James Pattison (2018)The Alternatives to War: From Sanctions to Nonviolence (Oxford: Oxford University Press). - Considers and defends the case for the alternatives to war (e.g. sanctions, diplomacy, nonviolent resistance). In doing so, it offers new accounts of the (i) theory and (ii) substance of last resort and necessity (and proportionality). It also argues the case for the alternatives to war takes us some way (but not all the way) to pacifism.
James Pattison (2018) “The Case for the Nonideal Morality of War: Beyond Revisionism versus Traditionalism in Just War Theory”, Political Theory, 46/2: 242–68 - Abstract: Recent discussions in Just War Theory have been framed by a polarising debate between “traditionalist” and “revisionist” approaches. This debate has largely overlooked the importance of an applied account of Just War Theory. The main aim of this essay is to defend the importance of this applied account and, in particular, a nonideal account of the ethics of war. I argue that the applied, nonideal morality of war is vital for a plausible and comprehensive account of Just War Theory. A subsidiary aim of the essay is to show that once we appreciate the importance of the applied, nonideal account, it becomes clear that the positions proposed by revisionists and traditionalists are, in fact, much closer than often presumed.
James Pattison (2015) “Jus Post Bellum and the Responsibility to Rebuild", British Journal of Political Science, 45/3: 635–61. Also available from CUP here (copyright CUP). - Rejects the relevance of jus post bellum for Just War Theory. Also defends the duty to rebuild after war.
James Pattison (2014) The Morality of Private War: The Challenge of Private Military and Security Companies (Oxford: Oxford University Press). - Considers the implications of the rise of private military and security firms for Just War Theory. In doing so, defends the importance of considering the ;egitimacy of the organisation of the military in Just War assessments. Also defends an individualist approach to Just War Theory. - Reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement, Political Studies Review, African Security Review, St. Anthony's International Review, Parameters, Socialism and Democracy, and International Affairs.
James Pattison (2014) "Justa Piratica: The Ethics of Piracy", Review of International Studies, 40/4: 631-56. Also available from CUP here (copyright CUP). - Assesses the case for piracy according to Just War Theory. In doing so, argues that a war can be just on both sides.
James Pattison (2014) “Bombing the Beneficiaries: The Distribution of the Costs of the Responsibility to Protect and Humanitarian Intervention”, in Don Scheid (ed), The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 113–30. - Rejects the notion that the beneficaries of intervention should bear more of the costs.
James Pattison (2013) "When Is It Right to Fight? Just War Theory and the Individual-Centric Approach", Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16/1: 35-54. -Abstract: 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.
James Pattison (2012) "The Legitimacy of the Military, Private Military and Security Companies, and Just War Theory", European Journal of Political Theory, 11/2: 131–54. - Abstract: 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.
James Pattison (2009) "Humanitarian Intervention, the Responsibility to Protect, and Jus in Bello", Global Responsibility to Protect, 1/3: 346–91. - Abstract: 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.
James Pattison (2008) "Just War Theory and the Privatization of Military Force",Ethics & International Affairs, 22/2: 143–62. This article is also available from the copyright holder here. - 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 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.