Discourses and realities of Judicial role in International security Relations: the Case of the Kenyan Judiciary and the War on Terror (2006 - 2016)

Abstract

The discourses and realities of judicial institutional behavior in the adjudication of terrorism cases is the subject of this study between 2006 and 2016. A convergence of Buzan’s conception of security and the Lockean prerogative of power anchoring international legal institutionalism, provide a conceptual framework of analysis for this study. The global escalation in the number and intensity of terror attacks and the subsequent resolutions passed by the UNSC, animated the need for international judicial cooperation. The ratification of these resolutions by Kenya, parallel to national security imperatives enhanced the judicial role function in the fight against terror. This study analyses and examines differentiated actor discourses and realities of judicial role function in the fight against terrorism. The study also interrogates how judicial adjudication of terrorism cases mediates Kenya’s international security relations. This study further proffers research based policy options geared towards positively enhancing the role of the judiciary in the global security agenda. This study is centered on the contention that in the fight against terrorism in Kenya, the executive is determined to use its prerogative of power in apparent disregard of the law in a bid to root out terrorism. This is countered by the judicial role function, which, seeks to bring all measures taken by the executive within the ambit of the law. The foregoing leads to differentiated actor discourses when judicial adjudication overrules executive measures for being in contravention of the law.