| dc.description.abstract | This study is on foreign policy decision making which has consistently been viewed through
state – centric lens; with state interests advanced as the key influence on foreign policy decision
making. This argument has held true for state relations with international legal regimes.
However, nascent studies have depicted that leaders involved in decision making are pivotal in
influencing the foreign policies of their states, hence bringing their personality into focus.
Despite these scholarly revelations, Kenyan relation with The International Criminal Court (ICC)
continues to be viewed from a state - centric perspective, with sovereignty struggles, erosion of
immunity of Kenyan leaders, and the potential of the ICC to upset peace processes in Kenya,
advanced as the main reason for the antagonistic Kenyan foreign policy towards the ICC. What
has been obscured from this debate is how the personalities of Kenyan leaders’have influenced
Kenya’s antagonistic foreign policy towards the ICC. This study delved into the discussions on
how and why leaders’ personalities influence states’ foreign policy decision making, using the
case of Kenyan relations with the ICC. The study explored how three personality traits of Uhuru
Kenyatta and William Ruto, influenced Kenya’s antagonistic foreign policy towards the ICC
between 2013 and 2017. The study was guided by Leadership Trait Analysis approach advanced
by Harmann (1980), and set out four specific objectives; to explore how nationalism of the two
Kenyan leaders’ influenced Kenya’s antagonistic foreign policy towards ICC; to explore how
Kenyan leaders’ belief in ability to control events influenced Kenya’s antagonistic foreign policy
towards ICC; to explore how Kenyan leaders’ need for power influenced Kenya’s antagonistic
foreign policy towards ICC, and to explore how and why the interplay of Kenyan leaders’
nationalism, belief in ability to control events and need for power influenced Kenya’s
antagonistic foreign relations towards the ICC. The study is premised on multiple case research
design, since it treats the two leaders as different cases, and utilizes quantitative content analysis
of speeches and interviews of the two leaders, specifically with regard to the ICC. The data was
sourced from select local and international news media houses, archived on their websites. The
research undertook purposive sampling, targeting words spoken by each leader. The words
formed the content which was analyzed using Profiler Plus software developed by Levine &
Young (2014) using a coding procedure developed by Harman (2005). The result of the analysis
was measured against a norming group of leaders developed by Hermann (2005) to determine if
the leaders are high or low in the selected personality trait, and draw deduction on motive for the
antagonistic Kenya – ICC relations between 2013 and 2017. Content analysis results revealed
that the leaders were low in all the three traits explored. This explained how and why: the leaders
built a team spirit among their group and followers with clarity of objective against the ICC,
allowed the African Union and other African leaders to take responsibility for pursuing foreign
policy actions against the ICC on behalf of Kenya, preferred the use of summits and conferences
in dealing with local opposition to their antagonistic foreign policy towards the ICC, had no clear
cut foreign policy towards the ICC, and were described as having shifty foreign policy goals on
the ICC question. The study asserted that Kenyan leaders’ personalities influenced the country’s
foreign policy towards the ICC. This called for a paradigm shift of analysis and discussions on
the strained Kenyan relations with the ICC. Within the realm of International Relations, the study
contributes to the continuing debate on state compliance and non – compliance with international
legal regimes and treaties. The study recommends that the ICC should pay attention on
personality of the leaders it seeks to prosecute, and forecast the impact that their personality traits
will have on their cases at the ICC | en_US |
