An Cosantóir

www.military.ie THE DEFENCE FORCES MAGAZINE | 23 lateral global governance in ensuring the equal and undifferen- tiated adjudication of contested claims to freedom and justice. Active defence and promotion of universal values, interna- tional law and cosmopolitan norms among states and within international institutions. Active engagement in operations dedicated to the vindica- tion of rights to freedom – and where necessary without the consent of all state parties. Support intervention (through supranational/multilateral channels) in other states' affairs in case international norms are not respected. Sustained support for concepts such as human security and the responsibility to protect. Justice as impartiality widens our perspective on justice beyond the state and opens the door to addressing injustice at a number of different levels. As an abstract principle it adds nuance and multiple layers to our understanding of justice but necessarily also poses challenges in its practical application, not least because it 'increases the risk of glossing over relevant distinctions and differences' (Eriksen 2016:17). The focus/risk of domination may shift from individual states to multinational institutions or hegemonic states or consortia of states which could result in 'monological moralism and/or authoritarianism in the form of a world state' (Eriksen 2016: 17-8). The critical question of course is who defines justice and freedom? Whose 'justice' thereby dominates? JUSTICE AS MUTUAL RECOGNITION In respect of both of the preceding conceptions of justice, there is a profound absence of reflection on sources and definitions. In respect of justice as non-domination and its focus on state sovereignty, there is an absence of thought given to the model of the Westphalian state placed at the centre of our conversation and more especially on the ways in which that model of political organisation has been historically determined and applied. In respect of justice as impartiality, there is an absence of reflec- tion on the definition and application of the value of 'freedom' and any clear or decisive means of adjudicating on contested understandings thereof – other than relying on multilateral institutions and historically contingent international law. It is this absence of reflexivity that our third conception of justice – justice as mutual recognition – seeks to address. Consideration must begin with an acknowledgement that the 'requisite sameness, the substantial equality necessary for citizens to see them- selves as members of a 'community of obligations', is not in place' at a global level (Eriksen, 2016: 18). More- over, many of the 'differences' with which a putative global community is faced, can be traced to multiple 'injustices' executed over time. Such injustices, inter alia slavery, (de) colonisation, despoliation, exploitation and expropriation go some way, in and of themselves, to explaining contemporary material and ideational asym- metries between states and peoples. It is for this reason that the view of justice as mutual recognition 'cannot be grounded in our common humanity or abstract prin- ciples of equal freedom' (Eriksen 2016: 18) but rather has to start with concrete agents in concrete circumstances. The critical issue of who determines what equality, free- dom and justice mean are central to a conception of justice as mutual recognition. Global justice as mutual recognition problematises structural forms of injustice that derive from '[...] the unconscious assumptions of well-intentioned people, cultural stereotypes, market mechanisms, and other processes of ordinary life' (Eriksen 2016: 19). To that end, all voices must be heard, acknowledged and empowered equally to forestall the prospect of unintended injustice since 'we cannot know what is just unless all affected are heard' (Eriksen 2016: 18). With these issues in mind, justice as mutual recognition must advocate for tangible developments in ideology, institutions and material capabilities, which would allow for real mutual recognition. In terms of security and crisis management this would entail a significant shift of emphasis. 'Resolving' crises would extend well beyond the proximate management of con- flict to the adjudication – through deep and intensive structured dialogues – of long-standing and contested claims to justice. No external arbiter cold mandate intervention and all parties to dispute – whether state or non-state actors – would hold equal voice and legitimacy. As regards, the EU's engagement in this field, it would likely entail: Open and equal dialogue and reciprocity with a wide variety of security 'partners' – both state and non-state actors. Creation of deliberative security fora which relied wholly upon consensus-driven outcomes. Within crisis management operations, full accommodation and inclusion of cultural differences and uniqueness of other parts of the world without judgement, without hierarchy and without preference. Demonstrate respect and reciprocity in dealing with disen- franchised parts of the world and deploy wide range of policy tools to address underlying disequilibria giving rise to inequality and conflict. Profound retooling of crisis management operations to ensure local ownership of security activities with its partners wholly in line with local preferences and priorities. The three views of justice offer a systematic framework for analysis, which sets out the main hypotheses of what EU secu- rity and crisis management could look like were it to be consis- tent with any one of these. This article first appeared in the Summer 2019 edition of Signal, the magazine of the Representative Association of Commis- sioned Officers, and is reprinted by permission.

• Cover