Public inquiry into state violence: the epistemic question

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines the problem of recent UK public inquiries into military controversies both in general (the waging of war) and particular (individual killings). It first sets out their potential and actual value as well as the critiques that threaten their legitimacy. Arguing that the benefits of the process make the public inquiry worthy as an apt intra-state device for uncovering unlawful military violence, revealing the ‘truth’ of a matter, apportioning responsibility and changing practices, it then asks whether or how this promise might be better fulfilled by addressing some of its identified conceptual and practical flaws? The article then focuses on the epistemic dimension, arguing that if public inquiry is to serve as a valid truth-seeking mechanism, it will first need to address not only the identification of what and whose knowledge should be sought through inquiry (the general epistemic question), but also the way in which that knowledge is to be found and presented (the zetetic question). Without attending to both matters, reforming the current statutory framework of the Inquiries Act 2005, public inquiry into military wrongs is likely to disappoint as an independent, impartial and inclusive process that fails to satisfy basic accountability norms.