Advertisement

Ethical Challenges of New Military Technologies

  • Stephen Coleman
Chapter

Abstract

The development and use of new military technologies raises many ethical issues. Simply examining the law regarding the use of such technologies does not capture many of these issues, since while there is certainly an intimate relationship between law and ethics, the questions raised by these two disciplines differ. Perhaps the soldier of the future might simply enter into battle in a virtual sense, by piloting a remotely controlled device, or managing attacks against the enemy’s computer systems through cyber warfare. But whatever the future may be, it is impossible to get a sense of what the laws governing armed violence ‘ought’ to be without considering the ethical issues that such new military technologies raise. This chapter considers the issues which new military technologies raise both with regard to jus ad bellum (justice of war) and jus in bello (justice in war).

Keywords

Nuclear Weapon Military Personnel Armed Conflict Political Cost Military Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bauer KA (2007) Wired patients: implanted microchips and biosensors in patient care. Camb Q Health Ethics 16:281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bee GG (2004) Pentagon develops ‘non-lethal’ energy beam weapon. http://rense.com/general53/beam.htm. Accessed 14 May 2013
  3. Coleman S (2012) Discrimination and non-lethal weapons: issues for the future military. In: Lovell D, Primoratz I (eds) Protecting civilians during violent conflict: theoretical and practical issues for the 21st century. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 215–230Google Scholar
  4. Coleman S (2013) Military ethics: an introduction with case studies. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Fidler DP (1999–2000) The international legal implications of ‘non-lethal’ weapons. Mich J Int Law 21:51–100Google Scholar
  6. Fidler DP (2005) The meaning of Moscow: ‘non-lethal’ weapons and international law in the early 21st century. Int Rev Red Cross 87:525–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fry JD (2009–2010) Gas smells awful: U.N. forces, riot control agents and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Mich J Int Law 31:475–559Google Scholar
  8. Glasser SB, Baker P (2002) Gas in raid killed 115 hostages; only 2 slain by rebels; more than 600 remain hospitalized in Moscow. The Washington Post, 28 Oct 2002, A.01Google Scholar
  9. Gross ML (2008) The second Lebanon war: the question of proportionality and the prospect of non-lethal warfare. J Mil Ethics 7:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hobbes T (1651) Leviathan. Cambridge revised student edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  12. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (2001) The responsibility to protect. International Development Research Center, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  13. Knickerbocker B (2003) The fuzzy ethics of nonlethal weapons. Christian Science Monitor, 14 FebGoogle Scholar
  14. May L, Forcehimes A (2012) Morality, jus post bellum, and international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller S, Blackler J, Alexandra A (2006) Police ethics, 2nd edn. Allen & Unwin, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  16. Quénivet N (2001) The Moscow hostage crisis in the light of the armed conflict in Chechnya. Yearb Int Hum Law 4:348–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Savulescu J, Beauchamp Z (2013) Robot guardians: teleoperated combat vehicles in humanitarian military intervention. In: Strawser BJ, McMahan J (eds) Killing by remote control: the ethics of an unmanned military. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 106–125Google Scholar
  18. Singer PW (2009) Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the twenty-first century. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Sossai M (2010) Drugs as weapons: disarmament treaties facing the advances in biochemistry and non-lethal weapons technology. J Confl Secur Law 15:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stahn C, Kleffner JK (2008) Jus post bellum: towards a law of transition from conflict to peace. TMC Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. US Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program (2013) Active denial system: frequently asked questions. http://jnlwp.defense.gov/pressroom/faq_p2.html. Accessed 14 May 2013

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian Centre for the Study of Armed Conflict and SocietyThe University of New South WalesCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations