant. This is that proposal:
Most judicial reform and development is analyzed by quantifiable numbers: docket size, length of time between pleading and trial, judges’ salaries, file system, hiring process, etc. Without a doubt, all of these factors are important to watch and understand as a judiciary grows. However, I don’t think these numbers are enough. In order to compliment on going analysis of judicial reform, I proposed to compile interviews with current judges to understand the institutional narrative that exists around the reform itself.
This might sound unquantifiable and subjective, and that is because it is; but, I think there is good a reason for it. In countries with a new judiciary (or even an established one), it is hard to rely on institutional mechanisms to check ethical and legal transgressions. It is also hard to know that reform measures will stick. That being the case, the best chance for growth and reform within a judiciary is not to look at it as a single organism, but rather as a grouping of fallible human beings that wield a lot of power. The goal of judicial reform should be to create an environment where the individual judges are invested in the reform and the institution to achieve self-regulation. I feel the best way to achieve this goal is to understand the judge’s point of view and to tailor the reform to what will best invest the judge into the reform. Simply put, successful judicial reform should make the judge invested in the reform process and so they are their own oversight mechanism.
I plan on doing this through a rhetorical analysis tool called “narrative theory”. Communications experts usually use this theory to assess ad campaigns, political speeches, and books. My twist on narrative theory will be to apply it to a legal institution. To the best of my knowledge, this hasn’t been done before. Perhaps, there is a reason for that; however, in my overly confident optimism, I think this is a viable project for the coming year.
Looking at judicial reform in this way is uniquely important in Kosovo. Until 2010, Kosovo’s judiciary was operating on a Yugoslavian law from 1978. Since independence from Serbia in 2008, the judiciary has been fundamentally restructured: a new constitution enshrining the independence of judges was created (2008), judicial salaries were increased (2011), and the establishment of a constitutional court took place (2009). My proposed research will take place during further implementation of reforms that include: reappointment of all 329 judicial posts (2008-present), making the judicial ethics code binding on judges (started in 2011), and restructuring the appeals process (2013). Structural reform is happening at such a rapid rate, that to not understand the personal affects on recently re-appointed judges is to almost wish the reforms to fail.
Working with the Kosovar Institute for Policy and Research and Development, I hope to connect with judges in Pristina and other cities in Kosovo to better understand their feelings and professional concerns regarding the current reforms. Memories of the above mentioned reforms remain fresh amongst judges, and therefore the sooner the surveys and interviews take place the more reliable and accurate they will be. The Kosovar judiciary, according to the ABA in 2010, still struggles with morale and identity problems. These problems are crucial to overcome but not easily understood by current research. I hope that I am able to shed some light on these identity struggles to help, in a small way, Kosovo get closer to a stable rule of law and a functioning judiciary.
As you likely know, this was a successful proposal, and I dodged one more rejection letter. I couldn’t be any more excited, or lucky, to have my personal, professional, and academic interests meet in Kosovo. As I prepare for my time to assess judicial reform in Kosovo, I hope to use this new approach and my own experiences as a guide and not quickly evaluate any one judge too harshly or naysay any reform too quickly. As it turns out, those baseless, snap judgments may just push a good thing away.
Without much sense, I allowed this woman’s lack of belief to stick around for a number of years. By the summer of 2011, my internal feelings and beliefs about rejection had shifted. Law school gave me a lot of experience in rejection, and I had a stack of letters to prove it. Almost numb to, and certainly not fearful of, the idea of another rejection letter, I bucked that women’s senseless burden, and I came up with a proposal for a Fulbright Grant. This is that proposal:
Most judicial reform and development is analyzed by quantifiable numbers: docket size, length of time between pleading and trial, judges’ salaries, file system, hiring process, etc. Without a doubt, all of these factors are important to watch and understand as a judiciary grows. However, I don’t think these numbers are enough. In order to compliment on going analysis of judicial reform, I proposed to compile interviews with current judges to understand the institutional narrative that exists around the reform itself.
This might sound unquantifiable and subjective, and that is because it is; but, I think there is good a reason for it. In countries with a new judiciary (or even an established one), it is hard to rely on institutional mechanisms to check ethical and legal transgressions. It is also hard to know that reform measures will stick. That being the case, the best chance for growth and reform within a judiciary is not to look at it as a single organism, but rather as a grouping of fallible human beings that wield a lot of power. The goal of judicial reform should be to create an environment where the individual judges are invested in the reform and the institution to achieve self-regulation. I feel the best way to achieve this goal is to understand the judge’s point of view and to tailor the reform to what will best invest the judge into the reform. Simply put, successful judicial reform should make the judge invested in the reform process and so they are their own oversight mechanism.
I plan on doing this through a rhetorical analysis tool called “narrative theory”. Communications experts usually use this theory to assess ad campaigns, political speeches, and books. My twist on narrative theory will be to apply it to a legal institution. To the best of my knowledge, this hasn’t been done before. Perhaps, there is a reason for that; however, in my overly confident optimism, I think this is a viable project for the coming year.
Looking at judicial reform in this way is uniquely important in Kosovo. Until 2010, Kosovo’s judiciary was operating on a Yugoslavian law from 1978. Since independence from Serbia in 2008, the judiciary has been fundamentally restructured: a new constitution enshrining the independence of judges was created (2008), judicial salaries were increased (2011), and the establishment of a constitutional court took place (2009). My proposed research will take place during further implementation of reforms that include: reappointment of all 329 judicial posts (2008-present), making the judicial ethics code binding on judges (started in 2011), and restructuring the appeals process (2013). Structural reform is happening at such a rapid rate, that to not understand the personal affects on recently re-appointed judges is to almost wish the reforms to fail.
Working with the Kosovar Institute for Policy and Research and Development, I hope to connect with judges in Pristina and other cities in Kosovo to better understand their feelings and professional concerns regarding the current reforms. Memories of the above mentioned reforms remain fresh amongst judges, and therefore the sooner the surveys and interviews take place the more reliable and accurate they will be. The Kosovar judiciary, according to the ABA in 2010, still struggles with morale and identity problems. These problems are crucial to overcome but not easily understood by current research. I hope that I am able to shed some light on these identity struggles to help, in a small way, Kosovo get closer to a stable rule of law and a functioning judiciary.
As you likely know, this was a successful proposal, and I dodged one more rejection letter. I couldn’t be any more excited, or lucky, to have my personal, professional, and academic interests meet in Kosovo. As I prepare for my time to assess judicial reform in Kosovo, I hope to use this new approach and my own experiences as a guide and not quickly evaluate any one judge too harshly or naysay any reform too quickly. As it turns out, those baseless, snap judgments may just push a good thing away.
