David Whetham

Many would say that a conscript coming toward you with “love in his heart” is somehow less blameworthy than a soldier who has quite deliberately chosen to participate in an unjust conflict. If you are more culpable, are you more deserving of death than others who surely cannot be blamed for the predicament they find themselves in? Many states recognize the rights of committed pacifists to refuse to fight, but very few states are willing to allow their soldiers to refuse to fight if it is a particular conflict which they consider to be unjust—a position known as selective conscientious objection. This chapter explores the way that three different Western militaries currently deal with soldiers who refuse on ethical grounds to participate in a specific conflict in order to answer the question _Do soldiers from some states deserve to die more than others if those states fight unjust wars?_.

It is not clear whether cyberwarfare deserves to be called “warfare,” or if it should instead be considered something short of war, like espionage or as a discrete form of criminal activity. To answer this, it may be helpful to look back into history. Common during the Hundred Years’ War, _chevauchées_ involved mounted soldiers spread out over an area to plunder and destroy everything in their path. For many years _chevauchées_ were wrongly dismissed as simply mounted plundering expeditions peripheral to the actual war. However, their purpose was actually to weaken the moral and economic base of rivals, undermining political legitimacy such that negotiation and compromise would follow. If cyberwarfare is seen in this context it becomes clearer how it can be conceptualized within a broader notion of war as social phenomenon.

Targeted killing is a highly contentious subject and, although the term has been around for some time, is becoming increasingly associated with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles. Is targeted killing really simply a euphemism for state-sanctioned murder? Does it matter? This chapter argues that it does matter and seeks to narrow the broad range of acts often included under this heading to a specific type of action taken in self-defense, demonstrating why this is different to other, less legitimate, types of activities. It will explore how the War Convention can accommodate such an idea, what the norm might look like and what the potential implications would be of its widespread adoption. The chapter concludes by looking at the type of safe guards that must be adopted now if the norm is not to become dangerously unrestricted.

Horizon scanning is intended to identify opportunities and threats associated with technology, regulatory, and social change. Here, we report the results of a new horizon scan based on inputs of an international group of 33 participants, focusing on future issues arising from the military use of artificial intelligence (AI) for augmenting human performance. The final list of 12 issues includes topics spanning from the political (educating and training individuals to accept and work with AI), to the regulatory (issues of consent to human-AI teaming and hybridization), to security (the hackability of neural devices that connect to AI), to philosophical (the nature and phenomenology of brain-to-brain interfaces). The early identification of such issues is relevant to researchers, policymakers, military practitioners, and the wider public.

In 2020, the Australian Defence Force publicly released the “Report of the Inquiry into Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan” (the “Brereton Report”). Among other disturbing revelations, the report corroborated credible allegations of prisoner abuse in which new members of Australia’s elite Special Air Services Regiment (SASR) were ordered to execute prisoners to achieve their first kills, a practice known as “blooding.” Mistreatment of prisoners, while morally abhorrent, is hardly puzzling. Personality profiles that suggest a propensity for abusive behavior are represented in any large population, including an army. Furthermore, war incites destructive passions that can overwhelm moral judgment, regardless of a soldier’s character. Nevertheless, we find the alleged actions in the Brereton Report puzzling. Those who serve in Australia's SASR are assessed and selected not only for physical toughness and soldiering skills but also for character traits that should militate against such atrocities. Rather than treating the practice of blooding as a simple case of prisoner abuse, we analyze the crime as three separate but mutually dependent offenses: the order to execute a prisoner, the decision to obey, and the silence of the onlookers. Our deconstruction suggests three distinct causal patterns that warrant different approaches to remediation.

Horizon scanning is intended to identify opportunities and threats associated with technology, regulatory, and social change. Here, we report the results of a new horizon scan based on inputs of an international group of 33 participants, focusing on future issues arising from the military use of artificial intelligence (AI) for augmenting human performance. The final list of 12 issues includes topics spanning from the political (educating and training individuals to accept and work with AI), to the regulatory (issues of consent to human-AI teaming and hybridization), to security (the hackability of neural devices that connect to AI), to philosophical (the nature and phenomenology of brain-to-brain interfaces). The early identification of such issues is relevant to researchers, policymakers, military practitioners, and the wider public.

Horizon scanning is intended to identify opportunities and threats associated with technology, regulatory, and social change. Here, we report the results of a new horizon scan based on inputs of an international group of 33 participants, focusing on future issues arising from the military use of artificial intelligence (AI) for augmenting human performance. The final list of 12 issues includes topics spanning from the political (educating and training individuals to accept and work with AI), to the regulatory (issues of consent to human-AI teaming and hybridization), to security (the hackability of neural devices that connect to AI), to philosophical (the nature and phenomenology of brain-to-brain interfaces). The early identification of such issues is relevant to researchers, policymakers, military practitioners, and the wider public.

Human augmentation is defined as the use of science or technology to modify human performance temporarily, or permanently, to exceed normal physical and/or psychological capabilities of a human body. Our previous work proposed nine ethical principles of human augmentation in the defence context: necessity, human dignity, informed consent, transparency and accountability, equity, privacy, ongoing review, international law, and broader social impact. Here we describe the results of a mixed-methods study using focus groups (_N_ _Groups_ = 9) and a web-based survey among serving military personnel (_N_ _Participants_ = 43) examining how important and appropriate the participants thought the principles were when considering the development, adoption, and implementation of human augmentation technology. This study explores the participants’ stated reasons for their ratings, and the association with indicators of experience and socio-demographic groups. This work provides insights into how the principles can relate to each other at various stages of the technology life cycle, and how they could function together to support a thorough ethical analysis during the implementation of such technology. Following our analysis, several refinements to the principles are subsequently suggested.

This article presents a case study in how sellers of weaponizable technology can develop safeguards to mitigate risks of misuse by end users. In 2020, the authors were approached by a defense technology start-up whose core product offering was weaponizable drones. The start-up sought guidance in designing terms of sale and service that would ensure responsible usage of this technology. Combining elements from just war theory, international humanitarian law, and the theory of responsibility, we developed a novel, systematic framework for reducing risks of misuse on the basis of precise principles and objective metrics. Although designed for a specific use case, we believe aspects of this framework are portable to a wide range of scenarios. We share it to demonstrate proof of concept and stimulate further work on integrating ethical considerations into the business of weapons and dual-use technology.

La formación ética de las fuerzas militares es esencial para la democracia, pues orienta el respeto por los derechos humanos, la observancia de las leyes de la guerra y la protección de lalegitimidad institucional. Por tal motivo, la ética militar se convierte en una herramienta crucialpara guiar el comportamiento de los militares en entornos complejos y garantizar la toma de decisiones responsables. En ese contexto, este artículo evalúa el impacto del curso Conceptos Básicos en Ética Militar y su enfoque inductivo en las actitudes y comportamientos del personal militar colombiano. A través de una metodología con un enfoque cuantitativo, se realizó un estudiocon 230 participantes del curso en la Escuela Superior de Guerra General Rafael Reyes Prieto(ESDEG) de Colombia, para medir las actitudes sobre la ética militar, las reglas de enfrentamiento (RE) y la efectividad operacional. Dentro de los principales resultados se identificó que el curso tuvo un impacto positivo en las actitudes de los participantes sobre la importancia de la ética militar, su contribución a la cohesión de las unidades y su influencia en la toma de decisiones responsables.Se concluye que la formación en ética militar, a través de métodos innovadores como el inductivo, prepara a los militares para enfrentar los desafíos del mundo actual y garantizar el cumplimiento de su misión de manera responsable.

This article describes the progress and impact of the King’s College London Centre for Military Ethics since its collaboration with the Colombian military forces’ educational institutions. More specifically, the article focusses on expanding the military ethics course across different educational facilities of the Colombian Army and the Colombian Navy and Air Force. The impact of the education delivered using an online course designed to be completed without a tutor is analysed and presented. The final part of the article describes a way forward as far as the Colombian project is concerned, as well as the refinement of the course materials and launch of new tools.

