Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 461–486 | Cite as

The Just War Theory and the Ethical Governance of Research

Original Paper

Abstract

This article analyses current trends in and future expectations of nanotechnology and other key enabling technologies for security as well as dual use nanotechnology from the perspective of the ethical Just War Theory (JWT), interpreted as an instrument to increase the threshold for using armed force for solving conflicts. The aim is to investigate the relevance of the JWT to the ethical governance of research. The analysis gives rise to the following results. From the perspective of the JWT, military research should be evaluated with different criteria than research for civil or civil security applications. From a technological perspective, the boundaries between technologies for civil and military applications are fuzzy. Therefore the JWT offers theoretical grounds for making clear distinctions between research for military, civil security and other applications that are not obvious from a purely technological perspective. Different actors bear responsibility for development of the technology than for resorting to armed force for solving conflicts or for use of weapons and military technologies in combat. Different criteria should be used for moral judgment of decisions made by each type of actor in each context. In addition to evaluation of potential consequences of future use of the weapons or military technologies under development, the JWT also prescribes ethical evaluation of the inherent intent and other foreseeable consequences of the development itself of new military technologies.

Keywords

Just War Theory Research ethics Nanotechnology Emerging technology Governance 

References

  1. Altmann, J. (2005). Nanotechnology and preventive arms control. Osnabrück: Deutsche Stiftung Friedensforschung.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, J. (2006). Military nanotechnology: Potential applications and preventive arms control. Contemporary security studies. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Altmann, J. (2008). Präventive Rüstungskontrolle. Die Friedens-Warte, 83(2–3), 105–125.Google Scholar
  4. Eisenhower, D. D. (1961). Militaryindustrial complex speech. Michigan State University. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  5. Ericson, L. (2007). Introduction: Nanotechnology and biometrics, presentation at biometric consortium conference, 13 September 2007. http://www.biometrics.org/bc2007/presentations/Thu_Sep_13/Session_II/13_Ericson_NANO.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2012.
  6. EDA (2009). Annual report 2009. Brussels: European Defence Agency. http://www.eda.europa.eu/genericitem.aspx?id=621. Accessed 19 July 2010
  7. ESRAB (2006). Meeting the challenge. The European security research agenda. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/security/publications/index_en.htm. Accessed 21 Feb 2012.
  8. EU. (2000). Charter of the fundamental rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities 2000/C 364/01 18/12/2000. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2011.
  9. European Commission. (2006). Eurobarometer 66. European commission. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb66/eb66_en.htm. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  10. European Commission. (2007). Special Eurobarometer 266: The role of the European Union in justice, freedom and security policy areas. Brussels: European Commission DG Communication at the request of DG Justice, Freedom and Security. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_264_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  11. European Commission. (2010). Eurobarometer 74. European commission. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb74/eb74_publ_en.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  12. Greenwood, C. (1998). The law of weaponry at the start of the new millennium. In M. N. Schmitt & L. C. Green (Eds.), The law of armed conflict: Into the next millennium. International law studies (Vol. 71, pp. 185–232). Newport, Rhode Island: Naval War College.Google Scholar
  13. Gsponer, A. (2007). From lab to battlefield. Disarmament Diplomacy, 67.Google Scholar
  14. Gubrud, M. A. (1997). Nanotechnology and international security. In Proceedings 5th foresight conference on molecular nanotechnology.Google Scholar
  15. James, A. D. (2010). Scenario report SANDERA: The future impact of security and defence policies on the European research area. SANDERA project. Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research. www.sandera.net. Accessed March 2011.
  16. Lawand, K. (2006). Reviewing the legality of new weapons. International review of the Red Cross, 2006, 925–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix of university—industry—government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(1996), 279–286.Google Scholar
