PUBLICATIONS IN DETAIL
Book
SUMMARY: This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in
response to an ongoing or impending humanitarian crisis, such as found in
ABSTRACT: The
possibility of using private military and security companies to bolster the
capacity to undertake humanitarian intervention has been increasingly debated.
The focus of such discussions has, however, largely been
on practical issues and the contingent problems posed by private force. By
contrast, this paper considers the principled case for privatising humanitarian
intervention. It focuses on two central issues. First, is there a case for
preferring these firms to other, state-based agents of humanitarian
intervention? In particular, given a state’s duties to their own military
personnel, should the use of private military and security contractors be
preferred to regular soldiers for humanitarian intervention? Second, on the
other hand, does outsourcing humanitarian intervention to private military and
security companies pose some fundamental, deeper problems in this context, such
as an abdication of a state’s duties?*
Full-length peer-reviewed journal articles
ABSTRACT: The rapid growth of the private military industry since the end of the
Cold War has led to a range of reactions. Some perceive private military and
security companies (PMSCs) to be vital actors in the promotion of both states’
interests and humanitarianism worldwide. Others regard PMSCs as tools of
western imperialism that herald a return to a pre-Westphalian international
system dominated by powerful commercial interests. Although the potential
benefits and disadvantages of using PMSCs are often discussed, the moral
considerations are rarely fully elaborated, and the focus has largely been on
the contingent problems with PMSCs. Accordingly, this article considers some of
the deeper objections to the use of private force. The first section focuses on
whether it is permissible for an individual to be employed as a private
contractor. In the second section, I assess whether it is morally acceptable to
employ private contractors. The final section considers the moral
justifiability of the private military industry more generally, including
whether private force should be entrusted to the market.
ABSTRACT: States have recently
agreed that there is a responsibility to protect populations threatened by
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The
international community, however, often lacks the resources and willingness to
carry out a key part of this responsibility, that is, to undertake humanitarian
intervention effectively when required. One potential solution to this problem
is to outsource intervention to private military and security companies. In
this article, I consider this option. In particular, I present a largely
consequentialist argument which asserts that, when two conditions are met,
using these companies to bolster the capacity to undertake humanitarian
intervention might be morally justifiable overall.
ABSTRACT: This article assesses
the moral importance of a humanitarian intervener’s fidelity to the principles
to international humanitarian law or jus in
ABSTRACT: The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’s
report, The Responsibility to Protect, argues that when a state is
unable or unwilling to uphold its citizens’ basic human rights, such as in
cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, the
international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens by
undertaking humanitarian intervention. An essential issue, however, remains
unresolved: which particular agent in the international community has the duty
to intervene? In this article, I critically examine four ways of assigning this
duty. Although I highlight the benefits of institutionalising the
responsibility to protect, I argue that we should adopt, in the short term at
least, a consequentialist solution: humanitarian intervention should be the
responsibility of the intervener that will be the most effective.
ABSTRACT: The use of private
military companies (PMCs) has become increasingly prevalent, with such firms as
Blackwater, MPRI, and DynCorp taking over a growing number of roles
traditionally performed by the regular military. This article uses the
framework of just war theory (JWT) to consider the central normative issues
raised by this privatization of military force. In particular, I first examine
the claim that private contractors are inappropriate actors to wage war because
they contravene the JWT principle of right intention. The next section asserts
that the use of PMCs is largely consistent with the application of the
principle of legitimate authority but undermines two of its central rationales.
In the third section, I apply the jus in
ABSTRACT: In this article, I examine who should
undertake humanitarian intervention. Should we prefer intervention by the UN,
NATO, a regional or sub-regional organisation, a state, a group of states, or
someone else? To answer this question, I first determine which qualities of
interveners are morally significant. I highlight in particular the importance
of an intervener’s effectiveness and, in doing so, develop a particular
conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. I then consider the more
empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current agents of
humanitarian intervention actually possess the morally relevant qualities
identified, and therefore should intervene. In the last part of the article, I
consider ways of improving agents’ willingness to intervene and, ultimately,
the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention.
ABSTRACT: The current mechanisms
and agents of humanitarian intervention are inadequate. As the crisis in
ABSTRACT: In this article, I make the case for the moral importance of two factors
that have, to a certain extent, been neglected in the literature on
humanitarian intervention. That is, I argue that an intervener’s legitimacy
depends on whether it is representative of the opinions on intervention,
firstly, of its domestic population -- what I call its ‘internal
representativeness’ -- and, secondly, of those subject to its intervention --
what I call its ‘external representativeness’. I present six arguments for the
importance of these two factors, three for the importance of an intervener’s
internal representativeness and three for the importance of its external
representativeness. Given these arguments, I suggest that we need to improve
the extent to which current interveners are internally and externally
representative.
ABSTRACT: Although states have
recently agreed that there is a universal responsibility to undertake
humanitarian intervention to protect populations from egregious violations of
human rights, it is unclear who exactly in the international community should
intervene. One option, favoured by many, is that intervention should be
undertaken by those interveners whose action would be legal according to
current international law. This article considers this option by assessing the
moral importance of an intervener’s legal status. I begin by suggesting that
according to the current international law on humanitarian intervention, UN
Security Council authorisation is required for an intervener’s action to be
legal. Then, in the main part of the article, I critically examine four reasons
for treating an intervener’s legal status as morally significant. Specifically,
I argue that it is significantly less morally important that an intervener have
UN Security Council authorisation, and therefore be legal, than is commonly
assumed.
- “On
Genocide and the National Interest”, on “How Genocide Became a National
Security Threat”, Mar 2010.
- “Hope, Despair, and Human Rights” on “The Downfall of Human Rights”
(April 2010), forthcoming.
- “Myths, Reasonable Expectations, and a League of Democracies”, on “Foreign Policy Myths Debunked”, Nov. 08.
-
“Improving
the Agents and Mechanisms of Humanitarian Intervention”, on “Making
Intervention Work”, Oct. 08.
- “Cosmopolitanism
and Rationalizing Tendencies”, on “The Politics of NGOs and Aid
Assistance”, Sep. 08.
“Who
Should Intervene? Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect”
·
Invited Speaker:
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): From Principle to Practice, 8-12
June 2010,
“Private
Contractors, Individual Jus
ad Bellum, and Just War Theory”
·
Paper presented as
part of the MANCEPT
Seminar Series,
“The
Principled Case for Employing Private Military and Security Companies in
Humanitarian Interventions and Peacekeeping”
·
Paper presented at the International Studies
Association’s Annual Conference,
·
Paper to be presented at the Thinking (With)Out
Borders II: The St Andrews International Political Theory Conference,
“The
Ethics of Privatised Humanitarianism: Humanitarian Intervention, Peacekeeping,
and Private Military Companies”
·
Paper presented at the
Association of Legal and Social Philosophy’s Annual Conference,
“Who
Should Intervene? The Agents of Humanitarian Intervention and the
Responsibility to Protect”
·
Invited Speaker: Paper
presented to the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict (ELAC),
Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford, 11
Feb. 09. This can be listened to here.
“Humanitarian
Intervention, the Responsibility to Protect, and jus in
·
Paper presented at the
British International Studies Association’s Annual Conference,
·
Invited Speaker: Paper
presented as part of the ‘New Voices’ Seminar Series,
·
Invited Speaker: Paper
presented at the Social Ethics Research Seminar,
·
Invited Speaker: Paper
presented as part of the Seminar Series, Department of Politics and
International Relations, University of Southampton, 16 Oct. 08.
“The Privatisation of
Military Force: An Overview of the Ethical Issues”
·
Paper presented at
Thinking (With)Out Borders: International Political
Theory in the 21st Century,
“Private
Force, Public Cost: The Privatisation of Military Force”
·
Paper presented at the Burwalls Centre for Continuing Education, Department of
Politics, Philosophy, and International Relations, University of the West of
England Research Away Day, 22 May 08.
“The
Privatisation of Military Force and Just War Theory”
·
Paper presented at the
Association of Legal and Social Philosophy’s Annual Conference,
“The Privatisation of
Military Force: A Challenge to Just War Theory?
·
Paper presented at the
British International Studies Association’s Annual Conference,
·
Paper presented at
‘Global Social Justice in Theory and Practice?’, the
Seventh Annual Conference of the Global Studies Association, 5 Sept. 07.
“Outsourcing the Responsibility to Protect:
Humanitarian Intervention and Private Military Companies”
·
Invited speaker,
“Whose Responsibility to Protect? The Duties of
Humanitarian Intervention”
·
Paper presented to the
British International Studies Association’s Annual Conference,
·
Invited speaker,
Newcastle Political Philosophy Group, 13 Dec. 06.
“Legitimacy and Humanitarian Intervention: Who
Should Intervene?”
·
Paper presented at
‘Brave New World’, the Tenth Graduate Conference in Political Theory,
University of Manchester, 28 Jun. 06.
·
Paper presented at ‘
“Humanitarian Intervention and a Cosmopolitan UN
Force”
·
Paper presented at the
Eighth Annual Graduate Conference in Political Theory, University of Warwick,
11 Feb. 06.
“Representativeness and Humanitarian Intervention”
·
Invited speaker,
Newcastle Political Philosophy Group, 7 Dec. 05.
·
Paper presented at the
Third Pavia Graduate Conference in Political Philosophy, University of Pavia,
Italy, 15 Sept. 05.
·
Paper presented at
‘Global Poverty or Global Justice?’, the Fifth Annual Conference of the Global
Studies Association, 8 Sept. 05.
“Humanitarian Intervention and International Law: The Moral Significance
of an Intervener’s Legal Status”
·
Paper presented at
‘Brave New World’, the Ninth Graduate Conference in Political Theory,
University of Manchester, 28 Jun. 05.
·
Invited speaker,
Newcastle Political Philosophy Group, 27 Apr. 05.
·
Paper presented at the
Seventh Annual Graduate Conference in Political Theory, University of Warwick,
7 May 05.
Last updated: April 2010