Norms Of War Research Articles

Algorithmic Warfare: Taking Stock of a Research Programme

ABSTRACT This article takes stock of the ongoing debates on algorithmic warfare in the social sciences. It seeks to equip scholars in International Relations and beyond with a critical review of both the empirical context of algorithmic warfare and the different theoretical approaches to studying practices related to the integration of algorithms (including automated, autonomous, and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies) into international armed conflict. The review focuses on discussions about (1) the implications of algorithmic warfare for strategic stability, (2) the morality and ethics of algorithmic warfare, (3) how algorithmic warfare relates to the laws and norms of war, and (4) popular imaginaries of algorithmic warfare. The article foregrounds a set of open research questions capable of moving the field toward a more interdisciplinary research agenda, as well as by introducing the contributions made by other articles in this Special Issue.

Watch Out for Peace: The Polemic Nature of a Horizon Desired

ABSTRACT This article provides a critical perspective to look at one of the most basic concepts in life: peace. By reflecting on a wide range of literature on peace, the aim is to make sense of the way in which the longing for peace is part of the violence it hopes to overcome. Understanding peace requires understanding its polemic functions in world politics (both internationally and domestically). Due to its symbiotic relationship with its counterpart (all forms of violence and their accompanying norms) peace is polemic. This implies that peace is experienced only when the echo of violence is absent, and the polemics are absent. In such absence, however, peace loses its meaning. In this context, the article reflects on various notions of peace and the inescapable logic of war norms they entail. This is illustrated by reflections on post-Cold War European, American and UN war & peace practices.

The Unsustainability of the Anarchist Justification of Terrorism

The paper deals with anarchist claims about the moral justification of terrorism in the context of just war theory. The authors attempt to show that the anarchist justification of terrorism fails to satisfy relevant just war norms, and that it should be bound by those norms because in its current form it is unsustainable due to its failure to set limited political objectives.

Combatant socialization and norms of restraint: Examining officer training at the US Military Academy and Army ROTC

Can armed groups socialize combatants to norms of restraint – in essence, train soldiers to adopt norms of international humanitarian law on the battlefield? How can social scientists accurately measure such socialization? Despite being the central focus of organizational and ideational theories of conflict, studies to date have not engaged in systematic, survey-based examination of this central socialization mechanism theorized to influence military conduct.This study advances scholarly understanding by providing the first comparative, survey-based examination of combatant socialization to norms of restraint, using surveys and interviews with US Army cadets at the US Military Academy (USMA), Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and active duty Army combatants. Additionally, to better understand ‘restraint’ from combatants’ perspective, this study introduces the concept of the ‘combatant’s trilemma’ under which combatants conceptualize civilian protection as part of a costly trade-off with the values of military advantage and force protection.Survey results hold both positive and negative implications for socialization to law of war norms: military socialization can shift combatants’ preferences for battlefield conduct. However, intensive norm socialization may be required to shift combatants’ preferences from force protection to civilian protection norms. Study findings hold significant implications for understanding violence against civilians in conflict and for policies to disseminate civilian protection norms in armed groups worldwide.

An evolutionary theory of moral injury with insight from Turkana warriors

Abstract Clinicians in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies are rethinking whether Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is caused solely by exposure to life-threatening experiences, or also by moral injury—witnessing or participating in acts that violate moral beliefs. However, while there are evolutionary hypotheses explaining PTSD as a response to physical danger, the evolutionary roots of moral injury lack an explanation. We posit that a subset of symptoms of combat-related PTSD is associated with moral injury and that these symptoms evolved in tandem with human's norm-psychology. We can examine this hypothesis by comparing societies with different moral beliefs about warfare, norm enforcement mechanisms, and spheres of moral concern. To illustrate the utility of this framework, we describe combat trauma, war norms, and norm enforcement among Turkana pastoralist warriors in Kenya who participate in highly lethal raids of neighboring ethnic groups. We previously showed that depressive PTSD symptoms in Turkana warriors are more strongly associated with experiencing moral violations in combat, and that Turkana warriors with comparably high overall PTSD symptom-severity experience lower rates of depressive symptoms than US combat veterans. Here we detail aspects of Turkana warfare, moral beliefs, and post-battle rituals that differ from WEIRD societies, and that may ameliorate the symptoms of moral injury in Turkana warriors. Our findings highlight how further studies of combat trauma outside of WEIRD militaries can help evaluate this theory and illustrate the importance of cross-cultural research for identifying the evolutionary roots of combat stress and best practices for prevention and recovery.

Targeted Killings by Drones and Legality of Deployment of CIA Operatives

Since October 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employed a predator drone armed with missiles to carry out an operation in Afghanistan that targeted suspected al-Qaeda members. These missile attacks continued to hit targets in Yemen, Afghanistan, and the Pakistani territory bordering Afghanistan. It has been proven that missile-equipped drones are uncertain when used in covert operations. Drone strikes raise legal questions under International Law, Human Rights Law (HRL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL). IHL prohibits civilian organisations from participating in direct hostilities unless the government notifies them of their incorporation into the regular armed forces. The explanation for why the CIA does not have the authorisation to carry out drone strikes is given in the article. The deployment of the CIA rather than regular armed forces is a violation of both accepted norms of war and HRL regulations.

Nuclear Weapons Targeting: Evolution of Law and U.S. Policy

The paper tracks the evolution of U.S. nuclear targeting policy from its strategic bombing origins through the end of the Obama Administration. It shows how targeting concepts diverged from law of war norms during the Cold War, then how the U.S. returned policy to its understanding of legal obligations afterwards. The paper also addresses ambiguities remaining in the law and identifies trends which may have policy consequences.

The Unintended Consequences of War: Self-Defense and Violence against Civilians in Ground Combat Operations

Although extensive research has been done on the causes of violence against civilians, it is usually directed at explaining why civilians are deliberately targeted or how militaries organize themselves in ways that lead soldiers to endanger civilians. As I show, many civilians are injured or killed by members of armed forces who strive to comply with the norms of war. Some attacks on civilians during ground combat operations in contemporary wars can be explained in terms of the tension soldiers experience between their indefeasible right of self-defense and their uncertainty about the identity and location of civilians on the battlefield. I illustrate this tension and explore its consequences by drawing on interviews with American and British veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This helps to explain the persistence of attacks on civilians even as the American and British armed forces make greater efforts to respect noncombatant immunity.

English

This study critically examines the trend in non-compliance of the NPT, its lack of effectiveness in deterrence and consistent behavior both among compliance and noncompliance states to identify what constitutes construes, and at times justifies the trend. That is, based on the established NPT norms, the study inquired to indicate what the decade’s long diplomatic, military and media ramble constitutes in the reconstitution of global normative framework. The study shows both theoretically and empirically indefensible irrationality at the heart of the NPT-North Korea nuclear issue neither the selfish pursuit of national interest nor the avowal for global peace and security gives credence to. This holds more true to the NPT leading protagonist USA than the nuclear pariah state of North Korea. The central theme is based on by four major confounded propositions; these are the anachronistic nature of the NPT and IAEA, the irrationality of rational choice based behavior of actors, the growing potency of regional actors pragmatic strategies and North Korea’s success to maneuver and, not least, outmaneuver of the effort of the regime and powerful member states resorting to eclectic strategies. Consequently, the NPT regime and the appeal for compliance have lost the moral power of commanding member states indicating grave epicenter that might be considered beyond the North Korean episode. Thus, the study corroborates with Nina Tannenwald’s call for, the need to reconstitute the decadent normative regime of NPT, creating (making) nuclear taboo in essence; but, it departs from Tannenwald’s circular argument recommending the problem as solution. It instead strongly argues that the North Korean example constitutes is that the normative framework of NPT’s rightness, the power and rationality of rational choices and deterrence significantly perverted indicating the imperative for normative reconstitution of Cold War norms and replacement by new framework approximating current global reality and envisaging the horizon of future dynamics. Therefore, calls for rethinking beyond theoretical purviews materialist, rationalist and consequential conception pertaining to the nuclear issue. Methodologically, it is a meta-theory study employing interpretive design; source of data is exclusively based on desktop review of secondary data sources academic literature, statute, policy and regulatory documents of the NPT, IAEA, UNSC and member states, media and electronic dispatches as well as news outlets.    Key words: UNSC, NPT, IAEA, North Korea and USA.

Moral Cognition and the Law and Ethics of Armed Conflict

In contemporary political science, many believe that normative restrictions on armed conflict are an outgrowth of Western culture and the just war tradition. Drawing on historical evidence, which shows that political actors in Ancient China and the early Islamic empire endorsed civilian protection rules, I claim that such norms are more common than most International Relations (IR) theorists suppose. For IR theory, this raises an important puzzle: How can we explain why similar normative ideas emerged in human societies that are otherwise very different? Building on research in cognitive science, social psychology, and social neuroscience, I argue that most people have natural cognitive and emotional predispositions that bias the emergence and transmission of cultural norms that protect non-combatants. More specifically, capacities for perspective-taking and empathy shape how people interpret the limits of their moral commitments, and when these capacities are engaged, intuitional heuristics affect how they judge the morality of killing in war. What is more, I claim that three key contextual variables moderate the connection between innate moral intuitions and the development of civilian protection norms: (i) societal interdependence, (ii) the social empowerment of marginal actors, and (iii) the creation of norms in argumentative contexts that require impartial moral reasoning. I argue that rationalist and constructivist theories of norm emergence will be able to better explain the emergence, the durability, and the institutional design of the norms of war by incorporating this naturalistic theory of moral cognition.

Have the Europeans Repudiated the use of Force? A Dissenting Voice

Because of the pervasive influence of theories about the normative ‘devaluation of war’ and about the ‘preference’ of Europeans for ‘norms over force’, it is commonly assumed that Europeans have ‘repudiated’ the use of force in international relations. However, European governments – especially France and the UK – have participated in a number of important military operations in the post-Cold War era, based on various justifications: sanctions against an aggressive state, protecting civilian populations from large scale crimes, fighting non-state radical armed groups. Most of these operations were multilateral in nature but France has also engaged in several national operations over the last years in Africa. The level of domestic support that these military interventions generally enjoy – as revealed by numerous surveys – indicates that Europeans do not systematically prefer ‘norms over force’ but still believe in just war norms.

Compensating Civilians during War: A Place for Individuals in International Law

Although civilian immunity is among the most widely agreed-upon norms of war, civilians are often attacked in contemporary conflicts. To some extent, the harm may be mitigated by programs to compensate the victims of wars. This article explores the three legal statutes and two forms of direct payment that the United States uses to compensate civilians harmed in wars and argues that although these are improvements in the treatment of civilians, they are inadequate. We argue that an individual cause of action in international law would provide a much better means of allowing civilians harmed by wars to seek compensation.

Norms of war and the Austro-Hungarian encounter with Serbia, 1914–1918

This essay first explores European assumptions regarding occupation and war in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These assumptions found their way into international law, but are best understood as a series of international norms. The article then goes on to examine how these norms changed over the course of the war, paying attention to the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia from 1916 to 1918. The European approach to war within Europe attempted to contain the expansion of conflict and created a strict divide between civilian and military realms. Occupiers were to maintain the sovereignty of the departed government until the conclusion of a peace treaty, while the occupied population owed obedience to the occupier. Austria-Hungary's war against Serbia and subsequent occupation two years later placed heavy pressure on these pre-war norms. In some cases, such as the use of military law in occupied Serbia, Austria-Hungary departed entirely from these norms. As the war progressed, however, a growing realization that such norms of contained conflict also buttressed Austria-Hungary's place in the international system led Austria-Hungary to restrain its occupation of Serbia. While Austria-Hungary attempted to resituate itself and its occupation of Serbia back within these norms from mid-1917 forward, this attempt went largely unrecognized. Broadly seen, such international norms fell under severe pressure in Eastern Europe with the implosion of imperial sovereignties in this region, most notably that of Tsarist Russia.

