Neuroethics of Warfare

Reference work entry

Abstract

International Humanitarian Law was established in the twentieth century to reduce the impact of warfare on civilians as well as to increase the protection of combatants. This chapter critiques its specific focus on the reduction of physical harm, while it does not take into consideration the impact of psychological harm onto civilians and combatants. Advances in neuroscience have shown that psychological well-being is linked with neuroanatomy and thus harm to the psyche is comparable to and even congruent with neurophysiological damage. The effects of stress and fear, which are abundant in modern warfare, are felt by combatants and noncombatants alike and have detrimental long-term effects. In addition, modern military doctrines, such as “Shock and Awe,” used in the Iraqi invasion in 2003, specifically try to inflict fear and anxiety. While it may be argued that this leads to fewer casualties, the long-term effects of this doctrine may have unforeseen future consequences as societies suffer from neurophysiological damage. Neuroethics is uniquely suited to critique current military doctrines and technologies and push for a revision of International Humanitarian Law to take into consideration and apply the insights about the human mind that neuroscience has uncovered.

Keywords

Prenatal Stress Geneva Convention Military Technology Neurophysiological Effect Acute Stress Disorder 
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. Adamec, R., Kent, P., Anisman, H., Shallow, T., & Merali, Z. (1998). Neural plasticity, neuropeptides and anxiety in animals – Implications for understanding and treating affective disorder following traumatic stress in humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Review, 23, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th ed, text rev.) Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  3. Binelli, C., Ortiz, A., Muñiz, A., Gelabert, E., Ferraz, L., Filho, A. S., Crippa, J. A. S., Nardi, A. E., Subirà, S., & Martín-Santos, R. (2012). Social anxiety and negative early life events in university students. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 34(Supl. 1), 569–580.Google Scholar
  4. Blanchard, D. C., & Blanchard, R. J. (2008). Defensive behaviors, fear, and anxiety. In R. J. Blanchard, D. C. Blanchard, G. Griebel, & D. Nutt (Eds.), Handbook of anxiety and fear (pp. 63–79). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanchard, D. C., Hynd, A. L., Minke, K. A., Minemoto, T., & Blanchard, R. J. (2001). Human defensive behaviors to threat scenarios show parallels to fear- and anxiety-related defense patterns of non-human mammals. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25, 761–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, N. R. (2013). Physiology of behavior (11th ed.). Princeton: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  7. CBS News. (2009). http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml (the article was originally published by CBS News on 24 Jan, 2003).
  8. Evans, M. (2005). Just war theory: A reappraisal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, J. T. (1987). The quest for peace: Three moral traditions in western cultural history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. LeDoux, J. E. (1999). The emotional brain: the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  11. National Research Council. (2008). Emerging cognitive neurosciences and related technologies. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  12. Nutt, D., Garcia de Miguel, B., & Davies, S. J. C. (2008). Phenomenology of anxiety disorders. In R. J. Blanchard, D. C. Blanchard, G. Griebel, & D. Nutt (Eds.), Handbook of anxiety and fear (pp. 365–393). Elsevier: Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Paolucci, E. O., Genuis, M. L., & Violato, C. (2001). A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of sexual child abuse. Journal of Psychology, 135(1), 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rachman, S. J. (1978). Fear and courage (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  15. Solf, W. A. (1986). Protection of civilians against the effects of hostilities under customary international law and under protocol I. American University Journal of International Law and Policy, 1, 117–135.Google Scholar
  16. Phillips, N. K., Hammen, C. L., Brennan, P. A., Najman, J. M., & Bor, W. (2005). Early adversity and the prospective prediction of depressive and anxiety disorders in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(1), 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trocino, A., Majolini, D., Tazzoli, M., Filiou, E., & Xiccato, G. (2012). Housing of growing rabbits in individual, bicellular and collective cages: Fear levels and behavioural patterns. Animals. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002029.Google Scholar
  18. Ullman, H., & Wayde Jr., J. P. (1996). Shock and aweAchieving rapid dominance. National Defense University, Center for National Strategic Studies. http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf
  19. Van der Dennen, J. M. G. Ritualized “primitive” warfare and rituals in war: Phenocopy, homology, or…? http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/ritual.htm. Accessed 10 Jan 2013.
  20. Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Zayfert, C., Dums, A. R., Ferguson, R. J., & Hegel, M. T. (2002). Health functioning impairments associated with posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, and depression. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Peace StudiesUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations