Advertisement

When Scientists Become Activists: The International Committee for Robot Arms Control and the Politics of Killer Robots

  • Matthew Breay BoltonEmail author
  • Cayman C. Mitchell
Chapter

Abstract

The International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC)—a group of intellectuals advocating for multilateral regulation of military robotics—have moved quickly from academic obscurity to the center of a global advocacy campaign aiming to prohibit autonomous weapons systems (AWS or “killer robots”). ICRAC’s success offers an opportunity to explore the interaction between academia and the global policymaking arena. Drawing on post-structural and constructivist perspectives, we argue that—contrary to binary oppositions between Science and Politics—the academic and political processes on AWS have co-constituted each other. ICRAC’s scholar-activists have persuaded the diplomatic apparatus to address their concerns. But engaging with the policy arena has contributed to ICRAC’s “gentrification,” transitioning from a process-oriented scholarly collective to a more conventional civil society organization.

Bibliography

  1. Acheson, R., Bolton, M., Minor, E., & Pytlak, A. (Eds.). (2017). The Humanitarian Impact of Drones. New York: Reaching Critical Will and International Disarmament Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, E. (1992). The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control. International Organization, 46(1), 101–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altmann, J. (2013). Arms Control for Armed Uninhabited Vehicles—An Ethical Issue. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altmann, J., & Gubrud, M. (2002). Risks from Military Uses of Nanotechnology—The Need for Technology Assessment and Preventative Control. In M. Roca & R. Tomellini (Eds.), Nanotechnology—Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications (pp. 144–148). Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, E. (2011) Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/.
  6. Anderson, K., & Waxman, M. C. (2012, December and 2013, January). Law and Ethics for Robot Soldiers. Policy Review, 35–49.Google Scholar
  7. Arkin, R. C., & Moshkina, L. (2007). Lethality and Autonomous Robots: An Ethical Stance. DTIC Online. Retrieved from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA468122.
  8. Arkin, R. (2009). Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Asaro, P. (2008). How Just Could a Robot War Be? In A. Briggle, K. Vaelbers, & P. Brey (Eds.), Current Issues in Computing and Philosophy (pp. 50–64). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  10. Asaro, P. (2012). On Banning Autonomous Weapon Systems: Human Rights, Automation, and the Dehumanization of Lethal Decision-Making. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 687–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bolton, M., & Jeffrey, A. (2008). The Politics of NGO Registration in International Protectorates: The Cases of Bosnia and Iraq. Disasters, 32(4), 586–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bolton, M., & Mitchell, C. (2014, August 29). The Peloponnesian War and Killer Robots: Norms of Protection in Security Policy. E-International Relations. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/2014/08/29/the-peloponnesian-war-and-killer-robots-norms-of-protection-in-security-policy/.
  13. Bolton, M. (2013, November 14). ICRAC Delivers Statement to States Parties to the Convention on Conventional Weapons at the UN in Geneva. ICRAC. Retrieved from http://icrac.net/2013/11/icrac-delivers-statement-to-states-parties-to-the-convention-on-conventional-weapons-at-the-un-in-geneva-in/.
  14. Borrie, J. (2012). Understanding International Efforts to Address the Humanitarian Effects of Cluster Munitions, 20032008 (PhD thesis). University of Braford. Retrieved from https://bradscholars.brad.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10454/5769/BORRIE%20PhD%20thesis%20-%20FINAL%20post-VIVA.pdf?sequence=1.
  15. Bourne, M. (2012). Guns Don’t Kill People, Cyborgs Do: A Latourian Provocation for Transformatory Arms Control and Disarmament. Global Change, Peace and Security, 24(1), 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. (2013). Consensus: Killer Robots Must be Addressed. Retrieved from https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2013/05/nations-to-debate-killer-robots-at-un/.
  17. Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. (2017, December 22). 2017: A Lost Year for Diplomacy. Retrieved from https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2017/12/lostyear/.
