This article is a response to the thought-provoking piece by Ms. Ebru Akgün, which discusses the rising complexity of warfare and the challenges of adhering to international law in the context of mode
Ms. Akgün highlights the significance of the proportionality principle and the responsibility of legal professionals, military officials, and developers in managing the escalating capabilities of military technology. However, while her arguments are insightful, I believe they overlook the broader and more immediate reality: the rapid advancement of warfare technology has outpaced our ability to regulate it, and the idea of self-regulating norms is, in fact, a distant fantasy in today’s geopolitical landscape
.
The global stage is currently dominated by three predominant blocks: the Western world, led by NATO; Russia; and China. While the West remains fractured, Russia and China have entered into a de facto alliance, forming a geopolitical dynamic that raises concerns about the future of international diplomacy and the survival of human values. As we hurtle toward an era of unprecedented technological advancement in warfare, the possibility of meaningful negotiations or self-regulating norms seems increasingly unlikely, if not impossible
.
The race toward more lethal and sophisticated weapons has reached a point where the human aspect of conflict is all but erased. From the earliest days of stone tools used for survival, to the brutal elegance of swords, and now to the unimaginable potential of hypersonic missiles, the evolution of warfare is driven by one force: supremacy. Every leap in weaponry technology has served to push nations further into a battle of escalation, where the goal is no longer to preserve peace, but to dominate, to secure power at all costs.
What happens when technology outpaces the ability of humans to regulate their own behavior? We are at that crossroads today. Nations are racing to develop new technologies—artificial intelligence in warfare, autonomous weapon systems, and weapons of mass destruction—that function faster and more efficiently than any human could ever hope to control. The very technology that could ensure greater precision in warfare simultaneously reduces accountability, making it harder to track the use of these weapons and harder to hold anyone responsible when civilians pay the price.
In this environment, international laws, even those like the Geneva Conventions and the principle of proportionality, become increasingly irrelevant. No longer do we have a system that can effectively regulate warfare. We have a world where the most advanced technologies allow for killing on a scale that humans are incapable of fully comprehending. Weapons no longer require human oversight in the same way that a drone might have once been piloted by a soldier. Autonomous weapons, for example, are designed to make their own decisions, and these decisions are far removed from the values of humanity. In this new age, the meaning of war is not shaped by political ideals or even economic incentives; it is defined by the relentless desire to overpower the opponent, to prove that one’s technological prowess is unrivaled.
The central issue here is that this escalating arms race is inherently self-reinforcing. As one block develops newer, more lethal technology, the others are compelled to follow suit, lest they fall behind. The narrative becomes cyclical: each step forward in weapons technology leads to an arms race that requires yet another leap forward. There is no room for sentiment, diplomacy, or even caution. In this race, humanity takes a backseat, and supremacy becomes the sole objective.
The idea that we could establish any form of self-regulating norms in this context is, frankly, a fantasy. The West, Russia, and China are locked in an ideological battle, their interests rooted in power and influence, not in cooperation or compromise. Even if one side or another were to call for a halt to the development of certain weapon technologies, there is no governing body with the power to enforce such decisions. The United Nations, for example, has proven time and again to be ineffective in preventing wars or imposing meaningful sanctions on states that refuse to comply with international law. The disparity between the rhetoric of peace and the reality of military escalation is vast.
In truth, this escalating arms race is a ticking time bomb. It is only a matter of time before the technologies of war become too powerful for any human to control, before a spark of conflict ignites a global disaster that will leave no victor, only survivors scrambling to rebuild in the ashes of a world they no longer recognize.
The absence of a true governing authority to oversee the ethics of modern warfare leaves us in a dangerous position. We find ourselves in an era where technology is advancing faster than our capacity to govern it, and nations are racing not to preserve human life, but to assert dominance at any cost. This war of escalation, which is detached from any humanitarian consideration, threatens to not only endanger global peace but to extinguish the very concept of humanity itself.
In the end, the real question is not whether we can win this technological race, but whether there will be any humanity left to fight for when the race is over. The pursuit of supremacy through weaponry, unchecked and unregulated, may well be the most destructive force the world has ever known.
Daniele Prandelli
#ArmsRace #MilitaryTechnology #AIInWarfare #InternationalLaw #GlobalSecurity #WeaponSystems #ProportionalityPrinciple #TechEscalation #DefenseIndustry #HumanRightsInWar
Link to the original post
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ebruakgun_internationallaw-weaponsystems-proportionalityprinciple-activity-7289626956038365184-TPfc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
