The technology of LAWS is discussed controversially: At the political level of states, in international institutions, the scientific field of AI and robotics, the companies working in these fields, the public and the media landscape.
This paper aims to shed light on the question: How is the globally discussed technology of LAWS and its ban perceived by different social groups? Currently, those who are against a ban dominate globally. These are powerful countries that are also leaders in the development of LAWS and refer to the justifications of experts and commercial players.
In the following (Section 2), the controversy of banning LAWS is embedded in the scientific discourse on risk and uncertainty and a selection of the concepts is applied to the technology to not only emphasize the socio-political relevance mentioned in the introduction, but also the academic relevance. Next, the methodological concept of SCOT is introduced theoretically (Section 3) and then applied to the LAWS object of study (Section 4). Finally, the conclusion (Section 5) summarizes the main findings, highlights the limitations of the work, and suggests a way forward.
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Risk and Uncertainty in STS
Section 3: Methodological Concept of SCOT
Section 4: Analysis of the Controversy of a ban on LAWS
Section 5: Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper investigates how the globally debated technology of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) and the associated campaign for an international ban are perceived by diverse social groups. By applying the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework, the research seeks to uncover the conflicting interests, risks, and justifications articulated by stakeholders ranging from tech companies and NGOs to powerful states, ultimately exploring how these competing perspectives shape the current discourse on regulation.
- The role of risk and uncertainty in modern technological discourse.
- Application of the SCOT framework to analyze socio-technical controversies.
- Categorization of stakeholders (producers, users, risk managers, and protesters) involved in the LAWS debate.
- The tension between technological innovation and the push for humanitarian and ethical regulation.
- The specific socio-political positioning of Germany in the context of the LAWS debate.
Excerpt from the Book
Section 3: Methodological Concept of SCOT
SCOT is a multidirectional approach characterized by the interplay of variation and selection (Pinch & Bijker, 1987, p. 22). The technological artifact or the socio-technical complex is thus examined for its "interpretative flexibility" (Pinch & Bijker, 1987, p. 22), meaning it is examined which variants of the object endure and which are abandoned during the selection process. Therefore, in the first step of the analysis, social groups are identified and described in detail, which have a relationship to the object of study. Further, the problems of each of such groups in relation to the object are considered. Doing so, it may be that a group is not homogeneous in its attitude and therefore must be divided into separate groups (Pinch & Bijker, 1987, p. 27). In focusing on each group's problems with the artifact, diverse conflicts become known, which may result in diverse approaches to solving the problem. Concluding, in the first step the interpretative flexibility is traced, i.e., it is shown that technological complexes are culturally constructed and interpreted. In the second step of the analysis closure mechanisms are shown, i.e., "the stabilization of an artifact and the 'disappearance' of problems" (Pinch & Bijker, 1987, p. 37). Crucial is not whether the problem has been solved, but whether the social groups regard it as such.
Summary of Chapters
Section 1: Introduction: Outlines the global controversy surrounding LAWS, highlighting the diverse positions of states, NGOs, and the technology industry while establishing the paper's focus on the 'Global South' and the German perspective.
Section 2: Risk and Uncertainty in STS: Embeds the debate on autonomous weapons within the scientific discourse of risk and uncertainty, utilizing concepts like the 'uncertainty paradox' to explain decision-making processes.
Section 3: Methodological Concept of SCOT: Introduces the theoretical framework of the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), focusing on interpretative flexibility and closure mechanisms to analyze technological development.
Section 4: Analysis of the Controversy of a ban on LAWS: Applies the SCOT framework to categorize stakeholders into risk producers, managers, and protesters, analyzing their specific views on LAWS as tools of power versus ethical liabilities.
Section 5: Conclusion: Summarizes the findings of the SCOT-based analysis, acknowledging that the controversy remains unstable and suggesting that further research should focus on identifying specific closure mechanisms.
Keywords
Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, LAWS, SCOT, Social Construction of Technology, Risk Governance, Uncertainty, Global South, Technology Policy, Humanitarian Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Arms Control, Stakeholder Analysis, International Relations, Disarmament.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the global controversy surrounding the potential ban of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) by analyzing the different perspectives and meanings assigned to this technology by various social groups.
Which theoretical framework does the author apply?
The author uses the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework, which focuses on how technological artifacts are culturally interpreted and shaped by the conflicts and negotiations between different social groups.
What is the primary objective of the study?
The objective is to understand how different social groups perceive LAWS and their regulation, and to demonstrate how the SCOT method can be applied to shed light on complex, unresolved technological controversies.
How are the stakeholders in the LAWS debate categorized?
Following Asselt and Vos, the actors are categorized into risk producers (e.g., tech companies, weapons manufacturers), risk managers (e.g., states), and risk protesters (e.g., NGOs, international organizations).
What role does the 'Global South' play in this discourse?
The author argues that the 'Global South' is primarily composed of those who suffer the negative consequences of unchecked technological proliferation, framing them as essential subaltern stakeholders in the LAWS debate.
Why is the German context highlighted in this paper?
Germany serves as a specific case study due to the author's personal connection and the ongoing political developments regarding drone procurement and autonomous weapons policy within the German government.
How do tech companies generally perceive LAWS?
Many major IT and robotics companies oppose the military use of their technologies, fearing that it could lead to unethical outcomes, spiral out of control, and ultimately discredit the entire AI industry.
What is the significance of the "uncertainty paradox" mentioned?
The uncertainty paradox describes situations where, despite acknowledgeable uncertainty regarding the consequences of a technology, decision-makers—such as governments—are forced to act as if they have certainty, leading to technocratic decision-making.
- Citar trabajo
- Isabel Thoma (Autor), 2021, Analysis of the Controversy of a ban on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) based on the SCOT concept, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1170560
