Preventive Arms Control as a Prerequisite for Conversion of Military-Related R&amp;D

Altmann, Jürgen; Liebert, Wolfgang; Neuneck, Götz; Scheffran, Jürgen

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-14886-8_17

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The more humanity relies on the scientific-technical civilization and the technosphere, the greater the temptation is to resort to technical innovations and interventions, which in turn may bring new problems (Ribeiro Mendes, 2021), as raised in critical discourses on genetic engineering, geo-engineering or artificial intelligence. Attempts to control technology by separating beneficial from harmful uses is complicated by the ambivalence of science and the dual-use of technology, notably between civil and military applications (Altmann et al, 1998;Forstner and Neuneck, 2018).…”

Section: Scientific and Technical Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits to the Anthropocene: geopolitical conflict or cooperative governance?

Scheffran

2023

Front. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Anthropocene the world is facing an acceleration of human growth and its impact on nature. The expansionist world order which emerged from Europe since colonial times is reaching multiple limits (environmental, economic, social, political and scientific-technical), increasing marginal costs and risks which trigger multiple crises, conflicts and catastrophes that challenge this world order. Alternative futures range from a collapse of human civilization to geopolitical power competition and conflict between rivals to disruptive technical innovations and systemic transformation of the economy and society within natural boundaries. In response to geopolitical conflicts and their consequences, such as climate change and the Russia-Ukraine war, efforts of cooperative governance can help to mitigate, adapt to and manage complex crisis landscapes. Instead of an epochal turn (Zeitenwende) for arms race and war, more promising are sustainable climate protection and a peaceful energy transition within planetary boundaries. To further prevent escalating and mutually enforcing crisis dynamics and geopolitical conflicts in the Anthropocene, cooperative governance needs to adjust to the world's complexity and move from a negative nexus of problems to a positive nexus of solutions. The interaction between geopolitics and governance and the transition from risk cascades to synergies is discussed for the energy-security nexus and the climate-conflict-migration nexus. Energy conflicts can be contained by diminishing land competition and biodiversity loss, as well as risky dependencies on strategic raw materials and conflict minerals. Measures for a sustainable energy transition include energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy and decarbonization, a circular economy and nature-based solutions. To prevent risk multiplication in the climate-conflict-migration nexus, synergies in climate, migration and security policy facilitate integrative solutions for a socio-ecological transformation based on mitigation and adaptation, conflict resolution and environmental peacebuilding, aiming for a mutual enforcement of sustainability and peace.

show abstract

Section: Scientific and Technical Limitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits to the Anthropocene: geopolitical conflict or cooperative governance?

Scheffran

2023

Front. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…before they are even developed, procured or used militarily, by means of preventive arms control (e.g. Altmann et al 1998). Verification measures are the preferred instruments for ensuring the necessary confidence in compliance with arms control agreements.…”

Section: Arms Control Of Laws and Other "Emerging Technologies"mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"Preventive" arms control of this sort would restrict weapon systems even before individual actors have gained a significant advantage (e.g. Altmann 2006;Altmann et al 1998), with measures aimed "at limiting, interrupting or terminating the relevant research and development processes and/or prohibiting military operations based on their conversion into weapons (systems)" (Neuneck and Mutz 2000, p. 109). In such a scenario, all states would have agreed that keeping the genie in the bottle, rather than freeing it and having to bottle it again later, is the preferable solution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A necessary step back?

Alwardt

Schörnig

2021

Z Friedens und Konflforsch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A few years back, the rapid progress of international efforts to ban lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) left arms controllers amazed: only five years after the founding of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC), the dangers of autonomous weapons were being debated in a UN context, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), with non-state actors and state actors alike finding common ground in rejecting weapon systems beyond human control. Since then, however, the debate has made little progress, despite increasing pressure by activists and a strong international campaign. In this article, we will argue that the strategies used by campaigners, based on ethical and legal concerns, must be complemented by classic security-related arguments. Unfortunately, key lessons of the Cold War, including the mutual security benefits of arms control, seem to have been forgotten. Many concepts that are central to arms control—such as stability and verification—are by no means intuitively understood and must apparently be (re-)“learned”. Some of the world’s most important actors have not been exposed to these concepts, e.g. China, but also other players. Deconstructing military expectations regarding autonomous weapons and focusing on a preventive arms control approach could help the currently stalled process to regain the momentum it needs.

show abstract

“…This is evident in the increasing prominence of cyber warfare (Valeriano & Maness, 2014), in the capabilities of drones and ‘smart’ weapons (Hammes, 2016), and, perhaps most worrisome, in the emergence of autonomous weapons systems (Krishnan, 2009). All of these new developments in the capabilities of military technologies – leaving aside the terrifying implications of more speculative technologies such as virtual warfare, space-based weapons platforms, or nano-biological weapons (Altmann, 2004, 2007) – are also altering the normative and ethical principles of warfare, much as ICBMs did in the last century. They raise questions about the meaning of security and peace, the moral accountability of individuals, groups, states and society for new forms of violence, the necessity and viability of new tactics and strategies for defence, and how the character of social conflict will evolve in response.…”

Section: Emerging Challenges To Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

Ambition and ambivalence: Reconsidering positive peace as a trans-scalar peace system

Millar

2020

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For 50 years positive peace has served as an aspirational goal for many scholars and practitioners of peace. However, much recent scholarly literature evidences a substantial ambivalence toward this ambition, suggesting that prominent theories, policies and practices in the field have failed to support positive peace. This article argues that a key reason for this shortcoming is the field’s failure to respond adequately to the evolving character of conflict (latent and overt) related to technological, legal and economic changes associated with the consolidation of globalization over this period. This consolidation has served to shrink the distances between previously remote actors, to expand exponentially the influence of many institutions, norms, practices and projects as they penetrate new societies, to concentrate power into the hands of ever fewer actors, and to reify instead of deconstruct endemic inequality and marginalization within states, between states, and across the globe. The failure of the field to respond robustly to these changes also prompts concerns about its ability to face sweeping challenges soon to come related to technological innovation, climate change, demographic shifts, labour automation and the search for new governance models. This article, therefore, reaffirms the aspirational goals of peace and conflict studies by building on Lederach’s earlier Peacebuilding Triangle to propose a Trans-Scalar Peace System which would recognize the need for coherent and supplementary policies and actions across scales (global, regional, international, nation and local) and utilize a backward-mapping approach to promote a parity of esteem for actors, institutions and decisions at each scale which would, at the same time, privilege the voice of those with the most pertinent knowledge, experience and capacity for action in support of any given policy or practice. Such an approach would honour the lessons of the ‘local turn’ while developing a global trans-scalar peace system.

show abstract

Preventive Arms Control as a Prerequisite for Conversion of Military-Related R&D

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Limits to the Anthropocene: geopolitical conflict or cooperative governance?

Limits to the Anthropocene: geopolitical conflict or cooperative governance?

A necessary step back?

Ambition and ambivalence: Reconsidering positive peace as a trans-scalar peace system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About