Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Work-life balance
Good news recently – as per a request of mine, I will stay in the Appeals Chamber rather than moving into the Trial Chamber. I asked for this because I really enjoy the work I’m doing – writing opinions and decisions – and like the people I’m working with. The interns in the Trial Chamber do a lot of interesting work, but some of it, to be honest, looks less than scintillating. So I’ll keep making law, yada yada. On the negative side, some have said that there is a kind of camaraderie in the trial chambers that appeals doesn’t quite have, but I don’t mind working with fewer people on a more theoretical bent. Also, I won’t be working directly on Milosevic, but I still think the work I’m doing is plenty historic.
The other difference I think reveals something about my intellectual interests. In a nutshell, I find myself more interested in the law than the facts. Of course, the subject of these trials is very interesting, but I haven’t really found myself, unlike some of my colleagues, wanting to get immersed in it. When the judges accept an indictment or deliver a judgment, it’s quite big news in the Tribunal, and most people watch the live video feed. Me, I’ll listen out of one ear, but don’t find it all that fascinating. On the other hand, I’m more than happy to have long discussions over whether you can make an order by omission, or if a standard of likely risk (as opposed to substantially likely risk) can give rise to criminal liability, or what the principles of delegation should be. It’s the old fact/theory vs. people dichotomy, and I tend to be more into the former than the latter. I certainly have misanthropic and antisocial tendencies and often feel more comfortable with non-human things, which explains I think many of my successes and failings in life.
What I find interesting, in this little fit of self-analysis, is that novels have always been my favourite reading, and they tend to be mainly about people. Maybe, however, my choice of novels says something different than that. Any pop litero-psychologist who thinks they could diagnose something from my recommended-book list is more than welcome to give it a try.
The other difference I think reveals something about my intellectual interests. In a nutshell, I find myself more interested in the law than the facts. Of course, the subject of these trials is very interesting, but I haven’t really found myself, unlike some of my colleagues, wanting to get immersed in it. When the judges accept an indictment or deliver a judgment, it’s quite big news in the Tribunal, and most people watch the live video feed. Me, I’ll listen out of one ear, but don’t find it all that fascinating. On the other hand, I’m more than happy to have long discussions over whether you can make an order by omission, or if a standard of likely risk (as opposed to substantially likely risk) can give rise to criminal liability, or what the principles of delegation should be. It’s the old fact/theory vs. people dichotomy, and I tend to be more into the former than the latter. I certainly have misanthropic and antisocial tendencies and often feel more comfortable with non-human things, which explains I think many of my successes and failings in life.
What I find interesting, in this little fit of self-analysis, is that novels have always been my favourite reading, and they tend to be mainly about people. Maybe, however, my choice of novels says something different than that. Any pop litero-psychologist who thinks they could diagnose something from my recommended-book list is more than welcome to give it a try.
