Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2114643
Nathan Lake, Jonathan Trerise
ABSTRACT The law of armed conflict prevents the coerced extraction of information from Prisoners of War (PoWs). We claim, however, that the letter of that law involves too broad a concept of coercion. On a natural reading, there is a sense in which any extraction of information—by any method—is coercive. We respect the notion that PoWs ought not be treated poorly, but we argue “coercion” should not be understood so broadly. With respect to its use in international law, we favor a moralized notion of “coercion,” as opposed to a non-moralized one. We explain what this means, and argue why this is a better reading of the law. We think a moralized notion of coercion is more intuitive, is more in line with both actual practice and the intent of the framers of international law, and has practical benefits as well.
{"title":"Coercion, Interrogation, and Prisoners of War","authors":"Nathan Lake, Jonathan Trerise","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2114643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2114643","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The law of armed conflict prevents the coerced extraction of information from Prisoners of War (PoWs). We claim, however, that the letter of that law involves too broad a concept of coercion. On a natural reading, there is a sense in which any extraction of information—by any method—is coercive. We respect the notion that PoWs ought not be treated poorly, but we argue “coercion” should not be understood so broadly. With respect to its use in international law, we favor a moralized notion of “coercion,” as opposed to a non-moralized one. We explain what this means, and argue why this is a better reading of the law. We think a moralized notion of coercion is more intuitive, is more in line with both actual practice and the intent of the framers of international law, and has practical benefits as well.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"151 - 161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44539456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2133374
Henrik Syse
What should we call the willful and almost total neglect of military ethics? Maybe the term military immorality catches what we are after, signifying not only the theoretical beach but also the shocking practical neglect of the basic rules of military practice. As this editorial is being written, the conflict in Ukraine is getting more intractable and serious by the day. The situation may have changed by the time this issue reaches our readers. However, no matter the further development, the Russian state and its military have assuredly failed judged by the standards of military ethics. The jus ad bellum requirements of just cause, right intention, and proportionality were blatantly violated as Ukraine was attacked. This is true no matter how one views the rights of the Russian-speaking population of parts of Ukraine, or the willingness of NATO and the EU to consider Ukrainian membership in their organizations in spite of Russian objections. The threshold for engaging military force must be placed considerably higher and was never even approached as Ukraine and the West were essentially attempting to defend the independence of a sovereign state and forestall future conflict. The biggest moral shocks, however, even considering the lowest of expectations, have been seen on the battlefield and according to the rules of jus in bello. Targeted killings of civilians, wanton destruction of infrastructure, rape, plundering, and torture are all reliably reported to an extent that simply cannot be ignored. Soldiers without proper training are sent into battle. Little internal discipline can be discerned. This is a crime not only against those being cruelly attacked, but also against the Russian soldiers who are sent into battle without the preparation and professional education they – and all of us – should legitimately expect. President Vladimir Putin always recites litanies of grievances against the West in order to legitimize these policies. But even if there should be truth to some of his historical accusations, two wrongs never make a right. As academics we often observe events through the lens of the spectator, neutrally analyzing what is transpiring, and placing it into theoretical categories. But as engaged participants in the debate about military ethics we cannot be merely spectators, we are always participants. The Norwegian philosopher Hans Skjervheim, in a classic essay from 1957, wrote wisely about the difference between being “Participant and Observer” (“Deltakar og tilskodar”). Skjervheim poignantly challenges our tendency to see the academic’s stance as distanced and cold. By all means, we ought always to be balanced and not let our political or other preferences unduly influence our academic research. And we should always listen to all sides of every story. But we must never close our eyes to cynical attacks on human dignity. And this brings us back to the bottom line of military ethics: Armed force should never be used except as a necess
