Over the last several years there has been an explosion of scholarly interest in drones, their impact on armed conflict, and the ethics of using such unmanned weaponry. While this attention and inquiry is to be welcomed, an examination of this scholarship reveals that much of it frequently gets drones wrong -focusing too much on the questionable 'newness' of the technology, misunderstanding or misapplying the legal principles which govern such conventional weaponry (especially proportionality) and searching for definitive answers from problematic data. This article highlights the trouble with the contemporary debate over drones and sets out a research agenda in a world of murky campaigns and imperfect information.
Though largely unknown, the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) has been successful in many areas. The treaty remains in force today and has helped to regulate many types of weapons, including landmines, incendiary weapons, and blinding laser weapons. Additionally, it has helped to clarify terms important for international legal norms, such as “unnecessary suffering” and “military necessity.” The CCW was the first treaty to regulate conventional weapons in more than 70 years. Why is this seemingly useful treaty relatively unfamiliar compared with other laws of war treaties, remembered only by humanitarians who occasionally invoke it to denounce it for being conservative or even a “humanitarian failure”? This article shows that besides “humanitarian politics,” Cold War politics had a major and underappreciated impact on conventional weapons treaty negotiations from the late 1960s through the 1980s. In particular, Cold War politics established the different sides in the negotiations (West, East, and South), which had a far-reaching impact on the conduct and tone of the negotiations, determined the weapons and issues under discussion, and ultimately affected implementation of the 1980 CCW following its ratification. By tracing the history of conventional weapons negotiations from 1968 to 1980 and examining the key impact of Cold War politics on the process, this article sheds light on the politics of conventional weapons negotiations today.
Founded and rooted in Enlightenment values, the United States is caught between two conflicting imperatives when it comes to war: achieving perfect security through the annihilation of threats; and a requirement to conduct itself in a liberal and humane manner. In order to reconcile these often clashing requirements, the US has often turned to its scientists and laboratories to find strategies and weapons that are both decisive and humane. In effect, a modern faith in science and technology to overcome life's problems has been utilized to create a distinctly 'American Way of Warfare'. Carvin and Williams provide a framework to understand the successes and failures of the US in the wars it has fought since the days of the early Republic through to the War on Terror. It is the first book of its kind to combine a study of technology, law and liberalism in American warfare.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.