زیرساخت ها و مسئولیت حیاتی: اکتشاف مفهومی

In this article some considerations are presented as a starting point for judging responsibility for infrastructural systems from a moral point of view. Infrastructural systems are essential for present day high-tech society. Without good working infrastructural systems people would hardly be able to survive. The importance and relevance of good working critical infrastructures for states and other public authorities are illustrated with some examples. Next, the meaning of the concept of responsibility in relation to infrastructural systems is developed. Outcome responsibility and remedial responsibility – developed in philosophy of law and political philosophy – are elaborated as useful concepts for dealing with responsibilities in infrastructural systems. This analysis is applied to the players on the infrastructural field: governments and other public authorities, non-state institutional actors and last but not least individual agents. In a last paragraph some conclusions are drawn, which can be applied for apportioning responsibility for infrastructures in practice.

In ethical literature a lot has been written on (moral) responsibility. It certainly is one of the key issues in ethical theory. In this article I will present some considerations that can be a starting point for judging responsibility for infrastructural projects and activities from a moral point of view. First, attention will be given to infrastructures. What are the so-called critical infrastructures? What is their importance? What is their function in present day society? What place do they have and what place should they have in social and political arrangements? Next, the meaning of the concept of responsibility regarding the management and operation of critical infrastructures will be further developed. What does responsibility mean in relation to critical infrastructures? Whose responsibility is at stake? Do all players in the field have the same responsibility? What are the practical or theoretical problems in defining and applying responsibility for infrastructures? Outcome responsibility and remedial responsibility will be elaborated as useful concepts for dealing with responsibilities in infrastructural systems. A third paragraph will be devoted to the players on the infrastructural field. These are in the first place governments and other public authorities. Furthermore, non-state institutional actors: infrastructural companies and organizations. And last but not least the individual actors in these fields. What are their roles and their responsibilities? In a last paragraph some conclusions will be drawn, which can be applied for apportioning responsibility for critical infrastructures in practice.

In this article it has been argued that critical infrastructures are of great importance for each modern society. A good working infrastructural system can even be viewed as a “conditio sine qua non” for modern states and societies. Because of that public authorities at the national, regional and local level do have a responsibility for the operation and management of infrastructures, also if the management and/or ownership of infrastructures are in private hands. The divergent multitude of different individual and corporate responsibilities in the operation and management of infrastructures make it difficult to decide who is responsible if accidents or incidents happen. Practice shows that involved parties try to shift the responsibility to other organizations, as happened frequently in the Netherlands in the railway sector. Politicians blamed the railway company and vice versa. The same patron was repeated during a great breakdown of electricity supply in November 2005. In this article the position is defended that in last resort public authorities have the outcome and remedial responsibility for the infrastructural systems in their country, because these systems are vital for the functioning of society. This responsibility does in practice extend to critical infrastructures. If something goes wrong politicians almost always are asked for their responsibility as well for the outcome as for the remedial activities. Politicians cannot escape by telling that what has happened is not their responsibility but, e.g. that of the company that runs the infrastructural system. Of course this company has its own responsibility, but that does not eliminate the responsibility of politicians. By introducing the concepts of outcome responsibility and remedial responsibility the relevance of the direct (causal and perhaps moral) responsibility for incidents can become less important. It is the outcome and remedial responsibility for infrastructures that matters! Arguments and considerations should be directed at pointing out what political and institutional arrangements guarantee the best possible realization of outcome and remedial responsibility and because of that an optimal operation and management of infrastructures. This analysis can be applied in concrete infrastructural systems to decide what political and institutional arrangements will lead to a better, more reliable and more safe outcome for society.6