Explore the vast range of titles available.

In Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Norms Ingvild Bode and Hendrik Huelss present an innovative analysis of how testing, developing, and using weapons systems with autonomous features shapes ethical and legal norms, arguing that they have already established standards for what counts as meaningful human control.

Autonomous weapons systems (AWS) are emerging as key technologies of future warfare. So far, academic debate concentrates on the legal-ethical implications of AWS but these do not capture how AWS may shape norms through defining diverging standards of appropriateness in practice. In discussing AWS, the article formulates two critiques on constructivist models of norm emergence: first, constructivist approaches privilege the deliberative over the practical emergence of norms; and second, they overemphasise fundamental norms rather than also accounting for procedural norms, which we introduce in this article. Elaborating on these critiques allows us to respond to a significant gap in research: we examine how standards of procedural appropriateness emerging in the development and usage of AWS often contradict fundamental norms and public legitimacy expectations. Normative content may therefore be shaped procedurally, challenging conventional understandings of how norms are constructed and considered as relevant in International Relations. In this, we outline the contours of a research programme on the relationship of norms and AWS, arguing that AWS can have fundamental normative consequences by setting novel standards of appropriate action in international security policy.

Stories about ‘intelligent machines’ have long featured in popular culture. Existing research has mapped these artificial intelligence (AI) narratives but lacks an in-depth understanding of (a) narratives related specifically to weaponised AI and autonomous weapon systems and (b) whether and how these narratives resonate across different states and associated cultural contexts. We speak to these gaps by examining narratives about weaponised AI across publics in France, India, Japan and the US. Based on a public opinion survey conducted in these states in 2022–2023, we find that narratives found in English-language popular culture are shared cross-culturally, although with some variations. However, we also find culturally distinct narratives, particularly in India and Japan. Further, we assess whether these narratives shape the publics’ attitudes towards regulating weaponised AI. Although respondents demonstrate overall uncertainty and lack of knowledge regarding developments in the sphere of weaponised AI, they assess these technologies in a negative-leaning way and mostly support regulation. With these findings, our study offers a first step towards further investigating the extent to which weaponised AI narratives circulate globally and how salient perceptions of these technologies are across different publics.

Abstract The emergence of autonomous weapons systems (AWS) is increasingly in the academic and public focus. Research largely focuses on the legal and ethical implications of AWS as a new weapons category set to revolutionize the use of force. However, the debate on AWS neglects the question of what introducing these weapons systems could mean for how decisions are made. Pursuing this from a theoretical-conceptual perspective, the article critically analyzes what impact AWS can have on norms as standards of appropriate action. The article draws on the Foucauldian “apparatus of security” to develop a concept that accommodates the role of security technologies for the conceptualization of norms guiding the use of force. It discusses to what extent a technologically mediated construction of a normal reality emerges in the interplay of machinic and human agency and how this leads to the development of norms. The article argues that AWS provide a specific construction of reality in their operation and thereby define procedural norms that tend to replace the deliberative, normative-political decision on when, how, and why to use force. The article is a theoretical-conceptual contribution to the question of why AWS matter and why we should further consider the implications of new arrangements of human-machine interactions in IR.

This article analyses post-Arab Spring EU initiatives to promote women’s empowerment in the Southern Mediterranean region. Inspired by the Foucauldian concept of governmentality, it investigates empowerment as a technology of biopolitics that is central to the European neoliberal model of governance. In contrast to dominant images such as normative power Europe that present the EU as a norm-guided actor promoting political liberation, the article argues that the EU deploys a concept of functional freedom meant to facilitate its vision of economic development. As a consequence, the alleged empowerment of women based on the self-optimisation of individuals and the statistical control of the female population is a form of biopower. In this regard, empowerment works as a governmental technology of power instead of offering a measure to foster fundamental structural change in Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) societies. The EU therefore fails in presenting and promoting an alternative normative political vision distinct from the incorporation of women into the hierarchy of the existing market society.