This paper explores the topic of military ethics, what we mean by that term, what it covers, how it is understood, and how it is taught. It suggests that the unifying factor that makes this a coherent subject beyond individual national interpretations of it is the core idea of military professionalism. The paper draws out the distinction between training and education and draws on research conducted by a number of different people and agencies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, to establish what factors contribute to effective pedagogy and the inculcation of appropriate attitudes and behaviours. The paper concludes by looking at the way military ethics contributes to military outcomes from protecting civilians and the vulnerable to building resilience in our own military personnel to protect their mental health, through to the strategic costs of losing the moral high ground if behaviour is seen to fall short of that expected from military professionals.

Cyber technology gives states the ability to accomplish effects that once required kinetic action. These effects can now be achieved with cyber means in a manner that is covert, deniable, cheap, and technologically feasible for many governments. In some cases, cyber means are morally preferable to conventional military operations, but in other cases, cyber's unique qualities can lead to greater mischief than governments would have chanced using kinetic means. This volume addresses the applicability of traditional military ethics to cyber operations, jus ad vim, the rights of the targets of cyber operations, cyber sabotage, cyber surveillance, phase zero operations, psychological operations, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic ethics. Uniquely, it includes a number of cyber incidents that do not currently exist as case studies and have not received much public attention. This volume has been designed to work as a handbook for military and security professionals involved in cyber training, teaching, and application.

This book offers a critical analysis, both theoretical and practical, of ethics education in the military. In the twenty-first century, it has become increasingly important to ensure that the armed forces of Western and other democracies fight justly and behave ethically. The 'good soldier' has to be not only professionally skilled but morally intelligent. At a time of relentless media scrutiny, the publicising of incidents of morally and legally unacceptable behaviour, such as the gross mistreatment of prisoners and the torture of suspected terrorists, can do much to undermine the credibility of those who claim to hold the moral high ground in any particular conflict. Written by an international team of academic theorists and military practitioners, this volume provides inter-disciplinary insights into the present state, and the future, of ethics education in the militaries of Western democracies. The contributors critically address the central question of whether such education is sufficient to prepare members of the armed forces to face the peculiar challenges of conflict environments that are now primarily 'wars among the people', in which the opposing combatants may have little or no regard for human life and fail to discriminate between soldiers and civilians when choosing their targets. Drawing lessons from recent examples of unethical conduct, this original book offers insightful and constructive advice, both theoretical and practical, as to how situations can be improved and on the means that could and should be employed towards this end. This book will be of much interest to students of military studies, ethics and international relations."--Provided by publisher.

Utilising science and technology to maximize human performance is often an essential feature of military activity. This can often be focused on mission success rather than just the welfare of the individuals involved. This tension has the potential to threaten the autonomy of soldiers and military physicians around the taking or administering of enhancement neurotechnologies (e.g., pills, neural implants, and neuroprostheses). The Hybrid Framework was proposed by academic researchers working in the U.S. context and comprises “rules” for military neuroenhancement (e.g., ensuring transparency and maintaining dignity of the warfighter). Integrating traditional bioethical perspectives with the unique requirements of the military environment, it has been referenced by military/government agencies tasked with writing official ethical frameworks. Our two-part investigation explored the ethical dimensions of military neuroenhancements with military officers – those most likely to be making decisions in this area in the future. In three workshops, structured around the Hybrid Framework, we explored what they thought about the ethical issues of enhancement neurotechnologies. From these findings, we conducted a survey (N = 332) to probe the extent of rule endorsement. Results show high levels of endorsement for a warfighter’s decision-making autonomy, but lower support for the view that enhanced warfighters would pose a danger to society after service. By examining the endorsement of concrete decision-making guidelines, we provide an overview of how military officers might, in practice, resolve tensions between competing values or higher-level principles. Our results suggest that the military context demands a recontextualisation of the relationship between military and civilian ethics.