James Pattison | The University of Manchester (original) (raw)
PLEASE NOTE I DO NOT REGULARLY UPDATE THIS PAGE. SEE INSTEAD www.jamespattison.co.uk
James Pattison is Professor of Politics at the University of Manchester. His work focuses on the ethical issues surrounding conflict, at the intersection between political philosophy and International Relations. Pattison has written two books (both with Oxford University Press) and published over 20 journal articles since 2007, including in British Journal of Political Science, Ethics & International Affairs, European Journal of International Relations, International Theory, Journal of Political Philosophy, and Review of International Studies. He currently co-edits a book series on War, Conflict, and Ethics (with Michal Gross) for Routledge.
Current Work
His research interests currently lie in three related areas: (1) Just War Theory and the alternatives to war; (2) humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (R2P); and (3) the use of private military and security companies.
On (1): He is currently writing a book, provisionally entitled Just and Unjust Alternatives to War (under contract with Oxford University Press). This will consider what should be done in immediate response to mass atrocities and conflict, instead of direct military intervention or war. This includes quiet diplomacy, naming and shaming, economic sanctions, nonviolent resistance, arming rebel groups, and inducements. This research is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (Ref AH/LOO3783/1).
On (2): He is currently a co-investigator on an ESRC Seminar Series on the R2P and the rising powers. His first book, Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) was awarded a 'Notable Book Award' in 2011 by the International Studies Association (International Ethics Section). He has also completed on a four-volume ‘Major Work’ on humanitarian intervention (published in 2014) for Sage’s ‘Library of International Relations’ series.
On (3): His second book, The Morality of Private War: The Challenge of Private Military and Security Companies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) considers in detail the ethical problems raised by the privatisation of war. This was based on research carried during an ESRC-funded project, "The Morality of Private War", 2010-2012 (RES-000-22-4042). This was awarded 'Outstanding' (the highest possible grade) in the End of Award Assessment.
Phone: 01612754931
Address: Politics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester
less
Uploads
Books by James Pattison
This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or i... more This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or impending humanitarian crisis, such as found in Rwanda in early 1994, Kosovo in 1999, and Darfur more recently. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect asserts that when a state is failing to uphold its citizens' human rights, the international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens, including by undertaking humanitarian intervention. It is unclear, however, which particular agent should be tasked with this responsibility. Should we prefer intervention by the UN, NATO, a regional or subregional organization (such as the African Union), a state, a group of states, or someone else? This book answers this question by, first, determining which qualities of interveners are morally significant and, second, assessing the relative importance of these qualities. For instance, is it important that an intervener have a humanitarian motive? Should an intervener be welcomed by those it is trying to save? How important is it that an intervener will be effective and what does this mean in practice? The book then considers the more empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current interveners actually possess these qualities, and therefore should intervene. For instance, how effective can we expect UN action to be in the future? Is NATO likely to use humanitarian means? Overall, it develops a particular normative conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. It uses this conception of legitimacy to assess not only current interveners, but also the desirability of potential reforms to the mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention.
Papers by James Pattison
The possibility of using private military and security companies to bolster the capacity to under... more 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,
ABSTRACT: The international responsibility to protect is the most important and value-added eleme... more ABSTRACT: The international responsibility to protect is the most important and value-added element of the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine. However, the existing accounts of the international responsibilities of R2P are often fairly ad hoc and not clearly systematised, largely focusing on particular responsibilities. Consequently, this article provides a typology of the various international responsibilities required by the R2P. In particular, it presents six types of international responsibility to protect: (1) the responsibility to undertake direct action; (2) the responsibility to support direct action; (3) the responsibility to authorise; (4) the responsibility not to act; (5) the responsibility to advance R2P; and (6) the responsibility to reform. In doing so, it will clarify how these responsibilities hang together and highlight underappreciated responsibilities.
ABSTRAST: This article presents the ethical case for diplomatic criticism as a response to mass a... more ABSTRAST: This article presents the ethical case for diplomatic criticism as a response to mass atrocities and serious external aggression. It argues, in short, that states have a moral duty to criticise the offending parties. More specifically, it argues that diplomatic criticism is often a plausible and preferable alternative to other means of addressing serious external aggression and mass atrocities (such as war, economic sanctions, and other diplomatic measures). It also argues that diplomatic criticism is often preferable to doing nothing and that, even if other means are undertaken, states should engage in diplomatic criticism as well. There are two subsidiary aims of the article. The first is to reject some of the worries surrounding international hypocrisy—I aim to show that even hypocritical diplomatic criticism may be obligatory. The second is to highlight the impact on Just War Theory of considering in more detail the ethical issues raised by the alternatives to war, such as diplomatic criticism, and, more specifically, to present a new account of the last resort principle, which I call ‘Presumptive Last Resort’.
