Search

The emergence and increased participation of private military companies (PMCs) in the provision of security on international level is one of the most notable developments of the recent decades. Voluntary decision of a state to outsource militaryand security-related tasks to private sector raises considerable ethical concerns: What do we talk about when we talk about PMCs? Is it just a new corporate form of mercenary practices, traditionally banned under the international law, or do we witness the emergence of qualitatively new non-state actor with a potential to fill the gaps where the provision of security by traditional mechanisms is insufficient? Can PMCs be ethical and therefore conferred legitimacy, or are they morally unacceptable per se under all circumstances? This paper analyzes the ethical issues connected with the use of PMCs. It attempts to move from the simple and somewhat arbitrary distinction between abolitionist and regulative approach to the use of PMCs and to sketch a broader picture of ethical problems and questions raised by their existence. I shall argue that PMCs are ethically capable of being used in specific types of operations under condition that two essential requirements are met: that they at the same time dispose of legitimacy of action and legitimacy of motive. At the systemic level, however, I argue that the currently prevalent use of PMCs contradicts and has the potential to undermine the so-called universal values underpinning the functioning of the international system by creating mechanisms allowing for the selective application of purportedly universal norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In much warfare - certainly warfare involving the military forces of the wealthy societies - most of the damage may be done by aerial bombing. The two fundamental principles that govern the conduct of war, including bombing, are discrimination, which forbids the intentional targeting of civilians, and proportionality, which limits unintentional civilian losses. This paper argues that the conception of proportionality being developed in contemporary analytic moral philosophy is unacceptable and that the conception in international law would be preferable if a satisfactory account of "military advantage" could be worked out. Some suggestions are made about how to understand "military advantage". ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many streams of contemporary moral discourse are chary about speaking of categorical obligation or of making universalizing moral claims. Not all, of course: those still under the spell of Kantian ethics cannot help but immerse themselves in the language ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the clarification of the distinction of the terms preemption and preventive war. The vital intersection between the concepts of ethics and international law is discussed. The article also highlighted the important difference between the two terms. Meanwhile, the implications of the two terms for international law and moral theory are explained.

International criminal tribunals are intended to uphold international ethics, designed to punish violations of the most severe crimes in international law. These are the crimes that violate jus cogens norms, peremptory norms in the international system because they are understood to be fundamental. Explicitly tasked to uphold fundamental international norms, it is important that the ethics of these institutions are themselves subject to scrutiny. This paper examines the institution of international criminal tribunals through a close analysis of the practice at the ICTR, and the statute of the ICC. This demonstrates that the guiding norms of their operation are procedural rather than substantive. Staff may be removed for reasons of professional misconduct, such as the corruption in the Registrar's office of the ICTR in its early years. However, the emphasis is upon such formal professional or procedural norms; we might choose to assess the ethics of these tribunals in a less formalistic fashion. In this paper I consider whether the tribunals are measuring up, or can measure up, to their own goals and normative justifications, and whether legal actors and institutions are necessarily the preferred guardians of morality. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that motives are central for the classification and evaluation of humanitarian intervention. This conforms to the traditional definition of humanitarian intervention as the coercive interference in the internal affairs of a state for th ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intersection of International Law and the Conduct of War remains one of the most pressing issue areas in international ethics. In light of current events, teaching ethics demands a closer look at this intersection. This paper explores whether recent history supports the idea that a moral community is evolving from the growing architecture of legal structures regarding the conduct of war, and what that means for teaching about international law and moral conduct in war. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there appears to be a discernable international taboo concerning the use of nuclear weapons by states since Nagasaki, a similar taboo does not seem to have developed with respect to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I first identify the conditions that point to the absence of a taboo in this area. I then develop three ethical normative frameworks that may be construed to explain acquisition versus non-acquisition (rational-actor, contractarian, deontological). Next I explore the corollaries of these three ethical standpoints for the construction of international responses to nuclear weapons? acquisition by new states. The final section will evaluate practical positive and negative inducements (sanctions) according to their compatibility with the ethical traditions outlined in the paper. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural law is among the oldest and most influential traditions of international political thought; it is also one of the most neglected and, indeed, ridiculed, typically dismissed as a hopeless aspiration that commands no consensus internationally. This ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]