  18. Lietzau, W. K. (2004). Old laws, new wars: Jus ad Bellum in an age of terrorism. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 8, 383–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malsch, I. (2011). Ethics and nanotechnology: Responsible development of nanotechnology at global level in the 21st century. PhD-thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
  20. Malsch, I., & Fruelund-Andersen, A. M. (2011). Ethical and societal aspects of nanotechnology enabled ICT and Security Technologies. Observatory nano project. http://www.observatorynano.eu/project/document/3525/. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  21. Mangan, J. (1949). An historical analysis of the principle of double effect. Theological Studies, 10, 41–61.Google Scholar
  22. McIntyre, A. (2011). Doctrine of double effect. In N. Z. Edward (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/double-effect/. Accessed 31 Jan 2012.
  23. Moseley, A. (2009). Just war theory. The internet encyclopaedia of philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm. Accessed 9 Feb 2012.
  24. Nanoforum (2007). Nanotechnology for civil security. Nanoforum. http://www.nanoforum.org/nf06~modul~showmore~folder~99999~scid~476~.html? action=longview_publication. Accessed 19 July 2010.
  25. Nasu, H., & Faunce, T. (2009). Nanotechnology and the international law of weaponry: Towards international regulation of nanoweapons. Journal of Law and Information Science, 20, 21 (online).Google Scholar
  26. Nixdorff, K. (2010). Technological developments of relevance to the BWC: What are we talking about? BioWeapons Prevention Project RevCon Discussions. http://www.bwpp.org/revcon-techinfluence.html. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  27. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values). Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. O’Donovan, O. (2003). The just war revisited. Cambridge: Current Issues in Theology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ObservatoryNano. (2009). General sector reports: Security. ObservatoryNano project. http://www.observatorynano.eu/project/catalogue/2SE/ Accessed 27 Jan 2011.
  30. Risser, D. T. (2009). Collective moral responsibility. The internet encyclopaedia of philosophy. Last updated 14 Dec 2009, Originally published: 6 July 2004. http://www.iep.utm.edu/collecti/. Last accessed 15 Oct 2010.
  31. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2003). Nanotechnology: Societal implicationsmaximizing benefit for humanity. Report of national nanotechnology initiative workshop, 3-5 Dec 2003, Arlington, VA, USA: NSF, http://www.nano.gov/nni_societal_implications.pdf. Last accessed 29 Oct 2010.
  32. Roco, M. C., Mirkin, C. A. & Hersham, M C. (Eds.). (2010). Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: Retrospective and outlook. Dordrecht: Springer. www.wtec.org/nano2. Accessed 31 Jan 2012.
  33. Schmitt, M. N. (2005). Precision attack and international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross, 87(859), 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schummer, J. (2001). Ethics of chemical synthesis. HYLE: International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 7(2), 103–124. http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/7/schummer.htm. Accessed 31 Jan 2012.
  35. Simonis, F., Schilthuizen, S. (2006) Nanotechnology: Innovation opportunities for tomorrow’s defence. TNO Science and Industry. www.futuretechnologycenter.nl. Update 2009: http://www.isoconnectors.com/defensie/. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  36. Üzümcü, A. (2010). Future challenges of the OPCW. Address by Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, Director General OPCW, Global Security Research Institute, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan. http://www.opcw.org/search/?search=future. Accessed 22 Sept 2011.
  37. Van der Bruggen, K. (2011) Part A: Possibilities or Intentions: The concept of Dual Use reconsidered. In S. Miller, M. Selgelid & K. van der Bruggen, Report on Biosecurity and Dual Use Research; A report for the Dutch Research Council. Delft: 3TU Centre for Ethics. www.ethicsandtechnology.eu
  38. van den Hoven, J., & Vermaas, P. (2007). Nano-technology and privacy: On continuous surveillance outside the panopticum. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(3), 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vlandas, A. (2006) Managing nanotechnology. SGR Newsletter, 32. http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/managing-nanotechnology Accessed 1 Mar 2011.
  40. Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  41. Williams, G. (2009). Responsibility. The internet encyclopaedia of philosophy, Last updated 9 March 2009. Originally published, 19 July 2006. http://www.iep.utm.edu/responsi/. Accessed 15 Oct 2010.
  42. Wils, J.-P. (2007). Dubbel effect. In M. Becker, B. van Stokkom, P. van Tongeren, J.-P. Wils, & L. van de Ethiek (Eds.), Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Malsch TechnoValuationUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations