Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Clarification

Q2 Arts and Humanities
N. Wood
{"title":"Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Clarification","authors":"N. Wood","doi":"10.1080/15027570.2023.2214402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Due to advances in military technology, there has been an outpouring of research on what are known as autonomous weapon systems (AWS). However, it is common in this literature for arguments to be made without first making clear exactly what definitions one is employing, with the detrimental effect that authors may speak past one another or even miss the targets of their arguments. In this article I examine the U.S. Department of Defense and International Committee of the Red Cross definitions of AWS, showing that these definitions are far broader than some recognize, and that they therefore classify a much larger set of weapons as AWS. I then show that these broader views of AWS have implications for what moral and legal rules we might argue should be applied to such systems. I conclude by arguing there is a greater need for precision and clarity within AWS debates, in order to ensure that researchers are discussing the same weapon systems (autonomous or otherwise) when they argue for or against particular points. The purpose of this article is not to defend any specific view of AWS, nor to further any general endorsement or objection to such systems, but rather to show the importance of argumentative clarity in this debate.","PeriodicalId":39180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Military Ethics","volume":"22 1","pages":"18 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Military Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2023.2214402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Due to advances in military technology, there has been an outpouring of research on what are known as autonomous weapon systems (AWS). However, it is common in this literature for arguments to be made without first making clear exactly what definitions one is employing, with the detrimental effect that authors may speak past one another or even miss the targets of their arguments. In this article I examine the U.S. Department of Defense and International Committee of the Red Cross definitions of AWS, showing that these definitions are far broader than some recognize, and that they therefore classify a much larger set of weapons as AWS. I then show that these broader views of AWS have implications for what moral and legal rules we might argue should be applied to such systems. I conclude by arguing there is a greater need for precision and clarity within AWS debates, in order to ensure that researchers are discussing the same weapon systems (autonomous or otherwise) when they argue for or against particular points. The purpose of this article is not to defend any specific view of AWS, nor to further any general endorsement or objection to such systems, but rather to show the importance of argumentative clarity in this debate.
自主武器系统:澄清
摘要由于军事技术的进步,人们对自主武器系统(AWS)的研究层出不穷。然而,在这篇文献中,在没有首先明确使用什么定义的情况下进行争论是很常见的,这会产生不利影响,即作者可能会相互忽略,甚至错过他们争论的目标。在这篇文章中,我研究了美国国防部和红十字国际委员会对AWS的定义,表明这些定义远比一些人认识到的要广泛,因此他们将更大的一套武器归类为AWS。然后,我表明,AWS的这些更广泛的观点对我们可能认为应该将哪些道德和法律规则应用于此类系统有影响。最后,我认为,AWS辩论中更需要精确性和清晰度,以确保研究人员在支持或反对特定观点时讨论相同的武器系统(自主或其他)。本文的目的不是为了捍卫AWS的任何具体观点,也不是为了进一步支持或反对此类系统,而是为了表明在这场辩论中论证清晰的重要性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Military Ethics
Journal of Military Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信