我们应该称之为故意和几乎完全忽视军事道德的行为是什么？也许“军事不道德”一词抓住了我们所追求的，它不仅意味着理论上的海滩，而且意味着对军事实践基本规则的令人震惊的实际忽视。随着这篇社论的撰写，乌克兰的冲突日益棘手和严重。当这个问题到达我们的读者手中时，情况可能已经改变了。然而，无论进一步发展，俄罗斯国家及其军队肯定没有按照军事道德标准来评判。正当理由、正当意图和相称性的战争法要求在乌克兰受到攻击时遭到公然违反。无论人们如何看待乌克兰部分地区讲俄语人口的权利，或者北约和欧盟不顾俄罗斯的反对，考虑乌克兰加入其组织的意愿，都是如此。必须大大提高动用军事力量的门槛，甚至从未接近过，因为乌克兰和西方基本上都在试图捍卫主权国家的独立，并阻止未来的冲突。然而，即使考虑到最低的期望，最大的道德冲击也发生在战场上，并根据贝洛法的规则。有针对性地杀害平民、肆意破坏基础设施、强奸、掠夺和酷刑都有可靠的报道，其程度不容忽视。没有经过适当训练的士兵被派往战场。几乎看不出内部纪律。这不仅是对那些遭到残酷袭击的人的罪行，也是对那些在没有得到他们——以及我们所有人——应有的准备和专业教育的情况下被派往战场的俄罗斯士兵的罪行。弗拉基米尔·普京总统总是对西方怨声载道，以使这些政策合法化。但是，即使他的一些历史指控应该是真实的，两个错误永远不会成为一个正确的。作为学者，我们经常通过旁观者的视角来观察事件，中立地分析正在发生的事情，并将其归入理论范畴。但是，作为军事伦理辩论的参与者，我们不能仅仅是旁观者，我们始终是参与者。挪威哲学家Hans Skjervheim在1957年的一篇经典文章中明智地写到了“参与者和观察者”之间的区别（“Deltakar og tilskodar”）。Skjervheim尖锐地挑战了我们将这位学者的立场视为疏远和冷漠的倾向。无论如何，我们应该始终保持平衡，不要让我们的政治或其他偏好过度影响我们的学术研究。我们应该倾听每一个故事的方方面面。但是，我们决不能对对人类尊严的愤世嫉俗的攻击视而不见。这让我们回到了军事道德的底线：除非作为对武装侵略的必要回应，否则永远不应该使用武力，并始终以最大的谨慎保护平民和遵守国际人道主义法。以民族主义、无尽的不满和扭曲的现实政治的名义，弗拉基米尔·普京故意无视所有
{"title":"The Shame of Military Immorality","authors":"Henrik Syse","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2133374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2133374","url":null,"abstract":"What should we call the willful and almost total neglect of military ethics? Maybe the term military immorality catches what we are after, signifying not only the theoretical beach but also the shocking practical neglect of the basic rules of military practice. As this editorial is being written, the conflict in Ukraine is getting more intractable and serious by the day. The situation may have changed by the time this issue reaches our readers. However, no matter the further development, the Russian state and its military have assuredly failed judged by the standards of military ethics. The jus ad bellum requirements of just cause, right intention, and proportionality were blatantly violated as Ukraine was attacked. This is true no matter how one views the rights of the Russian-speaking population of parts of Ukraine, or the willingness of NATO and the EU to consider Ukrainian membership in their organizations in spite of Russian objections. The threshold for engaging military force must be placed considerably higher and was never even approached as Ukraine and the West were essentially attempting to defend the independence of a sovereign state and forestall future conflict. The biggest moral shocks, however, even considering the lowest of expectations, have been seen on the battlefield and according to the rules of jus in bello. Targeted killings of civilians, wanton destruction of infrastructure, rape, plundering, and torture are all reliably reported to an extent that simply cannot be ignored. Soldiers without proper training are sent into battle. Little internal discipline can be discerned. This is a crime not only against those being cruelly attacked, but also against the Russian soldiers who are sent into battle without the preparation and professional education they – and all of us – should legitimately expect. President Vladimir Putin always recites litanies of grievances against the West in order to legitimize these policies. But even if there should be truth to some of his historical accusations, two wrongs never make a right. As academics we often observe events through the lens of the spectator, neutrally analyzing what is transpiring, and placing it into theoretical categories. But as engaged participants in the debate about military ethics we cannot be merely spectators, we are always participants. The Norwegian philosopher Hans Skjervheim, in a classic essay from 1957, wrote wisely about the difference between being “Participant and Observer” (“Deltakar og tilskodar”). Skjervheim poignantly challenges our tendency to see the academic’s stance as distanced and cold. By all means, we ought always to be balanced and not let our political or other preferences unduly influence our academic research. And we should always listen to all sides of every story. But we must never close our eyes to cynical attacks on human dignity. And this brings us back to the bottom line of military ethics: Armed force should never be used except as a necess","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"95 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48100681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2131104
Stephen de Wijze, D. Statman, R. Sulitzeanu-Kenan
ABSTRACT A recent empirical study has argued that experts in the ethics or the law of war cannot reach reasonable convergence on dilemmas regarding the number of civilian casualties who may be killed as a side effect of attacks on legitimate military targets. This article explores the philosophical implications of that study. We argue that the wide disagreement between experts on what in bello proportionality means in practice casts serious doubt on their ability to provide practical real-life guidance. We then suggest viewing in bello proportionality through the prism of virtue ethics.
