Abstract
Peacekeepers
engaged in contemporary armed conflict regularly confront ethical dilemmas and
practical trade-offs. This article investigates the relevance of virtue ethics
and, specifically, the virtue of practical wisdom in addressing these
challenges and strengthening peace operations for the 21st Century.
While virtue ethics has been applied to decision-making in several
professional fields, including law and business, it has not received a great deal
of attention within international relations, and specifically, in the field of
peacekeeping. And yet, with its emphasis on context-sensitive judgment and
social practices grounded in the moral qualities of the actor facing an
ethical dilemma, virtue ethics arguably offers an important perspective to
complement and conceptualise existing approaches to navigating the ethical
dilemmas in contemporary conflict.
Introduction
Contemporary
peacekeeping is hard. Over the past two decades, operating environments have become
increasingly complex with the fragmentation and proliferation of armed groups,
including those designated as terrorist organisations. In many contexts,
peacekeeping missions are deployed with ambitious protection mandates in the
absence of political frameworks, clear political roles, or support from host
and member states. Local and global expectations of peacekeepers continually
outstrip their resources. With these challenges, there has been a shift that
appears to be little recognised in the literature and even, at times, in the
practice of peacekeeping. It is a shift from ethical decisions being made
primarily at the overarching institutional level to their landing squarely with
individuals in the field. Peacekeepers today regularly confront moral
dilemmas and practical trade-offs, particularly when it comes to the protection
of civilians (PoC). Many of these dilemmas implicate deeper
conflicts of values (for example, sovereignty and human rights;
consent and impartiality).
A spectrum of approaches has
emerged to address these tensions and encourage United Nations (UN) staff to
‘do the right thing’ with an emphasis on creating new doctrine, norms,
institutional processes, and accountability measures.1 Good
judgment, however, often comes down to the question ‘who decides’ i.e., the
blue helmet or civilian official who must interpret the mandate and operate
within it. In short, it is about character. This fact is not lost on the
UN. The High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) identifies the
‘quality of leadership as one of the most crucial factors in the success or
failure of UN peace operations’.2 The Dos Santos Cruz report highlights the
importance of the peacekeeper ‘mindset’,3 and the Secretary-General himself has under
scored the importance of ‘clarity of mind’ and individual judgment.4
This article argues for the relevance of
virtue ethics to contemporary UN missions.
While virtue ethics has been applied to a number of professional
fields, including law and business,5 it has not
received a great deal of attention from scholars of international organisations
and international practices, and specifically in the area of peacekeeping.6 And
yet, with its emphasis on context-sensitive judgment and social practices
grounded in the moral qualities of the actor, virtue ethics offers an
important perspective to complement existing approaches to navigating the
ethical dilemmas that peacekeeping and protection invariably entail.
The last decade has seen increased
collaboration between philosophers and psychologists studying virtue and
character. This budding area of research offers insights for peacekeeping.7For
the purposes of this short article,
focuses on the virtue ethics tradition in political philosophy and,
specifically, on practical wisdom, what Aristotle considered to be the ‘maestro
virtue’, and the virtue which researchers recognise as critical to ethical
expertise and then consider the role of
institutions in cultivating character and the exercise of practical wisdom, and
finally identify four priority areas for peace operations.
Why
Virtue?
Virtue
and virtuosity share a common etymological root – the Latinvirtut –
which designates the excellences necessary to perform a valuable practice well.
Virtue ethics is one of the three main approaches in contemporary moral
philosophy. Unlike deontology, which judges action with reference to moral
rules, or consequentialism which appraises the moral worth of behaviour by its
consequences, virtue ethics emphasises the moral character of individuals and
appraises action based on what is good.
Virtue ethics as a field of study is
wide and diverse. Nonetheless, contemporary virtue scholars all locate
themselves in some way relative to Aristotle. According to Aristotle, something
is good when it does its function well. The function of humans—what
distinguishes us from other beings is our ability to reason.8 Consequently,
the purpose of human life (what Aristotle referred to as the telos) is
action in accordance with reason.
Aristotle developed an ethics from this, specifying the virtues or
character traits a person needs to develop to flourish. Over time, philosophers
have added, and subtracted, from his list to focus on different character
traits. Today, most regard honesty, courage, compassion, integrity, kindness,
self-control, practical wisdom, gratitude, humility, and fortitude as core
virtues.
Why
Practical Wisdom?
How
do we know what’s ‘good’ and then how do we act on it, particularly when our
choices may be circumscribed by external authority? For Aristotle, one virtue
practical wisdom or phronesis stood out as the ‘maestro virtue’ without
which none of the other virtues can be realized. Practical wisdom involves the knowledge and
understanding of howto act in the right way.9 It is essential because context matters. The
right amount of any of virtues is context dependent – what Martha Nussbaum
referred to as the priority of the particular.10 As Kenneth Sharpe and Barry Schwartz explain,
“Is caution a strength? Yes, ‘look before you leap’. But change the context,
and ‘she who hesitates is lost’.11 As such, what is needed is the wisdom
to know when and how to be cautious and, similarity, when and how to take
risks while avoiding recklessness.
Practical wisdom comes about through
sensitivity to context and the ability to perceive the morally salient features
of a situation, including the moral outlooks of the other individuals or groups
involved. It is a complex human characteristic or trait that includes the
following components:12
n Perceptiveness and sensitivity to
particularity; the ability to discern context and nuance.
n Prosocial skills of empathy and
compassion; the capacity to understand what someone else is thinking and
feeling. This requires good listening and the attendant traits of openness,
humility, detachment, and patience that being a good listener entail. It also
requires imagination.
n Self-awareness, including of one’s own
emotional responses and blind spots, and the skill and will to undertake the
self-reflection necessary to learn from experience and others.
n The ability to deliberate well with
others, frame problems, and recognise and interpret the perspectives of others.
The complex, ambiguous and uncertain
contexts in which peacekeepers are deployed make practical wisdom and related
virtues more necessary. Peacekeepers regularly, must balance competing goods.
Reflection, deliberation, emotional mindfulness, and know-how are critical to
making difficult choices about when and how to act.
A
Role for Institutions and Implications for Peace Operations
Character
and practical wisdom cannot, in a sense, be taught. They require experience,
acquired through practiceand processes of socialisation, as well as education
that encourage certain traits and discourage others.13 Institutions play a critical role in
cultivating character and the development of flexible and open mindsets. As
political scientist Maxwell Cameron explains, “Institutions influence the
quality of our character and thus whether we perform our roles and offices well
and achieve high standards of excellence in our conduct not just the direction
of our behaviour. But bad institutions can crush agency and destroy practical
wisdom. They can do this by demoralising agents and corrupting their
motivations, by crippling their capacity for judgment and deliberation, and by
limiting their scope of action to pursue the aims intrinsic to their
activities”.14
A growing body of work integrates
insights from virtue ethics with those in cognitive sciences and organisation
theory for institutional design that encourages more ethical decision making.15 Four
areas are particularly relevant to contemporary and future UN peace operations.
First, is the importance of dedicated
resources for sustained pre-deployment and in-mission training of all
peacekeeping personnel as well as ‘hands on’ learning opportunities that
approximate practice as much as possible?
Rather than textbook learning, a virtue approach underscores the value
of simulations that encourage improvisation and creativity (‘thinking on the
spot’) as well as trial and error.16 The space for trial and error is critical as
it helps practitioners overcome their fear of making mistakes. As Kenneth
Sharpe explains, through the creation of a safe space to ‘get it wrong’ participants
learn ‘to practice courage, the habit of facing their fears and working through
them’.17 This is of particular importance with PoC,
given the need to avoid making mistakes in practice given the very real stakes.
Furthermore, simulations and experiential modules should be accompanied by
opportunities to immediately reflect individually and collectively. The
practice of group debriefing is important in that it encourages practitioners
to develop the social skills and habits needed to reflect and deliberate
together. Recent innovations in training should be built upon and further
strengthened through more intensive and consistent induction and context
specific training, including tabletop exercises and simulations on crisis
management, protection of civilians, and real-world ethical dilemmas.
Second, and related, is the value of
ongoing managed learning through practice. Learning extends from training to
practice and includes the space for discretion, strengthening deliberative
processes, and commitment to developing contextual knowledge. Virtue ethics does not provide simple
guidelines on how to resolve difficult situations. Two ‘virtuous people’, for
example, may disagree on what should be done in a particular instance. However,
what it does to is emphasise the need for individuals and organisations to
reflect and deliberate more intentionally, openly, and honestly about their
purpose, and to provide reasoning in context for actions taken. Rather than
evaluate action based solely on abstract rules or guidelines that are removed
from the world of everyday experience, reflective questioning asks: “What were
the agents trying to do, and were they trying to do it in the right way and for
the right reasons? Did they deliberate well so that they could grasp the full
meaning of the situation? Did they have the right experience, knowledge, and
motivation for the task? Were they guided by a concern for the right ends”?18 Prioritising a continuum of learning and
knowledge accumulation also underscores the importance of practical issues such
as hiring practices and the type and duration of contracts. Short-term
deployment and a roster of frequently rotating experts can undercut the
development of skill through practice as well as valuable context-specific knowledge.
Third, is an emphasis on motivational
messaging and role models. Too often, the messaging about peacekeepingboth
internal and external to the UN—is negative, overshadowing and downplaying, the
very real, and empirically substantiated, positive contributions and impacts of
peacekeeping on violence mitigation. Communicating the value of peacekeeping is
critical as it informs professional identities and has the power to shape
individual motivations. Further, plenty of studies show that moral role models
can significantly improve behaviour both through in-person interaction as well
as through storytelling and narrative.19 Who inspires peacekeepers and how? What
examples of good peacekeeping and protection practice can be harvested and
shared widely with staff at all levels?
Not everyone has to agree on who is a role model for discussion of
exemplars to be fruitful. Indeed, given the multitude of world views and moral
positions that make up peacekeeping, consensus would seem unlikely. Rather,
discussion, debate,and storytelling offer a point of departure, a platform that
challenges people to articulate their moral positions and motivations.
Finally, a safe and supportive
institutional environmentis critical to continued learning and sound
decision-making. The hardship environments in which peacekeepers operate, the
nature of their roles, and the ethical dilemmas that peacekeeping staff
encounter in the field can be emotionally taxing and, in some cases, traumatic
for individuals with negative implications for their well-being and mental
health. Studies reveal higher rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as
well as other mental health issues amongst people who havebeen deployed to UN peace operations relative to
the general population.20 Furthermore, a recent report by
the International Peace Institute found that despite new UN initiatives to
strengthen mental health support and awareness,21 the system of care offered to UN personnel in
the field needs ‘to be revamped and to be brought up to the level of hardship
they face’.22 Without adequate institutional
support and care, staff may be reluctant to take calculated risk, act
courageously, and learn from practice.
Conclusion
The
expansive goals of contemporary peace operations and the increasing complexity
of operating environments have given rise to new challenges and ethical
dilemmas. While the creation of new doctrine, norms, institutional processes,
and accountability measures are essential to address these challenges, this
article has argued for greater attention to the role of individual judgement
and the importance of inculcating practical wisdomamongst staff at all levels
of peace operations.
Endnotes
1 See for example, United Nations, Human Rights
Up Front Policy (2015); United Nations, Guidance Note on Human Rights Due
Diligence Policy on UN Support to Non-United Nations Security Forces (2015);
The Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians (2015); United Nations,
The Protection of Civilians in United Nations Peacekeeping Handbook (2020).
2 United Nations, Uniting Our Strengths for
Peace—Politics, Partnership and People: Report of the High-Level Independent
Panel on Peace Operations, UN Doc. A/70/95–S/2015/446, June 17, 2015, p.
82.
3 United Nations, Improving
Security of United Nations Peacekeepers: We Need to Change the Way We Are Doing
Business, December 19, 2017, p.10.
4 As quoted by
Fabrizio Hochschild, Assistant United Nations Secretary-General for Strategic
Coordination, “Improving Training for Senior Leaders in UN Field Operations”
panel discussion at the International Peace Institute, New York, February 25,
2019.
5 Justin Oakley and
Dean Cocking, Virtue ethics and professional roles (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001); Barry Schwartz and Kenneth Sharpe, Practical Wisdom:
The Right Way to Do the Right Thing (Penguin, 2010); Sandra Borden, Journalism
as Practice: MacIntyre, Virtue Ethics and the Press (Routledge, 2013); Deborah J.
Cantrell and Kenneth Sharpe, “Practicing Practical Wisdom”, Mercer L.
Rev. 67 (2015).
6 Exceptions include: Guilherme Vilaca and Maria
Varaki (eds.), Ethical Leadership in International Organizations: Concepts,
Narratives, Judgment, and Assessment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2021); Jan Klabbers, “Controlling International Organizations: A Virtue Ethics
Approach,” International Organizations Law Review 8(2) (December 1, 2011), pp.
285–89; David Chan, Beyond Just War: A Virtue Ethics Approach (Palgrave
Macmillan, 2012);Kirsten Ainley, “Virtue ethics” in the Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of International Studies (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2017).
7 See for example, Nancy Snow
(ed.), Cultivating Virtue: Perspectives from Philosophy, Theology, and
Psychology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); Christian B. Miller, The
Character Gap. How Good are We? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).
8 Ainley, Virtue
Ethics, 2017. Aristotle (4th century BC/ 1999) Nicomachean Ethics
(Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company). See also contributions to Nancy
Snow (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Virtue (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2017).
9 Schwartz and
Sharpe, Practical Wisdom, 2010, pp. 7-9.
10 Martha Nussbaum, Poetic Justice (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1995).
11 Barry Schwartz
and Kenneth Sharpe, “Practical Wisdom: Aristotle Meets Positive
Psychology” Journal of Happiness Studies 7 (2006), p.383.
12 Schwartz and
Sharpe, Practical Wisdom, 2010; Dilip Jeste,et al. “The New Science of
Practical Wisdom”, Perspectives Biol. Med. 62(2) 2019.
13 Schwartz and
Sharpe, Practical Wisdom, 2010; Maxwell Cameron, Political Institutions
and Practical Wisdom: Between Rules and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2018).
14 Cameron,
Political Institutions, 2018, p.158.
15 Schwartz and
Sharpe, Practical Wisdom, 2010; Bent Flyvbjerg, et al (eds.), Real Social
Science: Applied Phronesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012);
JohnGibbs, Moral Development and Reality (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2019); Kenneth Sharpe, “Learning the Wisdom to Seize the Moment: How
Negotiators Encourage the Learning of Practical Wisdom for Themselves and
Others,” Negotiation Journal 36.2 (2020).
16 See for example, the International Peace
Institute’s Scenario-Based Training for Senior Leadership in Peace Operations,
which includes a module on the Protection of Civilians.
17 Sharpe, Learning
the Wisdom, 2020, p.177.
18 Campbell,
Political Institutions, 2018, p.15.
19 William Damon and
Anne Colby, The Power of Ideals: The Real Story of Moral Choice (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2015); Linda Zagzebski, Exemplarist Moral Theory
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017); Hyemin Han et al. “Attainable and
relevant moral exemplars are more effective than extraordinary exemplars in
promoting voluntary service engagement” Frontiers in Psychology 8
(2017).
20 Namie Di Razza, “Mental Health in UN peace
operations: Addressing stress, trauma, and PTSD among field personnel” (New
York: International Peace Institute, 2020); Jean Augustin Diégane Tine et al.,
“Étude des Facteurs de risque des états de stress post-traumatique (ESPT) chez
les casques bleus sénégalais en mission de maintien de la paix au Darfour
(Soudan),” International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies 26(2)
(2019); United Nations, “Staff Well-Being Survey Data Report,” 2017.
21 United Nations, “A Healthy Workforce for a
Better World: United Nations System Mental Health and Well-Being Strategy,”
2018; United Nations, “Mental Health Matters: A Healthy Workforce for a Better
World,” available at https://www.un.org/en/healthy-workforce/.
22 Namie Di Razza, “Mental Health in UN peace
operations: Addressing stress, trauma, and PTSD among field personnel” (New
York: International Peace Institute, 2020), p.38.
@ Ms Emily Paddon Rhoads is Associate
Professor of Political Science at Swarthmore College. Her research
focuses on civilian agency and civilian protection in
armed conflict; humanitarianism, peacekeeping, and the role of international
institutions. She is author of Taking Sides in
Peacekeeping: Impartiality and the Future of the United Nations (Oxford
University Press, 2016), co-editor of Civilian Protective Agency in
Violent Settings: A Comparative Perspective (forthcoming with Oxford
University Press), and she is currently working on a book project about the
moral agency of frontline protectors. This article is an edited version of a
research memo prepared by the author when she served on the academic advisory
group for The UN Review of Peacekeeping Responses, an internal review
requested by the UN Secretary-General’s Executive Committee (2020).
Journal of the United Service Institution of India,
Vol. CLIII, No. 631, January-March 2023.