Advocacy of human rights' international demands in criminal justice field and institutional complexity in Libya

This thesis addresses how human rights advocacies act to promote human rights logic in Libya and the extent to which their actions become influential on Libya Criminal Court decisions by time. It, also, seeks to investigate how institutional complexity that arises from adoption of international demands is resolved interactively in a criminal court. First, I draw attention to the literature related to adoption of international demands from a global field level to local organizational level, multiplicity of institutional logics and institutional complexity. Then, I address some empirical information about the justice field in Libya aiming to explain how legal developments led to Criminal Punishment Logic being the default logic in the justice field as against advocacy of international demands that lead to Human Rights Logic being second in order. Details of a qualitative and quantitative methodologies, based on the use of longitudinal analysis of case studies, are given. Results reveal that; first, international organizations facilitate adoption of international demands in the criminal justice field through an advocacy mechanism of human rights. Second, adoption of international demands in the criminal justice field generates institutional complexity that results in inconsistencies between institutional logics. Third, actors at organizational level use legal reasoning to promote their institutional logics. Hierarchal referral, built-in frameworks, informal agreements, and experts' reports are mechanisms of resolving inconsistencies between institutional logics. Discussion and suggestions for future research are attended to at the end of the thesis.