Skip Navigation


Journal of Conflict and Security Law Advance Access originally published online on September 18, 2008
Journal of Conflict and Security Law 2008 13(2):215-232; doi:10.1093/jcsl/krn018
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
13/2/215    most recent
krn018v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patterson, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2008; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

A Corporate Alternative to United Nations ad hoc Military Deployments

Malcolm Patterson*

* School of Social Sciences and International Relations, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia. E-mail: malcolm.patterson{at}unsw.edu.au. The author acknowledges helpful criticism of earlier drafts by Dr Roger O’Keefe and Professor Philip Allott of the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge; and Ms Sarah Nouwen.


  Abstract

The history of United Nations peacekeeping is frequently one of failure. The causes are endemic, persistent and unlikely to be remedied. It seems reasonable to consider two ideas in response: whether ad hoc peacekeepers might be augmented or even replaced by competent contract labour; and whether well-trained contractors might in future subdue by force those who inflict gross human rights abuses on others. Alternatives to ad hoc forces are not new. Nevertheless, theoretical or practical substitutes have not been evaluated alongside the merits of a private corporation supported by a business model. Military contractors are frequently represented as an affront to states’ authority. This is misleading. There has never been a clear divide between public and private resources in armed conflict and states have always employed both. There exists no compelling reason in law why the UN should not devise modern contracts that evolve from historically ubiquitous arrangements amongst its members and their more ancient predecessors. Formidable hurdles remain. Nonetheless, the deployment of disciplined, professional contractors under rigorous conditions may offer improvements on present standards of peacekeeping. This would enable the Security Council to better address its Charter responsibilities and, in particular, the Preamble and its admonition on war.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.