{"title":"In Bello Proportionality: Philosophical Reflections on a Disturbing Empirical Study","authors":"Stephen de Wijze, D. Statman, R. Sulitzeanu-Kenan","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2131104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2131104","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A recent empirical study has argued that experts in the ethics or the law of war cannot reach reasonable convergence on dilemmas regarding the number of civilian casualties who may be killed as a side effect of attacks on legitimate military targets. This article explores the philosophical implications of that study. We argue that the wide disagreement between experts on what in bello proportionality means in practice casts serious doubt on their ability to provide practical real-life guidance. We then suggest viewing in bello proportionality through the prism of virtue ethics.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"116 - 131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45946542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2109314
David J. Garren
ABSTRACT The United States has been waging the “War on Terror” for nearly two decades. Obscured among the more obvious costs of that war is the moral injury borne by many of the soldiers who have fought and participated in it. Unlike post-traumatic stress disorder, which is rooted in fear, moral injury is rooted in shame, shame for having committed a moral transgression, a violation of the moral code. Haunted by the memory of their misdeeds, these soldiers are plagued by all manner of illness and infirmity, from anxiety and depression to substance abuse and suicide. In this article, I explore whether these soldiers have a right to forget, one that would entitle them to use pharmacological or psychological manipulation to cleanse their minds of the memory that they have dirtied their hands, and in that way relieve themselves of the anguish and torment from which they suffer.
{"title":"Dirty Hands and Clean Minds: On the Soldier’s Right to Forget","authors":"David J. Garren","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2109314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2109314","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The United States has been waging the “War on Terror” for nearly two decades. Obscured among the more obvious costs of that war is the moral injury borne by many of the soldiers who have fought and participated in it. Unlike post-traumatic stress disorder, which is rooted in fear, moral injury is rooted in shame, shame for having committed a moral transgression, a violation of the moral code. Haunted by the memory of their misdeeds, these soldiers are plagued by all manner of illness and infirmity, from anxiety and depression to substance abuse and suicide. In this article, I explore whether these soldiers have a right to forget, one that would entitle them to use pharmacological or psychological manipulation to cleanse their minds of the memory that they have dirtied their hands, and in that way relieve themselves of the anguish and torment from which they suffer.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"162 - 182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43766721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2133372
Gareth Rice, Jason Selman
ABSTRACT This article examines soldier performance optimisation, enhancement, and augmentation across the three dimensions of physical performance, cognitive performance, and socio-cultural understanding. Optimisation refers to combatants attaining their maximum biological potential. Enhancement refers to combatants achieving a level of performance beyond their biological potential through drugs, surgical procedures, or even gene editing. Augmentation refers to a blending of organic and biomechatronic body parts such as electronic or mechanical implants, prosthetics, and brain–machine interfaces. This article identifies that soldier optimisation is a necessity to protect individual combatants and to give them the ability to make legal and morally justifiable decisions in battle. While enhancement and augmentation of military personnel can lead to accelerated and more destructive warfare, it can also be argued that there is an ethical and moral responsibility to provide combatants the best opportunity for survivability, and that better functioning, less fatigued, and better informed military personnel can make better decisions in battle. There is also a moral responsibility of the state for the combatants themselves, and short-term military success must be balanced against the short- and long-term health and wellbeing of the personnel. This article concludes that it is both the intent and the degree that decide the acceptability.
{"title":"Sola dosis facit venenum: The Ethics of Soldier Optimisation, Enhancement, and Augmentation","authors":"Gareth Rice, Jason Selman","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2133372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2133372","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines soldier performance optimisation, enhancement, and augmentation across the three dimensions of physical performance, cognitive performance, and socio-cultural understanding. Optimisation refers to combatants attaining their maximum biological potential. Enhancement refers to combatants achieving a level of performance beyond their biological potential through drugs, surgical procedures, or even gene editing. Augmentation refers to a blending of organic and biomechatronic body parts such as electronic or mechanical implants, prosthetics, and brain–machine interfaces. This article identifies that soldier optimisation is a necessity to protect individual combatants and to give them the ability to make legal and morally justifiable decisions in battle. While enhancement and augmentation of military personnel can lead to accelerated and more destructive warfare, it can also be argued that there is an ethical and moral responsibility to provide combatants the best opportunity for survivability, and that better functioning, less fatigued, and better informed military personnel can make better decisions in battle. There is also a moral responsibility of the state for the combatants themselves, and short-term military success must be balanced against the short- and long-term health and wellbeing of the personnel. This article concludes that it is both the intent and the degree that decide the acceptability.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"97 - 115"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48389892","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2064951
T. Prorokova-Konrad
ABSTRACT The Balkan War was a conflict that provoked many parties to intervene. The war was also covered by a number of journalists, who carried out what we may call a “media intervention.” This article analyzes Welcome to Sarajevo, No Man’s Land, and The Hunting Party to demonstrate that it was the media and specifically journalists who drew the attention of the international community to the horrifying events that took place in the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the article examines how the films brought the war to a personal level, thereby making the journalists direct participants in the chaos of conflict.
{"title":"Reporting, Reflecting, Participating: Media Intervention in the Balkan War in Welcome to Sarajevo, No Man’s Land, and The Hunting Party","authors":"T. Prorokova-Konrad","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2064951","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2064951","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Balkan War was a conflict that provoked many parties to intervene. The war was also covered by a number of journalists, who carried out what we may call a “media intervention.” This article analyzes Welcome to Sarajevo, No Man’s Land, and The Hunting Party to demonstrate that it was the media and specifically journalists who drew the attention of the international community to the horrifying events that took place in the former Yugoslavia. Additionally, the article examines how the films brought the war to a personal level, thereby making the journalists direct participants in the chaos of conflict.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"4 - 18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42605240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2063103
M. Cappuccio, Jai C. Galliott, F. Alnajjar
ABSTRACT Autonomous weapon systems (AWS) could in principle release military personnel from the onus of killing during combat missions, reducing the related risk of suffering a moral injury and its debilitating psychological effects. Does it follow that the armed forces are obliged to replace human soldiers with machines to reduce the incidence of moral injuries? We address this question from a virtue ethics perspective that construes moral injury as a form of character deterioration, a disgrace that just societies and institutions are morally committed to preventing. The question is divided in two sub-questions: (1) can the use of AWS reduce the risk of moral injury and is such a solution more effective than similar ones? (2) Is the use of AWS an ethically desirable solution to prevent moral injury or does it carry unethical implications that make it ultimately unsuitable? We tackle these questions comparing the opposite risks of character deterioration represented by moral injury and moral deskilling, discussing how the proposed solution evokes problematic trade-offs for the cultivation of military virtue.
{"title":"A Taste of Armageddon: A Virtue Ethics Perspective on Autonomous Weapons and Moral Injury","authors":"M. Cappuccio, Jai C. Galliott, F. Alnajjar","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2063103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2063103","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Autonomous weapon systems (AWS) could in principle release military personnel from the onus of killing during combat missions, reducing the related risk of suffering a moral injury and its debilitating psychological effects. Does it follow that the armed forces are obliged to replace human soldiers with machines to reduce the incidence of moral injuries? We address this question from a virtue ethics perspective that construes moral injury as a form of character deterioration, a disgrace that just societies and institutions are morally committed to preventing. The question is divided in two sub-questions: (1) can the use of AWS reduce the risk of moral injury and is such a solution more effective than similar ones? (2) Is the use of AWS an ethically desirable solution to prevent moral injury or does it carry unethical implications that make it ultimately unsuitable? We tackle these questions comparing the opposite risks of character deterioration represented by moral injury and moral deskilling, discussing how the proposed solution evokes problematic trade-offs for the cultivation of military virtue.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"19 - 38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41426934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2074418
James L. Cook
Do just war principles allow resort to war, or require it? For those who feel the force of the question, the ongoing war in Ukraine has provided an urgent case study. A video shot in late February 2022 gave the world a quick lesson in the Ukrainian language, with special emphasis on the word tūt, “here.” President Volodymyr Zelensky used the monosyllable to punctuate a roll call of Ukrainians present for duty in the face of foreign intimidation and invasion. First, he mentioned four of his administration’s top officials and then referred briefly to himself before reaching the crescendo appropriate to a proud democracy.
{"title":"A Clarion Call: Tūt!","authors":"James L. Cook","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2074418","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2074418","url":null,"abstract":"Do just war principles allow resort to war, or require it? For those who feel the force of the question, the ongoing war in Ukraine has provided an urgent case study. A video shot in late February 2022 gave the world a quick lesson in the Ukrainian language, with special emphasis on the word tūt, “here.” President Volodymyr Zelensky used the monosyllable to punctuate a roll call of Ukrainians present for duty in the face of foreign intimidation and invasion. First, he mentioned four of his administration’s top officials and then referred briefly to himself before reaching the crescendo appropriate to a proud democracy.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"1 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42318627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/15027570.2022.2079278
Henrik Syse
{"title":"Should We Ban Killer Robots?","authors":"Henrik Syse","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2022.2079278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2022.2079278","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"21 1","pages":"93 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49001384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：