AHRC/ESRC Conflict Theme Leader Fellowship

Lead Research Organisation: University of Bath
Department Name: Politics, Languages and Int Studies

Abstract

We understand bounded war. There are enemies. There are starts and finishes. There are ideologies. We know them as we know our own identities. As Chris Hedges states, we know them because 'war gives us meaning'. Yet, imagine a war where the enemy becomes obtuse, hidden or dispersed. Imagine a war that appears to have no beginning, an incursion, an attack, a death or no end, no ceasefire, no peace treaty, no troop withdrawal. The bounds of contemporary warfare are, in other words, no longer there.

War then becomes something else. We can imagine that politics still matters. That power is still projected. Perhaps, there is even still lethality. This would be a true return to nature in the Hobbesian sense. Nasty. Brutish. Short. Why would such a form of warfare arise? Surely there are collective interests in maintaining bounded warfare as we know it. Nation-states are bounded. Militaries are built to fight bounded wars. Even Clausewitz's trinity of relations between the military, the state and the society are bounded.

We can understand technology as applied, as used, as passive. I have agency. The technology does not have agency. Many scholars are looking at the impact of technology on defence in this fashion such as UAVs and airpower, processing speeds and big data, networked enabled forces and command and control. At the same time, we can understand technology as a system, a way of doing things. This is a pervasive understanding of technology. Another way to say it is that technologies provide governmentalities. Ways of understanding, of knowing, of seeing, of governing.

Relying on a collection of authors, most prominently Ruth Miller and her book Snarl, we look to see how technology, networks, systems are themselves constitutional elements that change the user-tool notions of warfare and blur the lines between agent and subject.

The fellowship asks three questions concerning the rise of boundless warfare:

What role for states?
What future for power and security?
What future for security and defence?

Each of these questions have serious policy implications for understanding how technology is changing both the character AND nature of conflict.

The fellowship takes a humanities approach to emerging warfare, relying on philosophy and history to examine how technology reorders spaces in which human behaviour occurs. The fellowship engages with the Global Uncertainties partnership through its focus on emerging threats, disruptive technology and new understandings of conflict.

As a result, the fellowship will produce a series of articles on situating emergent warfare in the philosophical and historical traditions briefly discussed here. Furthermore, the fellowship will produce a research monograph entitled Forever Vigilant? Technology and the Rise of Boundless Warfare.

Publications

10 25 50
publication icon
Galbreath D (2019) Moving the techno-science gap in Security Force Assistance in Defence Studies

publication icon
Malyarenko T (2016) Paramilitary motivation in Ukraine: beyond integration and abolition in Southeast European and Black Sea Studies

 
Description Work on the changing conflict in Ukraine:
With Tetyana Malyarenko, 'Paramilitary motivation in Ukraine: beyond integration and abolition'
Southern Europe and Black Sea Studies

Abstract: A common theme in historical and contemporary warfare is the role of militias. Militias, both pro-government and rebel, act beyond their sponsors or else they would be understood as part of the armies that go to war. We think of militias as being paramilitaries, para- meaning approximate but not collocated with the military. Paramilitaries are ordinarily recruited and resourced differently. They are also ordinarily tactically different, playing a role in front line warfare where the intensity may be high, but were the position is fast changing or distributed in local areas. As the conflict literature will show, militias, or paramilitaries, are a common feature of any conflict and thus it is no surprise that we see their use in Ukraine. For the conflict in Ukraine, we use the term paramilitaries to indicate those forces that are fighting at the front line for both the Kyiv government and rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, with these being considered 'pro-Russian' and even include Russian citizens. Relying on the pro-government militias literature, we show how militias on both sides play an important role in the conflict but also pose the biggest threat to a sustainable peace.
 
Description Contribution to UK Government 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review Impact Type: Policy Impact Sector: Security and Conflict Description of impact : Contribution to the Consultative Panel and advice feeding into the 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence Review, published on Monday 23rd November 2015. Plain English Summary (500 words approx. suitable for public facing web pages): How did the research contribute?: Professor David Galbreath advised the UK Government Consultative Panel charged with preparing the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence Review. This review was published on 23rd November 2015. Significance 23/11/15: UK Government; National Security Adviser; Cabinet Office Impact: Policy
First Year Of Impact 2015
Sector Aerospace, Defence and Marine,Digital/Communication/Information Technologies (including Software),Security and Diplomacy
Impact Types Cultural,Societal