Joe Devanny

Geopolitics and the quest for dominance

Related to this is discussion of the ways in which unmanned systems may be lowering the threshold for war. Galliott rightly examines the issue separately at the ad bellum and in bello levels. far too often in discussion of this point, the two have been conflated, engendering much confusion. Galliott’s examination in particular of how drones may be eroding the threshold for use of force within a conflict is particularly interesting. He explores David Grossmann’s work looking at the relationship between killing and distance over the centuries and relates this to the use of unmanned systems. elsewhere Galliott reflects on the way that the “inherent complexity of socio-technical systems” (p. 150) i.e. unmanned systems being just one element of the mass intelligence–defense network (what William Arkin in his book on unmanned systems dubs “the Data Machine”) also diminishes personal responsibility. With intelligence specialists, troops on the ground, sensor operators, analysts, lawyers, and commanders as well as the operator themselves all involved in the missile launch decision, it may be that the operator becomes distanced from the actual decision to kill – a version of the “problem of many hands.” in the final chapter, Galliott dips into the wider arguments about the ethical implications of autonomous unmanned systems to deny the notion, put forward mainly by those seeing to ban such systems, that if autonomous systems commit unjust actions no one can be held responsible. A notion dubbed “the responsibility gap.” Galliott argues, in what feels like something of a simplistic answer, that responsibility can “be distributed amongst human and non-human agents or some combination thereof.” (p. 228) Despite some small disagreements, this is a clear and helpful exposition of the main ethical issues arising from the growing use of military unmanned systems. the political, defense, and security implications of the rapidly increasing use of military unmanned systems are vast and this volume sheds important light on the ethical consequences.

CO-ORDINATING UK FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY: The National Security Council

Since 2010 the National Security Council (NSC) has won plaudits for improving the clarity and regularity of national-security co-ordination. It has also been criticised for strategic shortcomings and a lack of capacity to drive forward the implementation of its decisions across government. Joe Devanny appraises the NSCs performance and future prospects, although without access to NSC proceedings it is difficult to infer the quality of its decisions or the coherence of its policies from the ambiguous evidence of apparent policy outcomes or public statements. So closely is the NSC associated with Prime Minister David Cameron that his expected retirement by 2020 renders its future uncertain.