• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.9 no.3
• /
• pp.451-459
• /
• 2023

The purpose of this paper is to show the limitations of Just War Theory in evaluating ethical issues that can be raised in cognitive warfare, which is emerging as a new area of war. To this end, we will provide the background of cognitive warfare, derive the features of cognitive warfare based on conceptual analysis of cognitive warfare, and clarify the differences between cognitive warfare and traditional warfare. Afterwards, we will turn the discussion and take a look at the background and areas of Just War Theory as a theory that evaluates comprehensive ethical issues related to war. Then, we will elaborate what Just War Theory is and apply the ethical judgment criteria presented in the three areas of this theory, jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum, to cognitive warfare. Finally, we will evaluate the appropriateness of ethical judgment in cognitive warfare by applying criteria for each area and specify the limitations, thereby showing that Just War Theory has limitations as an ethical judgment criteria in cognitive warfare.

• Journal of National Security and Military Science
• /
• s.7
• /
• pp.1-24
• /
• 2009

This article deals with military thought in general. First I tried to distinguish 'thought' from 'theory', 'philosophy', and 'principle'. Thought means the act of thinking about or considering something, an idea or opinion, or a set of ideas about a particular subject, e.g. military affairs in the present discussion. Theory means a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas which are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation. Philosophy means the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of reality and existence, the use and limits of knowledge. Principle means a basic idea or rule that explains or controls how something happens or works. Chapter 3 summarized the characteristics of military thoughts into five points', (i) it is closely related with concrete experiences of a nation; (ii) it includes philosophical and logical arguments; (iii) it relies heavily on the political thought of a nation; (iv) it includes necessarily value-judgments; (v) it contains visions of a nation which are not only descriptions or explanations of military affairs, but also evaluations and advocacies. Chapter 4 considers the relation of international political thoughts to military thought. Throughout the history of the modem states system there have been three competing traditions of thought: the Hobbesian or realist tradition, which views international politics as a state of war; the Kantian or universalist tradition, which sees at work in international politics a potential community of mankind; and the Grotian or internationalist tradition, which views international politics as taking place within an international society. Chapter 5 considers the law of war, which is a body of law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello). Among other issues, modem laws of war address declarations of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war, military necessity along with distinction and proportionality, and the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.127-152
• /
• 2020

Despite growing international cooperation for maintenance of international peace and security, wars continue to occur due to conflicted state interests. Continuing conflicts has advanced development of various weapon systems such as global integrated intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. However, with a big increase in the number of civilian casualties caused by the weapon systems development, the international community has also advanced diplomatic efforts to minimize deaths of civilian and military personnel. Therefore, it is essential to observe the principle of discrimination between combatants and non-combatants when operating unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), better known as drones. Drones have become more capable of distinguishing combatants from non-combatants due to its high-tech prowess. In the operation of drones, any parties involved in combat or the war are responsible for mounting civilian casualties. In addition, it should comply with the principle of proportionality that calls for a balance between results of such action and expected military advantage anticipated from the attack. The rule of proportionality prohibits use of military force which may be expected to cause excessive civilian harm. Drones have been able to track and monitor targets for hours and select the accurate locations of the targets. The aim is to reduce civilian losses and damage to a minimum. Drones meet the standards of Article 51.4 of the Additional Protocol.