The arming of rebel groups is one of the most notable ways that states attempt to realise their f... more The arming of rebel groups is one of the most notable ways that states attempt to realise their foreign policy goals. This was especially obvious during the Arab Spring, during which various states supplied arms to the rebel movements in Libya and Syria. Yet, despite its frequency and political importance, there has been very little engagement with the ethical issues surrounding the arming of rebels. This article aims to address this lacuna. It considers if and when it is morally permissible to arm rebels. It presents two central arguments. The first is that arming the rebels typically leads to several notable problems and so is generally impermissible. The second is that arming the rebels can nevertheless permissible in exceptional cases, including even when the rebels are engaged in unjust wars. The final part of the article considers the relation between these two arguments and its import for the ethics of war.
e-International Relations
This article considers the issue of who should rebuild after war. Many leading advocates of the r... more This article considers the issue of who should rebuild after war. Many leading advocates of the relevance of jus post bellum for Just War Theory adhere to the ‘Belligerents Rebuild Thesis’, which holds that those who have been involved with the fighting – such as the victor, just belligerent, unjust aggressor or humanitarian intervener – should be tasked with the responsibility to rebuild. By contrast, this article argues that there is a collective, international duty to rebuild that should be assigned primarily according to the agent's ability to rebuild – and not necessarily to the belligerents. The article also claims that, in contrast to the prevailing view, considerations of jus post bellum do not play any moral role in the justifiability of a war. Accordingly, defending the Belligerents Rebuild Thesis by invoking the alleged moral relevance of jus post bellum for Just War Theory is mistaken.
There has been widespread and vociferous condemnation of Somali piracy and several states have us... more There has been widespread and vociferous condemnation of Somali piracy and several states have used force against the pirates. This reflects the prevailing view of pirates as belligerents and aggressors who act wrongly. In this article, I challenge this view by defending the conditional moral permissibility of piracy. More specifically, I first argue that piracy can be morally permissible when certain conditions are met. These are what I call the principles of ‘justa piratica’, that is, the principles of just piracy. Second, I claim that these conditions are likely to apply to some Somali pirates. Third, as a corollary, I argue that the case of piracy shows that one of the shibboleths of Just War Theory – that a war cannot be just on both sides – is mistaken.
Recent work in the ethics of war has done much to challenge the collectivism of the convention-ba... more Recent work in the ethics of war has done much to challenge the collectivism of the convention-based, Walzerian just war theory. In doing so, it raises the question of when it is permissible for soldiers to resort to force. This article considers this issue and, in doing so, argues that the rejection of collectivism in just war should go further still. More specifically, it defends the ‘Individual-Centric Approach’ to the deep morality of war, which asserts that the justifiability of an individual’s contribution to the war, rather than the justifiability of the war more generally, determines the moral acceptability of their participation. It then goes on to present five implications of the Individual-Centric Approach, including for individual liability to attack in war.
The legitimacy of the military is frequently overlooked in standard accounts of jus ad bellum. Ac... more The legitimacy of the military is frequently overlooked in standard accounts of jus ad bellum. Accordingly, this paper considers how the military should be organized. It proposes a normative conception of legitimacy – the ‘Moderate Instrumentalist Approach’ – that outlines the qualities that a military should possess. It then assesses the three leading ways of organizing the military according to this approach: the use of private military and security companies (PMSCs), a conscripted force and the all-volunteer force (AVF). The paper argues that the AVF, despite some notable problems, is the most legitimate way of organizing the military.
The possibility of using private military and security companies to bolster the capacity to under... more The possibility of using private military and security companies to bolster the capacity to undertake intervention for human rights purposes (humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping) 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 article considers the principled case for privatising humanitarian intervention. It focuses on two central issues. First, 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? Second, on the other hand, is there a case for preferring these firms to other, state-based agents of humanitarian intervention? For instance, 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?
States have recently agreed that there is a responsibility to protect populations threatened by g... more 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.
The rapid growth of the private military industry since the end of the Cold War has led to a rang... more 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.
In this article, I examine who should undertake humanitarian intervention. Should we prefer inter... more 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.
The current mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention are inadequate. As the crisis in D... more The current mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention are inadequate. As the crisis in Darfur has highlighted, the international community lacks both the willingness to undertake humanitarian intervention and the ability to do so legitimately. This article considers a cosmopolitan solution to these problems: the creation of a standing army for the United Nations. There have been a number of proposals for such a force, including many recently. However, they contain two central flaws: the force proposed would be, firstly, too small and, secondly, too dependent on major states. Accordingly, I argue that, to be a substantial improvement on the current situation, such a force would need to be, firstly, much larger and, secondly, in the hands of cosmopolitan democratic institutions. This two-part solution would solve the problems faced by current interveners, but is unlikely to be realised soon. Accordingly, I argue that our immediate efforts should instead be concentrated on improving regional organisations' ability to intervene.
