The (hypothetical) deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) challenges the way in which we conceptualize moral responsibility. The emergence of LAWs have added an autonomously acting non...Show moreThe (hypothetical) deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) challenges the way in which we conceptualize moral responsibility. The emergence of LAWs have added an autonomously acting non-human entity to a moral responsibility framework which is inextricably linked to human nature and moral capacity, which LAWs neither have nor possess. This leaves open a responsibility gap in which it becomes unclear who exactly is responsible for the outcome of the decisions made by LAWs. Although several solutions have been proposed to solve the gap, such as the concept of meaningful control or role-specific responsibility, I find that they cannot sufficiently address the responsibility gap. The concept of meaningful human control is inadequate for the complex and chaotic environment of warfare, particularly when introducing powerful weapons that push the boundaries of human capability. While role-responsibility considers the collective nature of the military and the entire chain of command, it faces challenges in accounting for the problem of many hands and the emergent behavior of autonomous weapons that cannot be directly attributed to a specific part of the system or individual. Especially in a value-loaded and ethically charged environment such as war, where choices regarding life or death are a routine matter, there is no room for obscured responsibility. Without proper responsibility, one cannot justify the introduction of LAWs onto the battlefield.Show less
One year into the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, debates still rage over the Russian motivations for this war. Purely international explanations, found in offensive and defensive realism, emphasise that...Show moreOne year into the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, debates still rage over the Russian motivations for this war. Purely international explanations, found in offensive and defensive realism, emphasise that wars are best understood as a means of states to ensure security among states. I argue that domestic considerations matter by stressing the analytical utility of the selectorate theory of war, which argues that state behaviour is best explained by a leader's desire to stay in power through ensuring loyalty by providing public and private goods. Using a qualitative explanatory case study research design, focusing on a single case: the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is found that before the war, Vladimir Putin was facing a crisis of political survival because his ability to ensure support from the elites he depended on and the wider public was increasingly constrained during his presidency due to a persistently stagnating economy. The war strengthened Putin’s political survival because newly acquired territories provide new sources of revenue for Russia’s elites. For the wider public, this study strongly suggests that Putin was aiming for a rally round the flag effect to distract the public at home from deteriorating circumstances and temporarily reduce the demand for public goods. In addition, the war legitimised greater repression, which signals a high cost of expressing discontent with Putin which deters future opposition and serves as a means to purge the elites and the broader public from disloyalty. Understanding these domestic factors that are negated by the purely international explanations of war is crucial for understanding the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war. This thesis provides a novel contribution to the literature explaining Russia’s foreign policies by using the selectorate theory of war, a theory that has not been used systematically for explaining Russia’s foreign policy.Show less