  18. Carpenter, C. (2014). “Lost” Causes: Agenda Vetting in Global Issue Networks and the Shaping of Human Security. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohn, C. (1987). Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals. Signs, 12(4), 687–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cross, M. K. D. (2013). Rethinking Epistemic Communities Twenty Years Later. Review of International Studies, 39(1), 137–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Landa, M. (1991). War in the Age of Intelligent Machines. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  22. Dickson, D. (1984). The New Politics of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Drake, W., & Nicolaïdis, K. (1992). Ideas, Interests, and Institutionalization: “Trade in Services” and the Uruguay Round. International Organization, 46(1), 37–100.Google Scholar
  24. Dunlop, C. (2000). Epistemic Communities: A Reply to Toke. Politics, 20(3), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunlop, C. (2015). Epistemic Communities. In E. Araral, S. Fritzen, M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, & X. Wu (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Epstein, S. (1995). The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Epstein, C. (2005). Knowledge and Power in Environmental Activism. International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
  28. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  30. Future of Life Institute. (2015) Autonomous Weapons: An Open Letter from AI & Robotics Researchers. Retrieved from http://futureoflife.org/AI/open_letter_autonomous_weapons.
  31. Garcia, D. (2004, April). Making New International Norms: The Small Arms Case (BCSIA Discussion Paper 2003-3). Retrieved from http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2946/making_new_international_norms.html.
  32. Garcia, D. (2014). The Case Against Killer Robots. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141407/denise-garcia/the-case-against-killer-robots.
  33. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Groves, S. (2015). The U.S. Should Oppose the U.N.’s Attempt to Ban Autonomous Weapons. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/03/the-us-should-oppose-the-uns-attempt-to-ban-autonomous-weapons.
  35. Gough, C., & Shackley, S. (2001). The Respectable Politics of Climate Change: The Epistemic Communities and NGOs. International Affairs, 77(2), 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gubrud, M. (2012, November 27). DoD Directive on Autonomy in Weapon Systems. ICRAC. Retrieved from http://icrac.net/2012/11/dod-directive-on-autonomy-in-weapon-systems/.
  37. Gubrud, M., & Altmann, J. (2013, May). Compliance Measures for an Autonomous Weapons Convention (ICRAC Working Paper No. 2). Retrieved from http://icrac.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Gubrud-Altmann_Compliance-Measures-AWC_ICRAC-WP2-2.pdf (no longer online).
  38. Haas, P. (1989). Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control. International Organization, 43(3), 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haas, P. (1992a). Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone. International Organization, 46(1), 187–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haas, P. (1992b). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Haas, P. (2004). When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. E., & Wajcman, J. (2007). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (3rd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hall, P. A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haraway, D. J. (1989). Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Hess, D. J. (1995). Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Heyns, C. (2013, April 9). Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns (A/HRC/23/47). Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-47_en.pdf.
  47. Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Holzner, B. (1972). Reality Construction in Society. Cambridge: Schenkman.Google Scholar
  49. Hopkins, R. F. (1992). Reform in the International Food aid Regime: The Role of Consensual Knowledge. International Organization, 46(1), 225–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic. (2012). Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  51. Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic. (2014). Shaking the Foundations: The Human Rights Implications of Killer Robots. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  52. Ikenberry, G. J. (1992). A World Economy Restored: Expert Consensus and the Anglo-American Postwar Settlement. International Organization, 46(1), 289–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. International Committee for Robot Arms Control. (2009, September). Mission Statement. Retrieved from http://icrac.net/statements/.
  54. International Committee for Robot Arms Control. (2010, October). Berlin Statement. Retrieved from http://icrac.net/statements/.
  55. International Committee for Robot Arms Control. (2012, September). Scientists’ Call to Ban Autonomous Lethal Robots. Retrieved from http://icrac.net/call/.
  56. Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jeffrey, A. (2013). The Improvised State: Sovereignty, Performance and Agency in Dayton Bosnia. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Kapstein, E. B. (1992). Between Power and Purpose: Central Bankers and the Politics of Regulatory Convergence. International Organization, 46(1), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Karp, A. (2002). Small Arms: Back to the Future. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 9(1), 179–191.Google Scholar
  60. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Kellenberger, J. (2011, September 8). International Humanitarian Law and New Weapon Technologies. Retrieved from http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/new-weapon-technologies-statement-2011-09-08.htm.
  62. Klotz, A. (2002). Transnational Activism and Global Transformations: The Anti-Apartheid and Abolitionist Experiences. European Journal of International Relations, 8(1), 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Krause, K. (2001). Norm-Building in Security Spaces: The Emergence of the Light Weapons Problematic (GERSI/REGIS Working Papers 11). Retrieved from https://depot.erudit.org/bitstream/000854dd/1/000257pp.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2014.
  64. Krause, K. (2002). Multilateral Diplomacy, Norm Building, and UN Conference: The Case of Small Arms and Light Weapons. Global Governance, 8(2), 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Krause, K. (2014). Transnational Civil Society Activism and International Security Politics: From Landmines to Global Zero. Global Policy, 5(2), 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Krebs, R. R. (2001). The Limits of Alliance Conflict, Cooperation and Collective Identity. In A. Lake & D. Ochmanek (Eds.), The Real and the Ideal. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  67. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Lakatos, I. (1973). Science and Pseudoscience. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/About/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.aspx.
  69. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Lemmons, P. (1985, January). Autonomous Weapons and Human Responsibility. Byte (p. 6). Retrieved from http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/autonomous-weapons/articles/human-responsibility.txt.
  72. Lidskog, R., & Sundqvist, G. (2015). When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies. Global Environmental Politics, 15(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Marks, P. (2008, March 28). Anti-landmine Campaigners Turn Sights on War Robots. New Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13550-antilandmine-campaigners-turn-sights-on-war-robots.html#.U52_ISLD-t8.
  74. Mazower, M. (2012). Governing the World: The History of an Idea, 1815 to the Present. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  75. Meijerink, S. (2005). Understanding Policy Stability and Change: The Interplay of Advocacy Coalitions and Epistemic Communities, Windows of Opportunity and Dutch Coastal Flooding Policy 1945–2003. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(6), 1060–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Niva, S. (2013). Disappearing Violence: JSOC and the Pentagon’s New Cartography of Networked Warfare. Security Dialogue, 44(3), 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Oudes, C., & Zwijnenburg, W. (2011, May). Does Unmanned Make Unacceptable? Exploring the Debate on Using Drones and Robots in Warfare. IKV Pax Christi. Retrieved from http://www.paxvoorvrede.nl/media/files/does-u-make-ulowspreads_0.pdf.
  78. Peterson, M. J. (1992). Whalers, Cetologists, Environmentalists, and the International Management of Whaling. International Organization, 46(1), 147–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Peterson, J. (1995). Decision-Making in the European Union: Towards a Framework for Analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Peterson, J., & Bomberg, E. (1999). Decision-Making in the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Price, R. (1998). Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines. International Organization, 52(3), 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Radaelli, C. M. (1999). Technocracy in the European Union. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  84. Raustiala, K. (1997). Domestic Institutions and International Regulatory Cooperation: Comparative Responses to the Convention on Biological Diversity. World Politics, 49(4), 482–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rishani, D. (2014). On Feminist Epistemology: The Fallibility of Gendered Science. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 3(6), 91–93.Google Scholar
  86. Rogers, M. (1984, June 25). Birth of the Killer Robots. Newsweek, 59. Retrieved from http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/autonomous-weapons/articles/killer-robots.txt.
