Competence and Just War

Abstract

This article argues that the Just War tradition would do well to consider the importance of competence – and that doing so would invigorate debates about the use of organized violence. The article defends this argument through several moves. First, inspired by Aristotle’s thoughts on phronesis and chance, we view competence as a practice among those who, as a matter of course, engage in practical reasoning that takes into account the contingency of political action. Second, following from Arendt, competence can be considered that which foregrounds means over ends. Third, because competence is a continuous and more vigilant consideration of justice within war, it extends through both jus ad bellum and jus in bello principles, including the ‘proper authority’ and ‘reasonable chance for success’ conditions of the former, and the ‘double effect’ doctrine discussed in the latter. The article concludes by acknowledging the challenges presented by an overemphasis on competence, before ultimately restating its purchase for Just War debates in the twenty-first century.

De-colonizing the political ontology of Kantian ethics: A quantum perspective

“…Morality is a sentiment , not an abstraction, and can be improved through empathy (Rorty, 1989). Others have followed this path and pointed to the relevance of practices for sound ethical decisions (Amoureux and Steele, 2014; Kennedy, 2004, 2006; Mac Ginty and Williams, 2009; Onuf, 2009; Zanotti, 2019).…”

Questioning universalism, devising an ethics without foundations: An exploration of international relations ontologies and epistemologies

“…Furthermore, Kennedy argues, universal human rights discourses and the practices they elicit have too often avoided careful consideration for the effects and trade-offs they produce and for the political and distributive consequences they entail. In criticizing Just War theories, Amoureux and Steele (2014) argued the evaluation of political choices needs not to be limited to “intentions” but must rely upon “competent” assessment of the means through which any given action will be carried out and of how a situation would “look like” as a result. As they aptly put it, “if Just War, as both thought and practice, fails to deal with the political, it will ring hollow as an ethical guide for foreign policy, as it already does for many, particularly among the ‘unintended’ objects of its violence” (Amoureux and Steele, 2014: 68).…”

“…In this vein, Amoureux and Steele (2014) argued political choices must be based on “competence,” that is, “a sort of practical wisdom that privileges the means of action” over intentions (Amoureux and Steele, 2014: 69). For instance in making decisions about going to war, “competent” authorities must consider not only the ends of intervention but also its means and consequences.…”

“…Scholars have critically addressed the limits of universal normativity as the foundation of ethics (Amoureux and Steele, 2014; Connolly, 2013; Kennedy, 2004, 2006; Kuperman, 2008; Lang, 2009; Mac Ginty, 2011; Onuf, 2009; Zanotti, 2011). In the meantime, as a recent issue of the European Journal of International Relations (2013) testifies, International Relations (IR) has taken a reflexive turn on its own theorizing and conceptual apparatus.…”

Is faster better? Political and ethical framings of pace and space

“…Turning more toward ethical judgment, slowing down can mean taking time to attend to the particulars of politics and ethics in view of complexity, contingency 6 And perhaps politics itself, as Virilio believed (Hutchings 2008, 133-35), and as seen in the 'chronopolitical logic' of real-time in cyber security (Stevens 2015). and the difficulty of making good decisions, and cultivating competence in drawing on reason and affect together as in discussions of Aristotle and world politics (Lang 2002;Brown 2012;Amoureux and Steele 2014;Amoureux 2016). Hannah Arendt's view of thinking and its temporality is especially intriguing as it more explicitly adds space to time in figuring reflexive devices.…”