Ethics review processes and frameworks

ETHICS REVIEW

Response to Ethics Vignette

From time to time, we – as members of the arms profession – find ourselves in difficult ethical dilemmas. When confronted with scenarios of this nature, we should engage in deliberate assessment of available options by relying upon some frameworks that have been developed in the past for this very purpose. As the Operations Officer for a Joint Task Force, I will be deploying the 2RP tool in efforts to resolve and/or address the concern of an enemy involved in the deliberate violation of armed conflict laws. On this front, and consistent with the 2RP tool, I will be highlighting (and seeking to apply) the provisions of each of the three items, i.e. Rules, Results and People.

It is clear that in this case, the enemy has elected to dishonor clear armed conflict laws by not only parking military aircraft next to precious places, but also installing antiaircraft weapons in the vicinity of healthcare centers. “Voluntary” movement of families accompanied by children to critical military installations has also been observed. Without doubt, these actions endanger the lives and wellbeing of noncombatants – specifically the most vulnerable in the society (including, but not limited to; sick persons in hospital, women and children, the frail and elderly, etc.).

The first item in the 2RP tool happens to be Rules. The key query that we ought to float on this front is whether the course of action embraced is okay from a rules-based perspective. We must always ensure that we do not deviate from our legal responsibilities in combat situations. Thus, in this particular case, there would be need to take into consideration the rules that apply. It is important to note that should we elect to target the enemy aircraft, their antiaircraft missiles or critical/key military installations, we would not be in violation of any legal provisions because – as has been explained in paragraph 2 above – the enemy could be deemed responsible for the removal of the accords’ safeguards.

The second lens in as far as the 2RP tool is concerned is Results. This perspective is essentially rooted in ends-based thinking. Thus, the query to float on this front is whether the course of action embraced will be okay. The possible result of targeting the enemy aircraft, their antiaircraft missiles or critical/key military installations would be possible victory against the enemy, as well as high noncombatant casualty and destruction of precious sites/places. Failure to target and destroy enemy aircraft, their antiaircraft missiles or critical/key military installations would likely result in possible defeat and high personnel casualty on our part. The enemy would also most likely be emboldened and likely to continue committing atrocities that made the war a last resort. In this case, the most viable alternative would be to ensure that civilian/noncombatant casualty is minimized while also limiting damage to precious sites. Thus, enemy aircraft, antiaircraft missiles or critical/key military installations should only be targeted when there is evidence of eminent or active utilization to the detriment of our military personnel. This would call for constant monitoring.