Abstract

This article considers the problem of conciliation of military authority and peacekeepers’ autonomy. At first glance there is a tension between authority and autonomy in many areas of human life like religion, political life, national soldiering and even peacekeeping missions. The core of this tension is the practical contradiction between authority, which implies reason for controlling the behaviour of others, and the autonomy of the others, which involves reason for self-governing. This article proposes a distinction in peacekeepers’ autonomy between professional and moral autonomy, and suggests a way of explaining away the tension. The essential part of the solution is the claim that peacekeepers’ professional autonomy involves ‘building the moral community’ between the formerly hostile sides of a conflict within the confines of international military hierarchy. From this claim I draw the conclusions that the concept of military authority is part of the concept of peacekeepers’ professional autonomy, and that due to the content of peacekeepers’ professional autonomy, peacekeepers’ special moral autonomy is extended as compared to civilian moral autonomy.

Highlights

  • The conundrumAre supposed to have, important moral or morally relevant character traits

  • This article considers the problem of conciliation of military authority and peacekeepers’ autonomy

  • The essential part of the solution is the claim that peacekeepers’ professional autonomy involves ‘building the moral community’ between the formerly hostile sides of a conflict within the confines of international military hierarchy. From this claim I draw the conclusions that the concept of military authority is part of the concept of peacekeepers’ professional autonomy, and that due to the content of peacekeepers’ professional autonomy, peacekeepers’ special moral autonomy is extended as compared to civilian moral autonomy

Read more

Summary

The conundrum

Are supposed to have, important moral or morally relevant character traits. Tripodi believes that moral autonomy is vital for soldiers because he thinks it is essential that soldiers take the decisions that are morally right in unanticipated situations He argues that one of the multiple factors which led to the massacre of civilians in Rwanda in ­1994 and Srebrenica in ­1995 was the training characteristics of peacekeepers, and that for two reasons. If Tripodi is right, some human rights catastrophes could be prevented by claiming moral autonomy for soldiers and training them to make morally relevant decisions. Thinking further along those lines, some additional suggestions can be proposed to complement Tripodi’s own. I intend to first present the relationship between these apparently opposing terms; I will argue that peacekeepers have a special kind of professional autonomy, a special competence which differs from soldiers’ professional autonomy but which accommodates military authority; and I will conclude that the professional autonomy of peacekeepers has special implication for moral autonomy of them

About military authority and autonomy in general
Defending civilians
Building of moral community
International military hierarchy
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call