全球智库信息集成服务系统

Existing moral frameworks have not outlived their usefulness.

• The majority view among academic experts was that existing moral frameworks and principles continue to apply. That said, some advocate for a new interpretation of existing principles or amendment to or a confirmation of underpinning definitions.

There is a considerable disparity in the legal interpretations of the terms 'armed attack' and 'harm'.

• Significant disparity exists in the legal interpretations applied to the term 'armed attack' (which is critical in determining the legality of a resort to force) and in deliberations regarding what constitutes (sufficient) 'harm' (including both physical and non-physical effects). This is particularly contentious in relation to cyber.

There was general consensus among those consulted that there appears no moral obligation to respond 'in kind'.

• Theorists generally agree that there is no particular moral barrier to responding to a non-kinetic attack — once confirmed as constituting an 'armed attack' — with kinetic force if this is considered the most appropriate course of action under the specific circumstances.

Under a revisionist line of thinking, the legal definition of combatants does not sufficiently account for moral intentions of individuals involved in conflict.

• Revisionist approaches to just war theory challenge the legal distinction between combatants and non-combatants since they do not account for the moral intentions of individuals party to a conflict. Under this line of thinking, non-combatants may render themselves liable to harm if their actions infer their support for an 'unjust war'.

This study was commissioned to examine the academic debate pertaining to the moral landscape of cross-domain conflict (i.e. a conflict that spans two or more military domains). The study: considers the body of work on morality and armed conflict in the future operating environment and provides insights on the ways in which new ways of fighting may challenge traditional moral principles.

The study considered two emerging technologies (cyber and autonomous systems) to derive practical insights on the new technologies' challenge to traditional thinking about morality. The work involved a systematic review of relevant literature, a programme of interviews and a one-day workshop with academic experts. The study finds that: the majority view among consulted experts was that existing moral frameworks and principles continue to apply; there is a considerable disparity in the legal interpretations of the terms 'armed attack' and 'harm'. Theorists generally agree that there is no particular moral barrier to responding to a non-kinetic attack — once confirmed as constituting an 'armed attack' — with kinetic force if this is considered the most appropriate course of action under the specific circumstances. Revisionist approaches to just war theory challenge the legal definition of combatants since it does not account for the moral intentions of individuals party to a conflict. Under this line of thinking, non-combatants may render themselves liable to harm if their actions infer support for an 'unjust war'. Cyber and autonomous systems were considered to present challenges to a number of the principles underpinning traditional moral and legal frameworks.

• Chapter One

  Introduction

• Chapter Two

  Academic debate

• Chapter Three

  Case studies

• Chapter Four

  Key conclusions