Locating LAWS: Lethal Autonomous Weapons, Epistemic Space, and “Meaningful Human” Control

IF 1.7 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Global Security Studies Pub Date : 2021-08-11 DOI:10.1093/jogss/ogab015
John Williams
{"title":"Locating LAWS: Lethal Autonomous Weapons, Epistemic Space, and “Meaningful Human” Control","authors":"John Williams","doi":"10.1093/jogss/ogab015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper analyzes the excessive epistemic narrowing of debate about lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), and specifically the concept of meaningful human control, which has emerged as central to regulatory debates in both the scholarly literature and policy fora. Through reviewing work drawing on international relations, security studies, international law and ethics, and technology policy, I argue all share a common epistemological position. This draws on a philosophical and analytical tradition that is Western and modernist, and places a “meaningful human” at the center of debates over controlling LAWS who reflects archetypes associated with a Western, rational, white, male. This epistemological location, I argue, excludes epistemological perspectives relevant to communities who both are most likely to experience LAWS, because they live in areas where deployment is most likely, and have the greatest experience of the effects of key LAWS precursors, such as unmanned aerial vehicles. Drawing on insights from decolonial approaches, I establish a research agenda that challenges this epistemological closure and looks to relocate debates about meaningful human control over LAWS in research that makes space for far more diverse perspectives on a crucial issue that may shape humankind's common future.","PeriodicalId":44399,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Security Studies","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogab015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This paper analyzes the excessive epistemic narrowing of debate about lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), and specifically the concept of meaningful human control, which has emerged as central to regulatory debates in both the scholarly literature and policy fora. Through reviewing work drawing on international relations, security studies, international law and ethics, and technology policy, I argue all share a common epistemological position. This draws on a philosophical and analytical tradition that is Western and modernist, and places a “meaningful human” at the center of debates over controlling LAWS who reflects archetypes associated with a Western, rational, white, male. This epistemological location, I argue, excludes epistemological perspectives relevant to communities who both are most likely to experience LAWS, because they live in areas where deployment is most likely, and have the greatest experience of the effects of key LAWS precursors, such as unmanned aerial vehicles. Drawing on insights from decolonial approaches, I establish a research agenda that challenges this epistemological closure and looks to relocate debates about meaningful human control over LAWS in research that makes space for far more diverse perspectives on a crucial issue that may shape humankind's common future.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定位法律:致命自主武器、认知空间和“有意义的人类”控制
本文分析了关于致命自主武器系统(LAWS)的辩论的过度认知狭窄,特别是有意义的人类控制的概念,这已经成为学术文献和政策论坛中监管辩论的核心。通过回顾国际关系、安全研究、国际法和伦理以及技术政策方面的工作,我认为所有这些都有一个共同的认识论立场。它借鉴了西方和现代主义的哲学和分析传统,并将“有意义的人”置于控制法律的辩论中心,这反映了与西方理性白人男性相关的原型。我认为,这种认识论定位排除了与最有可能经历LAWS的社区相关的认识论观点,因为他们生活在最有可能部署LAWS的地区,并且对关键LAWS前体(如无人驾驶飞行器)的影响有最大的经验。借鉴非殖民化方法的见解,我建立了一个研究议程,挑战这种认识论上的封闭,并希望重新定位关于人类对法律有意义的控制的争论,在研究中为可能塑造人类共同未来的关键问题提供更多不同观点的空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Global Security Studies
Journal of Global Security Studies INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geopolitics and Genocide: Patron Interests, Client Crises, and Realpolitik Digital Rights and the State of Exception. Internet Shutdowns from the Perspective of Just Securitization Theory The Political Economy of Australian Militarism: On the Emergent Military–Industrial–Academic Complex Can Insurgents Capture Aid through Credit Claiming? Evidence from Afghanistan Out of the Shadows: Ukraine and the Shock of Non-Hybrid War
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1