Personnel Managers and Crisis Situations. Emotion-handling Strategies

This study focuses on personnel managers in crisis situations. The interviewed personnel managers referred to emotions as a central element to be dealt with in a crisis. However, until recently, the exploration of emotions in organisational life has been de-emphasised or ignored. This study aims to bring to the surface aspects of personnel work that have so far been neglected or remained invisible. It specifically examines how personnel managers handle employees’ and their own emotions in a crisis. Based on the interviews, a number of emotional episodes were constructed. They describe the type and context of the crisis and the person(s) whose emotions are handled. The main findings of the study are the five emotion-handling strategies that could be constructed from the data. The negotiation-like manner in which personnel managers handled emotions in crisis situations proved especially interesting. They were actually negotiating emotional value for their organisations. Further, they handled their own emotions within the frame of two logics of appropriateness labelled mothering and guide-following. The episodes described also enabled identification of the values enacted by the personnel managers in handling emotions. The study provides descriptive information on emotion handling, a current and relevant feature in the practice of personnel management. It seeks to offer a frame for developing practical principles that can be helpful in a crisis. It also offers the opportunity to consider a variety of difficult situations that personnel managers may confront in their work.

An Axiom of Military Law : Applicability of National Criminal Law to Military Personnel and Associated Civilians Abroad

States regularly deploy elements of their armed forces abroad. When that happens, the military personnel concerned largely remain governed by the penal law of the State that they serve. This extraterritorial extension of national criminal law, which has been treated as axiomatic in domestic law and ignored by international law scholarship, is the subject of this dissertation. The first part of the study considers the ambit of national criminal law without any special regard to the armed forces. It explores the historical development of the currently prevailing system of territorial law and looks at the ambit that national legal systems claim today. Turning then to international law, the study debunks the oddly persistent belief that States enjoy a freedom to extend their laws to extraterritorial conduct as they please, and that they are in this respect constrained only by some specific prohibitions in international law. Six arguments historical, empirical, ideological, functional, doctrinal and systemic are advanced to support a contrary view: that States are prohibited from extending the reach of their legal systems abroad, unless they can rely on a permissive principle of international law for doing so. The second part of the study deals specifically with State jurisdiction in a military context, that is to say, as applied to military personnel in the strict sense (service members) and various civilians serving with or accompanying the forces (associated civilians). While the status of armed forces on foreign soil has transformed from one encapsulated in the customary concept of extraterritoriality to a modern regulation of immunities granted by treaties, elements of armed forces located abroad usually do enjoy some degree of insulation from the legal system of the host State. As a corollary, they should generally remain covered by the law of their own State. The extent of this extraterritorial extension of national law is revealed in a comparative review of national legislation, paying particular attention to recent legal reforms in the United States and the United Kingdom two states that have sought to extend the scope of their national law to cover the conduct of military contractor personnel. The principal argument of the dissertation is that applying national criminal law to service members and associated civilians abroad is distinct from other extraterritorial claims of jurisdiction (in particular, the nationality principle or the protective principle of jurisdiction). The service jurisdiction over the armed forces has a distinct aim: ensuring the coherence and indivisibility of the forces and maintaining discipline. Furthermore, the exercise of service jurisdiction seeks to reduce the chances of the State itself becoming internationally liable for the conduct of its service members and associated civilians. Critically, the legal system of the troop-deploying State, by extending its reach abroad, seeks to avoid accountability gaps that might result from immunities from host State law.