人性更好的本能:为国际军备控制辩护的人道主义论点

Natalia Jevglevskaja, Rain Liivoja
{"title":"人性更好的本能:为国际军备控制辩护的人道主义论点","authors":"Natalia Jevglevskaja, Rain Liivoja","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197546048.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disagreements about the humanitarian risk-benefit balance of weapons technology are not new. The history of arms control negotiations offers many examples of weaponry that was regarded ‘inhumane’ by some, while hailed by others as a means to reduce injury or suffering in conflict. The debate about autonomous weapons systems reflects this dynamic, yet also stands out in some respects, notably largely hypothetical nature of concerns raised in regard to these systems as well as ostensible disparities in States’ approaches to conceptualizing autonomy. This chapter considers how misconceptions surrounding autonomous weapons technology impede the progress of the deliberations of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. An obvious tendency to focus on the perceived risks posed by these systems, much more so than potential operational and humanitarian advantages they offer, is likely to jeopardize the prospect of finding a meaningful resolution to the debate.","PeriodicalId":145178,"journal":{"name":"Lethal Autonomous Weapons","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Better Instincts of Humanity: Humanitarian Arguments in Defense of International Arms Control\",\"authors\":\"Natalia Jevglevskaja, Rain Liivoja\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197546048.003.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Disagreements about the humanitarian risk-benefit balance of weapons technology are not new. The history of arms control negotiations offers many examples of weaponry that was regarded ‘inhumane’ by some, while hailed by others as a means to reduce injury or suffering in conflict. The debate about autonomous weapons systems reflects this dynamic, yet also stands out in some respects, notably largely hypothetical nature of concerns raised in regard to these systems as well as ostensible disparities in States’ approaches to conceptualizing autonomy. This chapter considers how misconceptions surrounding autonomous weapons technology impede the progress of the deliberations of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. An obvious tendency to focus on the perceived risks posed by these systems, much more so than potential operational and humanitarian advantages they offer, is likely to jeopardize the prospect of finding a meaningful resolution to the debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":145178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lethal Autonomous Weapons\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lethal Autonomous Weapons\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197546048.003.0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lethal Autonomous Weapons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197546048.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于武器技术的人道主义风险-利益平衡的分歧并不新鲜。军备控制谈判的历史提供了许多被一些人视为“不人道”的武器的例子,而另一些人则将其视为减少冲突中伤害或痛苦的手段。关于自主武器系统的辩论反映了这一动态,但在某些方面也很突出,特别是就这些系统提出的关切在很大程度上是假设性的,以及各国对自主概念的做法表面上存在差异。本章考虑了围绕自主武器技术的误解如何阻碍致命自主武器系统政府专家组的审议进展。一种明显的倾向是,把注意力集中在这些系统所造成的风险上,而不是它们所提供的潜在的业务和人道主义优势上,这可能会危及为辩论找到有意义的解决办法的前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Better Instincts of Humanity: Humanitarian Arguments in Defense of International Arms Control
Disagreements about the humanitarian risk-benefit balance of weapons technology are not new. The history of arms control negotiations offers many examples of weaponry that was regarded ‘inhumane’ by some, while hailed by others as a means to reduce injury or suffering in conflict. The debate about autonomous weapons systems reflects this dynamic, yet also stands out in some respects, notably largely hypothetical nature of concerns raised in regard to these systems as well as ostensible disparities in States’ approaches to conceptualizing autonomy. This chapter considers how misconceptions surrounding autonomous weapons technology impede the progress of the deliberations of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. An obvious tendency to focus on the perceived risks posed by these systems, much more so than potential operational and humanitarian advantages they offer, is likely to jeopardize the prospect of finding a meaningful resolution to the debate.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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