I am currently working a project that considers how global responsibilities may shift in a post-liberal international order, such as changes to the responsibility to protect and the principles of just war theory, in light of a much more challenging international environment.
James Pattison, "Ukraine, Wagner, and Russia's Convict-Soldiers", Ethics & International Affairs, in press.
- Abstract: "One of the most pronounced features of the war in Ukraine has been the heavy reliance of the Russian forces on convict-soldiers, most notably by the private military and security company (PMSC), Wagner. In this essay, I explore the ethical problems with using convict-soldiers and assess how they compare to other military arrangements, such as conscription or an all-volunteer force. Overall, I argue that the central issue with using prisoners to fight wars is their perceived expendability. To do this, I present three arguments. First, although many prisoners have been under major duress, the use of convict-soldiers may be somewhat preferable to conscripts in this regard. Second, convict-soldiers are more likely to be subject to human rights abuses than other types of soldiers and this should be seen as the main problem with their use. Third, convict-soldiers’ liability to lethal force for fighting in an unjust war does not render it permissible to treat them as expendable."
James Pattison, "State Borrowing and Global Responsibilities", Journal of Applied Philosophy, in press.
- Abstract: This paper explores the ethics of state borrowing to fulfil global responsibilities. Although borrowing may appear attractive in the face of budgetary pressures and an increased number of crises in a changing global order, the paper argues that borrowing to fulfil global responsibilities is generally morally problematic. It presents two main objections to borrowing. First, borrowing is often likely to be unfair intergenerationally, violating the ‘Just Borrowing Principle’. Second, borrowing demonstrates a lack of sufficient commitment, violating the ‘Taking a Stand Principle’, and therefore weakens the expressivist justification of measures to fulfil global responsibilities.
James Pattison (2022). "Ukraine, Intervention, and the Post-Liberal Order", Ethics & International Affairs, 36/3: 377-90.
- Abstract: The conflict in Ukraine indicates some of the features of a potential post-liberal order and raises several potential ethical issues that may arise for international interventions as the world changes. What types of interventions, if any, are justifiable in response to situations such as the one in Ukraine? Can interventions be permissible given the potential undermining of universalist claims that are often used to support them? How should states prioritize between situations if there is an even greater number of global challenges in a post-liberal order? Three new books--Solferino 21 by Hugo Slim, Decolonizing Human Rights by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, and Promoting Justice across Borders by Lucia Rafanelli—can help to navigate these questions. Drawing on their insights, this essay argues that reform interventions can be justified to defend the liberal international order, that intervention can be defended from a relativist basis, and that socioeconomic rights should be given greater priority.
James Pattison (2021). “The International Responsibility to Protect in a Post-Liberal Order”, International Studies Quarterly, 65/4: 891-904.
-Abstract: This article considers the implications of a post-liberal order for the international responsibility to protect. It focuses on two questions. First, what challenges will the international responsibility to protect face in a post-liberal order? Second, in light of these challenges, how would the requirements of the international responsibility to protect differ in the post-liberal order? In response to the first question, the article argues that in a post-liberal order the international responsibility to protect is likely to be subject to the “Influence Challenge,” whereby its ability to constrain and influence states decreases. In response to the second question, it argues that the requirements of the international responsibility to protect would be affected in several ways, including necessitating greater consideration of questions of prioritization and requiring a re-evaluation, and potential abandonment, of the currently predominant approach to the responsibility to protect.
- Abstract: "One of the most pronounced features of the war in Ukraine has been the heavy reliance of the Russian forces on convict-soldiers, most notably by the private military and security company (PMSC), Wagner. In this essay, I explore the ethical problems with using convict-soldiers and assess how they compare to other military arrangements, such as conscription or an all-volunteer force. Overall, I argue that the central issue with using prisoners to fight wars is their perceived expendability. To do this, I present three arguments. First, although many prisoners have been under major duress, the use of convict-soldiers may be somewhat preferable to conscripts in this regard. Second, convict-soldiers are more likely to be subject to human rights abuses than other types of soldiers and this should be seen as the main problem with their use. Third, convict-soldiers’ liability to lethal force for fighting in an unjust war does not render it permissible to treat them as expendable."
James Pattison, "State Borrowing and Global Responsibilities", Journal of Applied Philosophy, in press.
- Abstract: This paper explores the ethics of state borrowing to fulfil global responsibilities. Although borrowing may appear attractive in the face of budgetary pressures and an increased number of crises in a changing global order, the paper argues that borrowing to fulfil global responsibilities is generally morally problematic. It presents two main objections to borrowing. First, borrowing is often likely to be unfair intergenerationally, violating the ‘Just Borrowing Principle’. Second, borrowing demonstrates a lack of sufficient commitment, violating the ‘Taking a Stand Principle’, and therefore weakens the expressivist justification of measures to fulfil global responsibilities.
James Pattison (2022). "Ukraine, Intervention, and the Post-Liberal Order", Ethics & International Affairs, 36/3: 377-90.
- Abstract: The conflict in Ukraine indicates some of the features of a potential post-liberal order and raises several potential ethical issues that may arise for international interventions as the world changes. What types of interventions, if any, are justifiable in response to situations such as the one in Ukraine? Can interventions be permissible given the potential undermining of universalist claims that are often used to support them? How should states prioritize between situations if there is an even greater number of global challenges in a post-liberal order? Three new books--Solferino 21 by Hugo Slim, Decolonizing Human Rights by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, and Promoting Justice across Borders by Lucia Rafanelli—can help to navigate these questions. Drawing on their insights, this essay argues that reform interventions can be justified to defend the liberal international order, that intervention can be defended from a relativist basis, and that socioeconomic rights should be given greater priority.
James Pattison (2021). “The International Responsibility to Protect in a Post-Liberal Order”, International Studies Quarterly, 65/4: 891-904.
-Abstract: This article considers the implications of a post-liberal order for the international responsibility to protect. It focuses on two questions. First, what challenges will the international responsibility to protect face in a post-liberal order? Second, in light of these challenges, how would the requirements of the international responsibility to protect differ in the post-liberal order? In response to the first question, the article argues that in a post-liberal order the international responsibility to protect is likely to be subject to the “Influence Challenge,” whereby its ability to constrain and influence states decreases. In response to the second question, it argues that the requirements of the international responsibility to protect would be affected in several ways, including necessitating greater consideration of questions of prioritization and requiring a re-evaluation, and potential abandonment, of the currently predominant approach to the responsibility to protect.