有争议的观点吗?追踪欧洲在致命自主武器系统上的立场

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 AREA STUDIES European Security Pub Date : 2021-12-06 DOI:10.1080/09662839.2021.2007476
Diego Badell, Lewin Schmitt
{"title":"有争议的观点吗?追踪欧洲在致命自主武器系统上的立场","authors":"Diego Badell, Lewin Schmitt","doi":"10.1080/09662839.2021.2007476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article explores the evolving positions and negotiation strategies of the EU and its member states regarding lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS). Specifically, it traces the proceedings around the UN disarmament forum Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) from 2013 to 2020. Embedded in the norm contestation literature, the empirical section draws upon semi-structured interviews as well as document analysis. We find that, despite the absence of a CFSP position on the matter, the EU and key member states have been instrumental in shaping the discussions. However, the role of the EU is constrained due to double contestation. First, at the level of member states contestation persists on what is the appropriate regulatory framework (hard or soft law). Second, contestation is also exerted towards the EU by some member states who contest the EEAS’s involvement. Some are conscious that presenting an “EU position” might constrain their ability to build global coalitions. Others do not want the EU to interfere with their national sovereignty on such a critical security issue. While these two elements work against a common EU position, we also observe a window of opportunity for the EU. Notably, the EU can strengthen the CCW by funding the forum structures and secretariat, which could become an important body in the implementation of foreseeable agreements.","PeriodicalId":46331,"journal":{"name":"European Security","volume":"31 1","pages":"242 - 261"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contested views? Tracing European positions on lethal autonomous weapon systems\",\"authors\":\"Diego Badell, Lewin Schmitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09662839.2021.2007476\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The article explores the evolving positions and negotiation strategies of the EU and its member states regarding lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS). Specifically, it traces the proceedings around the UN disarmament forum Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) from 2013 to 2020. Embedded in the norm contestation literature, the empirical section draws upon semi-structured interviews as well as document analysis. We find that, despite the absence of a CFSP position on the matter, the EU and key member states have been instrumental in shaping the discussions. However, the role of the EU is constrained due to double contestation. First, at the level of member states contestation persists on what is the appropriate regulatory framework (hard or soft law). Second, contestation is also exerted towards the EU by some member states who contest the EEAS’s involvement. Some are conscious that presenting an “EU position” might constrain their ability to build global coalitions. Others do not want the EU to interfere with their national sovereignty on such a critical security issue. While these two elements work against a common EU position, we also observe a window of opportunity for the EU. Notably, the EU can strengthen the CCW by funding the forum structures and secretariat, which could become an important body in the implementation of foreseeable agreements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46331,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Security\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"242 - 261\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Security\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.2007476\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Security","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.2007476","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要本文探讨了欧盟及其成员国在致命自主武器系统(LAWS)方面的立场和谈判策略。具体而言,它追溯了2013年至2020年联合国裁军论坛《特定常规武器公约》的进程。在规范争论文献中,实证部分借鉴了半结构化访谈和文献分析。我们发现,尽管CFSP在此事上没有立场,但欧盟和主要成员国在促成讨论方面发挥了重要作用。然而,由于双重竞争,欧盟的作用受到限制。首先,在成员国层面,对什么是适当的监管框架(硬法律或软法律)的争论依然存在。其次,一些成员国对欧洲经济区的参与也提出了质疑。一些人意识到,提出“欧盟立场”可能会限制他们建立全球联盟的能力。其他人不希望欧盟在这样一个关键的安全问题上干涉他们的国家主权。虽然这两个要素违背了欧盟的共同立场,但我们也看到了欧盟的机会之窗。值得注意的是,欧盟可以通过资助论坛结构和秘书处来加强《特定常规武器公约》,秘书处可能成为执行可预见协议的重要机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Contested views? Tracing European positions on lethal autonomous weapon systems
ABSTRACT The article explores the evolving positions and negotiation strategies of the EU and its member states regarding lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS). Specifically, it traces the proceedings around the UN disarmament forum Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) from 2013 to 2020. Embedded in the norm contestation literature, the empirical section draws upon semi-structured interviews as well as document analysis. We find that, despite the absence of a CFSP position on the matter, the EU and key member states have been instrumental in shaping the discussions. However, the role of the EU is constrained due to double contestation. First, at the level of member states contestation persists on what is the appropriate regulatory framework (hard or soft law). Second, contestation is also exerted towards the EU by some member states who contest the EEAS’s involvement. Some are conscious that presenting an “EU position” might constrain their ability to build global coalitions. Others do not want the EU to interfere with their national sovereignty on such a critical security issue. While these two elements work against a common EU position, we also observe a window of opportunity for the EU. Notably, the EU can strengthen the CCW by funding the forum structures and secretariat, which could become an important body in the implementation of foreseeable agreements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Security
European Security Multiple-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Upon entering NATO: explaining defence willingness among Swedes Instrumentalisation of fear and securitisation of “Eastern Borders Route”: the case of Poland-Belarus “border crisis” Serbia between East and West: ontological security, vicarious identity and the problem of sanctions against Russia External, non-governmental resistance in relation to interstate war: an analytical framework Improved conceptualising of hybrid interference below the threshold of armed conflict
×
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