  87. Ron, J., Ramos, H., & Rodgers, K. (2005). Transnational Information Politics: NGO Human Rights Reporting, 1986–2000. International Studies Quarterly, 49(3), 557–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ruggie, J. G. (1975). International Responses to Technology: Concepts and Trends. International Organization, 29(3), 557–583.Google Scholar
  89. Sabatier, P. (1998). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The Advocacy-Coalition Framework: An Assessment. In P. Sabatier & H. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117–166). Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  91. Sauer, F. (2014) Autonomous Weapons Systems—Humanising or Dehumanising Warfare? Global Governance Spotlight 4|2014. Bonn: German Development and Peace Foundation.Google Scholar
  92. Sauer, F., & Schornig, N. (2012). Killer drones: The ‘Silver Bullet’ of Democratic Warfare? Security Dialogue, 43(4), 363–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Shachtman, N. (2007, February 19). Brits Begin Killer Drone Push. WIRED the Danger Room. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2007/02/brits_begin_kil/.
  94. Sharkey, N. (2007a, August) Robot Wars Are a Reality. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/aug/18/comment.military.
  95. Sharkey, N. (2007b, November). Automated Killers and the Computing Profession. Computer, 40(11), 123–124.Google Scholar
  96. Sharkey, N. (2008, October). Grounds for Discrimination: Autonomous Robot Weapons. RUSI Defence Systems. Retrieved from https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/23sharkey.pdf.
  97. Sharkey, N. (2012). The Evitability of Autonomous Robot Weapons. International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 787–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sharkey, N. (2013, March 6). Robot Warriors: Lethal Machines Coming of Age. ICRAC. Retrieved from http://icrac.net/2013/03/robot-warriors-lethal-machines-coming-of-age/.
  99. Sharkey, N., & Suchman, L. (2013). Wishful Mnemonics and Autonomous Killing Machines. AISB Quarterly, 136, 14–22.Google Scholar
  100. Simonite, T. (2008, February 27). ‘Robot Arms Race’ Underway, Experts Warn. New Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13382-robot-arms-race-underway-expert-warns.html#.U52_kSLD-t8.
  101. Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  102. Sismondo, S. (2009). An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies (2nd ed.). London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  103. Soyfer, V. N. (1994). Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Sparrow, R. (2007). Killer Robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), 62–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stepputat, F. (2012). Knowledge Production in the Security-Development Nexus: An Ethnographic Reflection. Security Dialogue, 43(5), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Terrall, M. (2011). Heroic Narratives of Quest and Discovery. In S. Harding (Ed.), The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader (pp. 84–102). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Toke, D. (1999). Epistemic Communities and Environmental Groups. Politics, 19(2), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Topol, S. A. (2016, August 26). Attack of the Killer Robots. BuzzFeed. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeed.com/sarahatopol/how-to-save-mankind-from-the-new-breed-of-killer-robots?utm_term=.dpJ5R6XbqE#.symNZb5w6P.
  109. UN Office in Geneva. (2014). Disarmament: Lethal Autonomous Weapons. Retrieved from http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/6CE049BE22EC75A2C1257C8D00513E26?OpenDocument.
  110. Verdun, A. (1999). The Role of the Delors Committee in the creation of EMU: An Epistemic Community? Journal of European Public Policy, 6(2), 308–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Walters, W. (2014). Drone Strikes, Dingpolitik and Beyond: Furthering the Debate on Materiality and Security. Security Dialogue., 45(2), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills, Trans. and Eds., pp. 129–156). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Wendt, A. (1987). The Agent-Structure Problem. International Organization, 41, 335–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Welty, E., Bolton, M., Nayak, M., & Malone, C. (Eds.). (2013). Occupying Political Science: The Occupy Wall Street Movement from New York to the World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  115. White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  116. White, H. (1986). Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Williams, J. (2011). Borderless Battlefield: The CIA, the US Military and Drones. International Journal of Intelligence Ethics, 2(1), 2–23.Google Scholar
  118. Williams, R. (2005, August 25). Noel Sharkey. ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/inconversation/noel-sharkey/3356158.
  119. Woolgar, S. (Ed.). (1988). Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  120. Youde, J. (2005). The Development of a Counter-Epistemic Community: AIDS, South Africa and International Regimes. International Relations, 19(4), 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Zito, A. (2001). Epistemic Communities, Collective Entrepreneurship and European Integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political SciencePace UniversityNew York CityUSA
  2. 2.Jenner & Block LLPNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations