Constructing expertise: the front- and back-door regulation of AI’s military applications in the European Union

References

• Adler, E. (1992). The emergence of cooperation: National epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control. International Organization, 46(1), 101–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001466
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, E., & Haas, P. M. (1992). Conclusion: Epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program. International Organization, 46(1), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Army Technology. (2021). Crotale NG short range Air defence system. https://www.army-technology.com/projects/crotale/.
   Google Scholar
• Asaro, P. (2019). Algorithms of violence: Critical social perspectives on autonomous weapons. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 86(2), 537–555. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2019.0026
   Google Scholar
• Australia, Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, & United States. (2022). Principles and good practices on emerging technologies in the area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/ccw/2022/gge/documents/USgroup_March2022.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Barbé, E., & Badell, D. (2020). The European Union and lethal autonomous weapons systems: United in diversity? In E. Johansson-Nogués, M. C. Vlaskamp, & E. Barbé (Eds.), European Union contested: Foreign policy in a new global context (pp. 133–152). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bhuta, N., Beck, S., Geiss, R., Liu, H.-Y., & Kress, C. (Eds.) (2016). Autonomous weapons systems: Law, ethics, policy. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J.. (1987). Introduction. In W.E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 9–15). London/Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bode, I. (2022). Practice-based and deliberative normativity: Retaining human control over the Use of force. Conference Paper Under Review.
   Google Scholar
• Bode, I., & Huelss, H. (2018). Autonomous weapons systems and changing norms in international relations. Review of International Studies, 44(3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bode, I., & Huelss, H. (2022). Autonomous weapon systems and international norms. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bode, I., & Watts, T. (2021). Meaning-less human control. The consequences of automation and autonomy in Air defence systems. Drone Wars UK & Centre for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark. https://dronewars.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DW-Control-WEB.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bode, I., & Watts, T. (2023). Loitering munitions and unpredictability: New challenges to human control. Center for War Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Brustein, J., & Bergen, M. (2019, November 21). Google wants to do business with the military—many of its employees don’t. Bloomberg.Com. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2019-google-military-contract-dilemma/.
   Google Scholar
• Büthe, T., Djeffal, C., Lütge, C., Maasen, S., & Ingersleben-Seip, N. v. (2022). Governing AI – attempting to herd cats? Introduction to the special issue on the governance of artificial intelligence. Journal of European Public Policy, 29(11), 1721–1752. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2126515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmel, E. (2017). Re-interpreting knowledge, expertise and EU governance: The cases of social policy and security research policy. Comparative European Politics, 15(5), 771–793. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-016-0079-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csernatoni, R. (2019). The EU’s technological power: Harnessing future and emerging technologies for European security. In C.-A. Baciu, & J. Doyle (Eds.), Peace, security and defence cooperation in post-brexit Europe (pp. 119–140). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Csernatoni, R. (2021, December 6). The EU's defense ambitions: Understanding the emergence of a European defense technological and industrial complex. Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieeurope.eu/2021/12/06/eu-s-defense-ambitions-understanding-emergence-of-european-defense-technological-and-industrial-complex-pub-85884
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, A. C., Haufler, V., & Porter, T. (Eds.) (1999). Private authority and international affairs. State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Degenhardt, T., & Bourne, M. (2020). When risks meet: The dance of experience, professional expertise and science in border security technology development. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(2), 207–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1748895818811896
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drake, W. J., & Nicolaïdis, K. (1992). Ideas, interests, and institutionalization: “trade in services” and the Uruguay round. International Organization, 46(1), 37–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001454
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn Cavelty, M., & Smeets, M. (2023). Regulatory cybersecurity governance in the making: The formation of ENISA and its struggle for epistemic authority. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(7), 1330–1352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2173274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EEAS. (2018, December 10). International security and lethal autonomous weapons. European Union External Action. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/international-security-and-lethal-autonomous-weapons_en.
   Google Scholar
• EEAS. (2019a, March 9). Lethal autonomous weapons and cyber threats on global tech panel agenda in Seattle. European Union External Action. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/61366_en.
   Google Scholar
• EEAS. (2019b, April 4). Global tech panel and UN experts join forces to address digital challenges. European Union External Action. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/61355_en.
   Google Scholar
• EEAS. (2019c, September 4). EU defence ministers discuss AI with global tech panel experts. European Union External Action. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-defence-ministers-discuss-ai-global-tech-panel-experts_en.
   Google Scholar
• EEAS. (2019d, October 22). EU pushes for global cooperation on lethal autonomous weapons and to use tech for mediation. European Union External Action. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-pushes-global-cooperation-lethal-autonomous-weapons-and-use-tech-mediation_en.
   Google Scholar
• EEAS. (2021a, February 18). Global tech panel: High representative/vice-president josep borrell convenes the panel for the first time. European Union External Action. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/global-tech-panel-high-representativevice-president-josep-borrell-convenes-panel-first-time_en.
   Google Scholar
• EEAS. (2021b, September 20). Global tech panel. European Union External Action. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/global-tech-panel_en.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksen, E. O. (2011). Governance between expertise and democracy: The case of European security. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), 1169–1189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.615206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2022a). Defence industry: EU takes steps to invest almost €1.2 bn [Text]. European Commission - Press Release. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_4595.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2022b). Register of commission expert groups and other similar entities. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups?lang = en.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (2021, January 20). European parliament resolution of 20 January 2021 on artificial intelligence. 2021/0009. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0009_EN.html.
   Google Scholar
• European Union. (2021, April 29). Regulation (EU) 2021/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Defence Fund. EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/697/oj.
   Google Scholar
• Faleg, G. (2012). Between knowledge and power: epistemic communities and the emergence of security sector reform in the EU security architecture. European Security, 21(2), 161–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2012.665882
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, T. (2019, September 30). Tweet: Including update on the work of our #GlobalTechPanel especially on AI and lethal autonomous weapons. Twitter. https://twitter.com/TFletcher/status/1178578165096165376.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth, T. (2020). Who shapes the politics of expertise? Co-production and authoritative knowledge in Thailand’s political forests. Antipode, 52(4), 1039–1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (2012). The order of things. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, D. (2017). Governing lethal autonomous weapon systems. Ethics & International Affairs, https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2017/governing-lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems/
   Google Scholar
• Gillespie, T. (2014, June). Algorithm. Culture Digitally. https://culturedigitally.org/2014/06/algorithm-draft-digitalkeyword/.
   Google Scholar
• Google, A. I. (2021). Responsibilities. Google AI. https://ai.google/responsibilities/.
   Google Scholar
• Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haner, J., & Garcia, D. (2019). The artificial intelligence arms race: Trends and world leaders in autonomous weapons development. Global Policy, 10(3), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12713
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawley, J. K. (2017). Patriot wars. Automation and the patriot air and missile defense system (voices from the field). Center for New American Security.
   Google Scholar
• ICRC. (2021, May 12). ICRC position on autonomous weapon systems. ICRC. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-position-autonomous-weapon-systems.
   Google Scholar
• Judson, J. (2022, January 24). US special operations command picks Anduril to lead counter-drone integration work in $1B deal. Defense News. https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned/2022/01/24/us-special-operations-command-picks-anduril-to-lead-counter-drone-integration-work-in-1b-deal/.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, C. (2019, August 29). Tweet: Important discussions last night with EU Defence Ministers. Twitter. https://twitter.com/cassandralkelly/status/1167002392778301440?s = 11.
   Google Scholar
• Kendall, F. (2021, September 23). Video: Kendall on the state of the forces at AFA’s Air, space & cyber ‘21. Air Force Magazine. https://www.airforcemag.com/video-kendall-on-the-state-of-the-forces-at-afas-air-space-cyber-21/.
   Google Scholar
• Krisch, N. (2017). Liquid authority in global governance. International Theory, 9(2), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruck, A., & Weiss, M. (2023). The regulatory security state in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(7), 1205–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2172061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurowska, X. (2020). Interpretive scholarship in contemporary international relations. Teoria Polityki, 4(4), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.4467/25440845TP.19.018.11784
   Google Scholar
• Leander, A. (2010). Practices (Re)producing orders: Understanding the role of business in global security governance. In A. Leander, & M. Ougaard (Eds.), Business and global governance (pp. 57–77). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leopold, G. (2020, November 2). NATO targets AI interoperability. EnterpriseAI. https://www.enterpriseai.news/2020/11/02/nato-targets-ai-interoperability/.
   Google Scholar
• Maas, M. M. (2019). Innovation-proof global governance for military artificial intelligence? Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 10(1), 129–157. https://doi.org/10.1163/18781527-01001006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402389408425031
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: Causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00003524
   Google Scholar
• Martins, B. O., & Küsters, C. (2019). Hidden Security: EU Public Research Funds and the Development of European Drones. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(2), 278–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcms.v57.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins, B. O., & Mawdsley, J. (2021). Sociotechnical imaginaries of EU defence: The past and the future in the European defence fund. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(6), 1458–1474. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauri, D. (2022). Autonomous weapons systems and the protection of the human person: An international law analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• McFarland, T. (2020). Autonomous weapon systems and the law of armed conflict: Compatibility with international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mende, J. (2020). Business authority in global governance: Beyond public and private (SP IV 2020-103; WZB discussion paper). WZB Berlin Social Science Center. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/218731.
   Google Scholar
• Menthe, L., Goldfeld, D. A., & Tingstad, A. (2021). Technology innovation and the future of Air force intelligence analysis. RAND Corporation. https://bityl.co/8OoE.
   Google Scholar
• Minor, E. (2021, March 4). What Europe can do towards regulating autonomous weapons. Article 36. https://article36.org/updates/ep-presentation/.
   Google Scholar
• Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. (2018a). Crotale next generation (NG). MDAA.
   Google Scholar
• Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. (2018b, August 17). Goalkeeper Close-in Weapons System (CIWS). MDAA. https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/defense-systems/goalkeeper-close-in-weapons-system-ciws/.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mogherini, F. (2018, November 29). Speech by high representative/vice-president federica mogherini at the annual conference of the European defence agency. EU External Action Service. https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/54646/speech-high-representativevice-president-federica-mogherini-annual-conference-european-defence_en.
   Google Scholar
• Mola, R. (2016, September). The intel Net. The sprawling, secretive process between sensor and action. Air & Space. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/the-intel-net-180960363/.
   Google Scholar
• Moyes, R. (2019). Target profiles. Article 36. http://www.article36.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Target-profiles.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Obendiek, A., & Seidl, T. (2023). The (False) promise of solutionism: Ideational business power and the construction of epistemic authority in digital security governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(7), 1305–1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2172060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OCCAR. (2014, January 14). FSAF - French SAMP/T ‘Mama’ System Delivery. Organisation Conjointe de Coopération En Matière d’Armement. http://www.occar.int/fsaf-french-sampt-mamba-system-delivery.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, M. J. (1992). Whalers, cetologists, environmentalists, and the international management of whaling. International Organization, 46(1), 147–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raji, I. D., Kumar, I. E., Horowitz, A., & Selbst, A. (2022). The fallacy of AI functionality. 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 959–972.
   Google Scholar
• Rassbach, E. (2021). US-Experten warnen vor deutscher Beteiligung an Eurodrohne. Telepolis. https://www.heise.de/tp/features/US-Experten-warnen-vor-deutscher-Beteiligung-an-Eurodrohne-6012113.html.
   Google Scholar
• Rosert, E., & Sauer, F. (2021). How (not) to stop the killer robots: A comparative analysis of humanitarian disarmament campaign strategies. Contemporary Security Policy, 42(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1771508
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruggie, J. G. (1975). International responses to technology: Concepts and trends. International Organization, 29(3), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300031696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilde, K. (2023). Weaponising Europe? Rule-makers and rule-takers in EU defense markets. Journal of European Public Policy, 30(7), 1255–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2023.2174582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schröder, U. C. (2006). Security expertise in the European Union: The challenges of comprehensiveness and accountability. European Security, 15(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/09662830701306094
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz-Shea, P., & Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Seabrooke, L., & Wigan, D. (2016). Powering ideas through expertise: Professionals in global tax battles. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1115536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharkey, N. (2018, August 28). The impact of gender and race bias in AI. ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2018/08/28/impact-gender-race-bias-ai/.
   Google Scholar
• Shultz, R. H., & Clarke, G. R. D. (2020, August 25). Big data at war: Special operations forces, project maven, and twenty-first century warfare. Modern War Institute. https://mwi.usma.edu/big-data-at-war-special-operations-forces-project-maven-and-twenty-first-century-warfare/.
   Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. (2020). Algorithmic warfare and the reinvention of accuracy. Critical Studies on Security, 8(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2020.1760587
   Google Scholar
• Suleyman, M. (2018, June 9). Tweet: Great to see @kasitmath reverse its stance on autonomous weapons research. Twitter. https://twitter.com/mustafasuleymn/status/1005517866031108100.
   Google Scholar
• Thales. (2022). Goalkeeper—Close-in weapon system. THALES. https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/goalkeeper-close-weapon-system#:~:text = To%20provide%20for%20this%20need,necessary%20to%20destroy%20missile%20warheads.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense. (2017). Deputy secretary of defense. Memorandum. Establishment of an Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (Project Maven).
   Google Scholar
• Vanhoonacker, S., Dijkstra, H., & Maurer, H. (2010). Understanding the role of bureaucracy in the European security and defence policy: The State of the Art. European Integration Online Papers. https://doi.org/10.1695/2010004
   Google Scholar
• Veale, M., & Brass, I. (2019). Administration by algorithm? Public management meets public sector machine learning. In K. Yeung, & M. Lodge (Eds.), Algorithmic regulation (pp. 121–149). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wakabayashi, D., & Conger, K. (2021, November 3). Google wants to work with the pentagon again, despite employee concerns. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/technology/google-pentagon-artificial-intelligence.html.
   Google Scholar
• Wakabayashi, D., & Shane, S. (2018, June 1). Google will Not renew pentagon contract that upset employees. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentagon-project-maven.html.
   Google Scholar
• Zürn, M., Binder, M., & Ecker-Ehrhardt, M. (2012). International authority and its politicization. International Theory, 4(1), 69–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971912000012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwolski, K. (2014). Epistemic policy networks in the European Union’s CBRN risk mitigation policy. European Security, 24(2), 319–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2014.968776
   Google Scholar