G2TT
来源类型Report
规范类型报告
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.7249/RR1505
来源IDRR-1505-MOD
The moral component of cross-domain conflict
Lucia Retter; Alexandra Hall; James Black; Nathan Ryan
发表日期2016-10-20
出版年2016
页码78
语种英语
结论

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'.
摘要

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.

目录
  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Academic debate

  • Chapter Three

    Case studies

  • Chapter Four

    Key conclusions

主题Cyber Warfare ; International Humanitarian Law ; Law of War ; Military Doctrine ; Military Strategy ; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
URLhttps://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1505.html
来源智库RAND Corporation (United States)
引用统计
资源类型智库出版物
条目标识符http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/523166
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Lucia Retter,Alexandra Hall,James Black,et al. The moral component of cross-domain conflict. 2016.
条目包含的文件
文件名称/大小 资源类型 版本类型 开放类型 使用许可
RAND_RR1505.pdf(1234KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA浏览
1566482405726.jpg(7KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA缩略图
浏览
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Lucia Retter]的文章
[Alexandra Hall]的文章
[James Black]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Lucia Retter]的文章
[Alexandra Hall]的文章
[James Black]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Lucia Retter]的文章
[Alexandra Hall]的文章
[James Black]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
文件名: RAND_RR1505.pdf
格式: Adobe PDF
文件名: 1566482405726.jpg
格式: JPEG

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。