Search

Begin New Search Author James Pattison

1. Introduction

Author:
James Pattison
Publication Date:
09-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
The NATO-led intervention in Libya, Operation Unified Protector, is noteworthy for two central reasons. First, it is the first instance in over a decade of what Andrew Cottey calls “classical humanitarian intervention”— that is, humanitarian intervention that lacks the consent of the government of the target state, has a significant military and forcible element, and is undertaken by Western states. Not since the NATO intervention in 1999 to protect the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing has there been such an intervention. To be sure, since 2000 there have been some robust peace operations that fall in the gray area between classical humanitarian intervention and first-generation peacekeeping (such as MONUC, the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo). But, even if these operations were to some extent forcible, they had the consent of the government of the target state.
Topic:
United Nations
Political Geography:
Libya, Kosovo, and Albania

2. The Ethics of Humanitarian Intervention in Libya

Author:
James Pattison
Publication Date:
09-2011
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
Wars and interventions bring to the fore certain ethical issues. For instance, NATO's intervention in Kosovo in 1999 raised questions about the moral import of UN Security Council authorization (given that the Council did not authorize the action), and the means employed by interveners (given NATO's use of cluster bombs and its targeting of dual-use facilities). In what follows, I consider the moral permissibility of the NATO-led intervention in Libya and suggest that this particular intervention highlights three issues for the ethics of humanitarian intervention in general. The first issue is whether standard accounts of the ethics of humanitarian intervention, which draw heavily on just war theory, can capture the prospect of mission creep. The second issue is whether epistemic difficulties in assessing the intervention's likely long-term success mean that we should reject consequentialist approaches to humanitarian intervention. The third issue concerns selectivity. I outline an often overlooked way that selectivity can be problematic for humanitarian intervention.
Political Geography:
Libya and Kosovo

3. The Principled Case for Employing Private Military and Security Companies in Humanitarian Interventions and Peacekeeping

Author:
James Pattison and Deane-Peter Baker
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Human Rights Human Welfare (University of Denver)
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?
Topic:
Security, Political Violence, Human Rights, Human Welfare, Humanitarian Aid, and War
Political Geography:
United Nations

4. Just War Theory and the Privatization of Military Force

Author:
James Pattison
Publication Date:
07-2008
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
Since the 1990 s there has been a marked growth in the private military industry. Private military companies (PMCs) have been taking on an ever-increasing number of roles traditionally performed by the regular military. These range from supplying training, logistics, and other support services to engaging occasionally in actual fighting. This is most notable in Iraq, where the U.K. and U.S. governments have employed a host of ''security'' companies, such as Aegis, Blackwater, Control Risks Group, Erinys, Vinnell, and KBR. The use of these companies has by no means been limited to Iraq, however. Nor is it only the U.K. and the U.S. that have made use of their services. Other states, multinational companies, NGOs, and even the U.N. have hired PMCs.
Topic:
Privatization, United Nations, and War
Political Geography:
United States and United Kingdom