World religions and norms of war

Over more than two millennia, the world's leading religious traditions have provided the guidance in questions of when war can be justified, and of what methods and targets are permissible in war. Linking deep historical analysis to contemporary issues, this volume provides valuable insight, and even prompts us to rethink our understanding of the role and influence of religion in the state politics. The book exposes the norms of war in Hinduism, in Theravada Buddhism, in Japanese religion, in Judaism, in Roman Catholic Christianity, in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, in Protestant Christianity, in Shia Islam and in Sunni Islam, and discusses norms of war in cross-religious perspective.

World Religions and Norms of War

World Religions and Norms of War

Research on the Ethics of War in the Context of Violence in Gaza

The paper first demonstrates the ability to provode objective data and analyses during war and then examines the need for such objective gathering of data and analysis in the context of mass violence and war, specifically in the 2009 Gaza War. That data and analysis is required to assess compliance with just war norms in assessing the conduct of the war, a framework quite distinct from human rights norms that can misapply and deform the application of norms such as proportionality and obligations not to target civilians.

The Evolution of International Laws of War

After centuries of little to no change in the norms of war, European nations began systematically signing treaties and agreements during the second half of the 19th century that placed limits on violent behaviour in war.1 The roots of these laws are in the 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law,2 and the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field (also known as the Geneva Convention) that compiled the existing laws of war3 and was predecessor to the systematic body of rules known as the Law of Geneva which 12 European states signed in 1864. The document also laid the framework for the Laws of The Hague, the rules concerning the conduct of hostilities agreed upon at the two Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1906–1907. Post WWII, laws of war advanced in 1949, when 63 countries signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in 1977 with the signing of the Supplementary Agreements to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and of the four supplementary agreements to the Laws of The Hague: The Biological Weapons Convention, The Environmental Modification Convention, The Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. These agreements completed the modern structure of the present Geneva Laws.

Not Anything Goes: War as a Norm-Guided Practice

Norms of War: Cultural Beliefs and Modern Conflict. By Theo Farrell. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2005. 225 pp., $49.95 (ISBN: 1-58826-361-4). Norms of War , by Theo Farrell, traces how war and the preparations for war are shaped by normative and cultural factors. The exposition is elaborated through four empirical case studies: the first on military organization and the Irish army, the second on collective memory and conceptions of mass industrial warfare in World War II, the third on the US nonuse and targeting of nuclear weapons, and the fourth on humanitarian intervention in the 1990s. Challenging arguments that warfare is primarily a rationalistic endeavor, Farrell shows that military practices are deeply embedded in cultural norms and cognitive models. His analysis is grounded in theoretical arguments and literatures drawn widely from political science, sociology, psychology, history, and international law. Farrell is interested in tracing cultural change and the causal impact of norms on military practices. In short, he wants to show “how norms evolve to shape military organization, military mobilization, and military operations” (pp. 15–16). The introduction to Norms of War lays out a theoretical framework that emphasizes mechanisms of norm creation, dissemination, and impact. Each of the subsequent four empirical chapters introduces at least one new literature, including sociological institutionalism, strategic culture, the social construction of technology, theories of international law, and collective memory and imagination. A brief concluding chapter assesses the normative mechanisms in comparative fashion. Overall, Farrell exhibits an impressive command of a wide range of theoretical and empirical material. The strongest chapters (Chapters 2 and …

The Norms of War: Cultural Beliefs and Modern Conflict (review)

The Norms of War: Cultural Beliefs and Modern Conflict (review)