The use of private military companies (PMCs) has become increasingly prevalent, with such firms a... more 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 bello principle of discrimination to PMC personnel. Overall, I argue that JWT needs to be updated and extended to respond to the issues raised by the privatization of military force.
This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or i... more This book considers who should undertake humanitarian intervention in response to an ongoing or impending humanitarian crisis, such as found in Rwanda in early 1994, Kosovo in 1999, and Darfur more recently. The doctrine of the responsibility to protect asserts that when a state is failing to uphold its citizens' human rights, the international community has a responsibility to protect these citizens, including by undertaking humanitarian intervention. It is unclear, however, which particular agent should be tasked with this responsibility. Should we prefer intervention by the UN, NATO, a regional or subregional organization (such as the African Union), a state, a group of states, or someone else? This book answers this question by, first, determining which qualities of interveners are morally significant and, second, assessing the relative importance of these qualities. For instance, is it important that an intervener have a humanitarian motive? Should an intervener be welcomed by those it is trying to save? How important is it that an intervener will be effective and what does this mean in practice? The book then considers the more empirical question of whether (and to what extent) the current interveners actually possess these qualities, and therefore should intervene. For instance, how effective can we expect UN action to be in the future? Is NATO likely to use humanitarian means? Overall, it develops a particular normative conception of legitimacy for humanitarian intervention. It uses this conception of legitimacy to assess not only current interveners, but also the desirability of potential reforms to the mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention.
The possibility of using private military and security companies to bolster the capacity to under... more 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,
ABSTRACT: The international responsibility to protect is the most important and value-added eleme... more ABSTRACT: The international responsibility to protect is the most important and value-added element of the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine. However, the existing accounts of the international responsibilities of R2P are often fairly ad hoc and not clearly systematised, largely focusing on particular responsibilities. Consequently, this article provides a typology of the various international responsibilities required by the R2P. In particular, it presents six types of international responsibility to protect: (1) the responsibility to undertake direct action; (2) the responsibility to support direct action; (3) the responsibility to authorise; (4) the responsibility not to act; (5) the responsibility to advance R2P; and (6) the responsibility to reform. In doing so, it will clarify how these responsibilities hang together and highlight underappreciated responsibilities.
ABSTRAST: This article presents the ethical case for diplomatic criticism as a response to mass a... more ABSTRAST: This article presents the ethical case for diplomatic criticism as a response to mass atrocities and serious external aggression. It argues, in short, that states have a moral duty to criticise the offending parties. More specifically, it argues that diplomatic criticism is often a plausible and preferable alternative to other means of addressing serious external aggression and mass atrocities (such as war, economic sanctions, and other diplomatic measures). It also argues that diplomatic criticism is often preferable to doing nothing and that, even if other means are undertaken, states should engage in diplomatic criticism as well. There are two subsidiary aims of the article. The first is to reject some of the worries surrounding international hypocrisy—I aim to show that even hypocritical diplomatic criticism may be obligatory. The second is to highlight the impact on Just War Theory of considering in more detail the ethical issues raised by the alternatives to war, such as diplomatic criticism, and, more specifically, to present a new account of the last resort principle, which I call ‘Presumptive Last Resort’.
The arming of rebel groups is one of the most notable ways that states attempt to realise their f... more The arming of rebel groups is one of the most notable ways that states attempt to realise their foreign policy goals. This was especially obvious during the Arab Spring, during which various states supplied arms to the rebel movements in Libya and Syria. Yet, despite its frequency and political importance, there has been very little engagement with the ethical issues surrounding the arming of rebels. This article aims to address this lacuna. It considers if and when it is morally permissible to arm rebels. It presents two central arguments. The first is that arming the rebels typically leads to several notable problems and so is generally impermissible. The second is that arming the rebels can nevertheless permissible in exceptional cases, including even when the rebels are engaged in unjust wars. The final part of the article considers the relation between these two arguments and its import for the ethics of war.
e-International Relations
This article considers the issue of who should rebuild after war. Many leading advocates of the r... more This article considers the issue of who should rebuild after war. Many leading advocates of the relevance of jus post bellum for Just War Theory adhere to the ‘Belligerents Rebuild Thesis’, which holds that those who have been involved with the fighting – such as the victor, just belligerent, unjust aggressor or humanitarian intervener – should be tasked with the responsibility to rebuild. By contrast, this article argues that there is a collective, international duty to rebuild that should be assigned primarily according to the agent's ability to rebuild – and not necessarily to the belligerents. The article also claims that, in contrast to the prevailing view, considerations of jus post bellum do not play any moral role in the justifiability of a war. Accordingly, defending the Belligerents Rebuild Thesis by invoking the alleged moral relevance of jus post bellum for Just War Theory is mistaken.
There has been widespread and vociferous condemnation of Somali piracy and several states have us... more There has been widespread and vociferous condemnation of Somali piracy and several states have used force against the pirates. This reflects the prevailing view of pirates as belligerents and aggressors who act wrongly. In this article, I challenge this view by defending the conditional moral permissibility of piracy. More specifically, I first argue that piracy can be morally permissible when certain conditions are met. These are what I call the principles of ‘justa piratica’, that is, the principles of just piracy. Second, I claim that these conditions are likely to apply to some Somali pirates. Third, as a corollary, I argue that the case of piracy shows that one of the shibboleths of Just War Theory – that a war cannot be just on both sides – is mistaken.
Recent work in the ethics of war has done much to challenge the collectivism of the convention-ba... more Recent work in the ethics of war has done much to challenge the collectivism of the convention-based, Walzerian just war theory. In doing so, it raises the question of when it is permissible for soldiers to resort to force. This article considers this issue and, in doing so, argues that the rejection of collectivism in just war should go further still. More specifically, it defends the ‘Individual-Centric Approach’ to the deep morality of war, which asserts that the justifiability of an individual’s contribution to the war, rather than the justifiability of the war more generally, determines the moral acceptability of their participation. It then goes on to present five implications of the Individual-Centric Approach, including for individual liability to attack in war.
The legitimacy of the military is frequently overlooked in standard accounts of jus ad bellum. Ac... more The legitimacy of the military is frequently overlooked in standard accounts of jus ad bellum. Accordingly, this paper considers how the military should be organized. It proposes a normative conception of legitimacy – the ‘Moderate Instrumentalist Approach’ – that outlines the qualities that a military should possess. It then assesses the three leading ways of organizing the military according to this approach: the use of private military and security companies (PMSCs), a conscripted force and the all-volunteer force (AVF). The paper argues that the AVF, despite some notable problems, is the most legitimate way of organizing the military.
The possibility of using private military and security companies to bolster the capacity to under... more The possibility of using private military and security companies to bolster the capacity to undertake intervention for human rights purposes (humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping) 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 article considers the principled case for privatising humanitarian intervention. It focuses on two central issues. First, 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? Second, on the other hand, is there a case for preferring these firms to other, state-based agents of humanitarian intervention? For instance, 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?
States have recently agreed that there is a responsibility to protect populations threatened by g... more 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.
The rapid growth of the private military industry since the end of the Cold War has led to a rang... more 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.
In this article, I examine who should undertake humanitarian intervention. Should we prefer inter... more 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.
The current mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention are inadequate. As the crisis in D... more The current mechanisms and agents of humanitarian intervention are inadequate. As the crisis in Darfur has highlighted, the international community lacks both the willingness to undertake humanitarian intervention and the ability to do so legitimately. This article considers a cosmopolitan solution to these problems: the creation of a standing army for the United Nations. There have been a number of proposals for such a force, including many recently. However, they contain two central flaws: the force proposed would be, firstly, too small and, secondly, too dependent on major states. Accordingly, I argue that, to be a substantial improvement on the current situation, such a force would need to be, firstly, much larger and, secondly, in the hands of cosmopolitan democratic institutions. This two-part solution would solve the problems faced by current interveners, but is unlikely to be realised soon. Accordingly, I argue that our immediate efforts should instead be concentrated on improving regional organisations' ability to intervene.
The use of private military companies (PMCs) has become increasingly prevalent, with such firms a... more 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 bello principle of discrimination to PMC personnel. Overall, I argue that JWT needs to be updated and extended to respond to the issues raised by the privatization of military force.
This article assesses the moral importance of a humanitarian intervener’s fidelity to the princip... more This article assesses the moral importance of a humanitarian intervener’s fidelity to the principles to international humanitarian law or jus in bello (principles of just conduct in war). I begin by outlining the particular principles of jus in bello that an intervener should follow when discharging the responsibility to protect, drawing on Jeff McMahan’s recent work. The second section considers more broadly the moral underpinnings of these principles. I claim that consequentialist justifications of these principles cannot fully grasp their moral significance and, in particular, the difference between doing and allowing. Overall, I argue that these principles are (i) more important and (ii) more stringent in the context of humanitarian intervention.
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's report, The Responsibility t... more 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.
Although states have recently agreed that there is a universal responsibility to undertake humani... more 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.