Suchergebnisse

The legal debate surrounding the development and deployment of autonomous weapons systems (aws) has stagnated in recent years, having arguably hit the hard limits of legal doctrine. At the heart of this impasse lies the focus upon autonomy as both the innovative and defining feature of aws. Thus, the autonomy of the weapons system places it in a legally liminal zone between agent and object, revealing a set of legal problems that revolve around issues of control, influence, responsibility and liability, and questions of legal compliance that follow from the prospect of autonomous lethal decision-making.
This paper seeks to explore alternative framings to the same underlying technology as a means of escaping the limits imposed by the autonomy framework that has dominated the debate to date, and to examine the consequences that flow from pursuing these approaches from legal and regulatory perspectives. In particular, emphasis is placed upon the networks approach, and the systems approach, which this paper sets out and differentiates from the orthodox emphasis upon autonomy. These alternative approaches suggest that the legal problems arising from the autonomy framing are the easiest set of issues to address, insofar as these frame legal problems, while the networks and systems approaches seem to touch upon legal mysteries to which no ready legal or regulatory responses can be made. Rather than dismiss the network and systems approaches, however, this paper suggests that appropriate, adequate and robust legal and regulatory responses must consider the insights and challenges that these approaches pose, and that pursuing these approaches will lead to powerful converging arguments supporting a moratorium on the deployment of aws.

AbstractThis article reconsiders the status and legality of both autonomous and remote weapons systems under international humanitarian law. Technologically advanced unmanned military systems are being introduced into the modern battlespace with insufficient recognition of their potential challenge to international humanitarian law. The article questions the understanding of both autonomous and remote weapons systems as 'weapons' and seeks to consider how their use may impact existing legal categories. Their use is then specifically situated to consider the legality of their deployment in certain contexts. Finally, the article raises the question of impunity for the use of both autonomous and remote weapons systems that arise from the inability to attribute responsibility for the harm they cause. It is imperative that law and policy are developed to govern the development and deployment of these advanced weapons systems to forestall these likely situations of impunity.

Published online: 24 June 2013 ; This article reconsiders the status and legality of both autonomous and remote weapons systems under international humanitarian law. Technologically advanced unmanned military systems are being introduced into the modern battle space with insufficient recognition of their potential challenge to international humanitarian law. The article questions the understanding of both autonomous and remote weapons systems as'weapons' and seeks to consider how their use may impact existing legal categories. Their use is then specifically situated to consider the legality of their deployment in certain contexts. Finally, the article raises the question of impunity for the use of both autonomous and remote weapons systems that arise from the inability to attribute responsibility for the harm they cause. It is imperative that law and policy are developed to govern the development and deployment of these advanced weapons systems to forestall these likely situations of impunity.

This article questions the prevailing view that there is a strong international norm against mercenary activity. We argue, instead, that international restrictions placed upon mercenaries are the tangential expressions of more basic and pervasive international norms, namely those of state neutrality, the right of peoples to self-determination, and freedom of movement. To buttress our claim, we draw upon documentary evidence specific to critical moments in the norms' expansion, including the Napoleonic Wars to 1840, the Crimean War, and conflicts of national liberation in the decolonization era. The evidence suggests a broad indifference to mercenaries among policymakers during such pivotal periods. We conclude that the antimercenary norm grounded in moral objections is not as strong as its supporters suggest and often becomes compromised when national interests dictate.

Change is hardly a new feature in human affairs. Yet something has begun to change in change. In the face of a range of emerging, complex, and interconnected global challenges, society's collective governance efforts may need to be put on a different footing. Many of these challenges derive from emerging technological developments – take Artificial Intelligence (AI), the focus of much contemporary governance scholarship and efforts. AI governance strategies have predominantly oriented themselves towards clear, discrete clusters of pre-defined problems. We argue that such 'problem-solving' approaches may be necessary, but are also insufficient in the face of many of the 'wicked problems' created or driven by AI. Accordingly, we propose in this paper a complementary framework for grounding long-term governance strategies for complex emerging issues such as AI into a 'problem-finding' orientation. We argue that creative, 'problem-finding' research is not only warranted scientifically, but also will be critical in the formulation of governance strategies that are effective, meaningful, and resilient over the long-term. We illustrate the relation and complementarity of problem-solving and problem-finding research through a framework that distinguishes between four distinct 'levels' of governance: problem-solving research generally frames new issues as (0) 'Business As Usual' or as (1) 'Governance Puzzle'. In contrast, problem-finding approaches examine (2) 'Governance Disruptors' and (3) 'Macrostrategic Trajectories'. Throughout our analysis, we apply and validate this theoretical framework to contemporary governance debates around AI. We conclude with observations on between-level complementarities and within-level path dependencies. We suggest that this framework can help underpins more holistic approaches for long-term strategy-making across diverse policy domains and contexts, and help cross the bridge between concrete policies on local solutions, and longer-term considerations of path-dependent societal trajectories to avert, or joint visions towards which global communities can or should be rallied.

Abstract
This paper explores the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic through the framework of existential risks – a class of extreme risks that threaten the entire future of humanity. In doing so, we tease out three lessons: (1) possible reasons underlying the limits and shortfalls of international law, international institutions and other actors which Covid-19 has revealed, and what they reveal about the resilience or fragility of institutional frameworks in the face of existential risks; (2) using Covid-19 to test and refine our prior 'Boring Apocalypses' model for understanding the interplay of hazards, vulnerabilities and exposures in facilitating a particular disaster, or magnifying its effects; and (3) to extrapolate some possible futures for existential risk scholarship and governance.