A selection of journal articles (double click image for access)

Naming and Shaming China?

Free Access article 'To Name and Shame or Not, and If So, How? A Pragmatic Analysis of Naming and Shaming the Chinese Government over Mass Atrocity Crimes against the Uyghurs and Other Muslim Minorities in Xinjiang.'

Failling to fulfil the Responsibility to Protect: the war on drugs as crimes against humanity in the Philippines (2020)

Legitimacy Faultlines in International Society. The Responsibility to Protect and Prosecute after Libya (2015)

There is a perceived legitimacy deficit in contemporary international society. A symptom of this is the political contestation surrounding the 2011 Libyan crisis and its influence on the 2011-3 Syrian crisis. This involved criticism being levelled at the coalition led by the so-called Permanent-3 for the way they implemented the protection of civilians mandate, as well as for the referral of the Libyan situation to the International Criminal Court. How the P3 respond to these developments will be driven in part by how this ‘legitimacy fault line’ is interpreted. The purpose of this paper is to first give an interpretation that is informed by the work of contemporary English School scholars and the political theorists they draw on; and second to provide the context in which specific policy recommendations may guide the response of the P3 states. We argue that because the new legitimacy fault line divides on the procedural question of who decides how international society should meet its responsibilities rather than substantive disagreements about what those responsibilities are (i.e. human protection and justice) the challenge to the liberal agenda of the P3 is not radical. However, we also argue that ignoring the procedural concerns of the African and BRICS states is not outcome neutral and could in fact do harm to both the ICC and the wider implementation of R2P. We consider two proposals for procedural reform and examine how the P3 response would impact on their claim to be good international citizens.

The R2P Ten Years on From the World Summit: A Call to Manage Expectations

As we approach the 10th anniversary of the World Summit Outcome now is the time to
pause and ask the question what do scholars expect from the Responsibility to Protect? This
article draws on non-Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) research into expectations to argue that
in the aftermath of the intervention in Libya and non-intervention in Syria scholars have to
manage RtoP expectations. In so doing, it introduces four types of expectations into the RtoP
discourse: ‘expectation gaps’, ‘expectation vacuums’, ‘expectation clouding’, and ‘inherited
expectations’ - the latter of which is this author’s own contribution to the discourse. To
illustrate the utility of the expectations approach, the article focuses on the debate over
inconsistency in order to highlight the role of expectation gaps and inherited expectations.
Going forward, it calls for further research into RtoP expectation management to be
conducted and identifies key debates which need to be addressed. Ultimately, it advances an
understanding of the RtoP that is inherently more sensitive to its limitations and possibilities.

Conceptualizing humanity in the English School (2016)

The article advances three options to shape future English School (ES) appeals to humanity. First, reject humanity and view interconnectedness as state-centric rather than human-centric, with international law upheld as the bedrock institution of international society. Second, thin humanity puts forward a reductionist view that the value of humankind lies in the human worth of its members - human beings. In short, humanity is the sum of its parts. Third, thick humanity, which views humankind as an independent value in its own right. From this perspective, the value of humanity lies in its ubiquity, which reveals that it is not just more, it is different, to the sum of its parts. It is important to note that this is not a purely theoretical issue. One’s view of humanity shapes one’s view of whether citizens of one state should care for the citizens of another, which lies at the heart of contemporary debates over issues such as the responsibility to protect, human security, and redistributive justice. In so doing, the article speaks to broader debates on humanity that reflects the need for greater interdisciplinary research in the future.

The promise of pillar II: analysing international assistance under the Responsibility to Protect (2015)

n the lead up to the 10th anniversary of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) agreement, pillar II (which refers to international assistance with state consent) was heralded by the United Nations Special Advisor on R2P as the most promising aspect of the Responsibility to Protect. With so little written on pillar II, however, it is difficult to evaluate this judgement. Addressing this lacuna, this article scrutinizes the promise of pillar II to highlight two key strengths. First, the consensual support for pillar II among UN member states reveals that even those that were critical of the R2P in the aftermath of Libya in 2011 still favour the idea of international assistance. At the same time, there remain concerns over the use of force within pillar II as illustrated by events in Côte d'Ivoire in 2011. Second, the utility of pillar II lies in its potential for addressing the threat posed by non-state armed groups. This is particularly important when one considers that in thirteen of the fourteen years since 2000, rebel groups (rather than governments) have been the primary perpetrators of one-sided mass killing against civilians. Accordingly, pillar II can be seen to hold considerable promise for tackling the threat of mass violence by non-state armed groups in the twenty-first century. However, the article also raises concerns over unintentionally legitimizing illegitimate governments through assistance. To illustrate these points it draws on the assistance provided in Mali (2013–15) and Iraq (2014–15).

What Constitutes a 'Manifest Failing'? Ambiguous and Inconsistent Terminology and the Responsibility to Protect (2014)

A Clash of Responsibilities: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P (2012)

In a post-R2P world, policymakers are not only confronted by the real life challenge of mass
atrocity crimes but are also faced with a variety of voices offering alternative ways for framing the problems involved. The dominance of realism in 20th century political discourse puts
forward the view that states do not have a moral obligation to protect the citizens of other
states. As a result, the R2P remains just another policy option, one that should only be opted
for when national interests are at stake. From this perspective, the national responsibility
that states have to their citizens clashes with the international responsibility to protect populations the world over from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic
cleansing. Accordingly, this clash of responsibilities exposes a series of complexities regarding morality, power, survival, security, sovereignty, and order to name just a few. With this in
mind, this paper engages with realist critiques in order to create a constructive conversation
to help show areas of agreement and disagreement which will provide us with a more
informed understanding of the challenges that face R2P implementation.