Research on norms in International Relations (IR) includes various concepts related to how norms influence actions. These approaches focus on the decision-making process, and largely neglect the operationalization of norms. This omission leads to an analytical gap: a lack of attention to how the substance of abstract norms is transformed and constructed in the operationalization process. This article draws on the Foucauldian theme of governmentality to introduce a novel perspective on operationalizing norms. It focusses in particular on the role of techniques as understudied parts inherent to the reflexive processes of operationalization and meaning production. The article thereby contests the prevalence of fundamental norms in conventional IR theory. It demonstrates, instead, that global governance techniques do not simply translate rationalities into practice, but construct their very own normativities. These theoretical reflections are illustrated by analysing the operationalization of norms through indicators in the case of the European Union’s human rights policy.

Die zunehmende Bedeutung Künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) in vielen Bereichen der politisch-relevanten Entscheidungsfindung führt zu neuen Fragestellungen hinsichtlich der Rolle von Normen. Die bestehende Normenforschung hat in den letzten Jahren insbesondere zur Entstehung, Wirkung und Veränderung von Normen im öffentlich-diskursiven Raum wichtige, diversifizierte Konzepte angeboten. Die Perspektive auf operative Praktiken jenseits des öffentlichen Raums ist jedoch bislang kaum theoretisch erfasst worden. Im Kontext der Analyse militärischer Anwendungen von KI argumentiert der Forumsbeitrag, erstens, dass Praktiken der Entwicklung und des Gebrauchs von KI-Technologien, die von verschiedenen Akteuren jenseits des öffentlichen Raums durchgeführt werden, wichtige und gegenwärtig unter-theoretisierte Quellen von Normativität sind. Zweitens, möchten wir das Zusammenspiel von Normativität, also Vorstellungen von moralischen Pflichten und Gerechtigkeit, und von Normalität, d.h. Vorstellungen des Typischen und Durchschnittlichen, in der Entstehung und Entwicklung von Normen hervorheben. Die vorliegende theoretische Reflexion bietet der IB-Normenforschung einen breiteren analytischen Blick auf die Konstitution von normativem Raum. The increasing importance of artificial intelligence (AI) in many areas of politically relevant decision-making leads to new questions regarding the role of norms. Existing norm research offers important, diversified concepts, particularly on the emergence, impact and change of norms in the public-discursive space. However, the perspective on operational practices beyond the public space has so far hardly been comprehended theoretically. In the context of analysing military applications of AI, this contribution argues, first, that practices of developing and using AI technologies carried out by various actors beyond the public sphere are important and currently under-theorized sources of normativity. Secondly, it emphasises the interplay between normativity, i.e. ideas about moral duties and justice, and normality, i.e. ideas about the typical and average, in the emergence and development of norms. The theoretical reflection in this contribution offers IR norm research a broader analytical view of the constitution of normative space.

Technological developments in the sphere of artificial intelligence (AI) inspire debates about the implications of autonomous weapon systems (AWS), which can select and engage targets without human intervention. While increasingly more systems which could qualify as AWS, such as loitering munitions, are reportedly used in armed conflicts, the global discussion about a system of governance and international legal norms on AWS at the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (UN CCW) has stalled. In this article we argue for the necessity to adopt legal norms on the use and development of AWS. Without a framework for global regulation, state practices in using weapon systems with AI-based and autonomous features will continue to shape the norms of warfare and affect the level and quality of human control in the use of force. By examining the practices of China, Russia, and the United States in their pursuit of AWS-related technologies and participation at the UN CCW debate, we acknowledge that their differing approaches make it challenging for states parties to reach an agreement on regulation, especially in a forum based on consensus. Nevertheless, we argue that global governance on AWS is not impossible. It will depend on the extent to which an actor or group of actors would be ready to take the lead on an alternative process outside of the CCW, inspired by the direction of travel given by previous arms control and weapons ban initiatives.