Non-lethal Weapons as Legitimising Forces? by Brian Rappert

Author:Brian Rappert [Rappert, Brian]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: History, Military, General, Political Science, Security (National & International)
ISBN: 9781135760229
Google: fUmQAgAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2004-11-23T01:15:02+00:00

ADDITIONAL REMARKS

The previous section indicated something of the assumptions and commitments that underlie contrasting assessments of the merits of non-lethal weapons. As was argued there and in the preceding sections, determinations of the acceptability of non-lethal weapons (statements about what they are for and their effects) are defined in relation to a context. ‘Context’ itself is an elastic resource, which can refer to a variety of background assumptions about the drivers of actions or situational factors that hinder or encourage certain forms of behavior.

Disagreements about events are bound up with the mutual definition of context and technology. Whether one believes the official justification that riots in the West Bank are just so unpredictable that some deaths are unavoidable with non-lethal rubber-coated ammunition is a key factor in whether one downplays or decries the deaths attributed to these bullets. Technical predictive assessments of the characteristics of such weapons, such as their lethality, rely on assumptions about how they are used in practice (such as whether they are fired from a certain distance). Determinations of lethality also inform decisions about whether deaths resulted from unavoidable confusion or unacceptable expectations. So, as mentioned above, the high level of deaths to Palestinians because of ‘non-lethal’ ammunition was taken as an indicator of the inappropriateness of depending on the weapons being fired appropriately.

To say that there are multiple contexts at work in evaluations and different ways of making sense of context and technology is not to suggest that all accounts are equally valid, or that debates about the acceptability of the recourse to non-lethal weapons are not resolvable for practical purposes. Various claims and counterclaims have been offered in this chapter in relation to specific debates. The reader has no doubt found some evaluations more compelling than others. In making such evaluations, information outside this text was probably drawn on as well as assessments of the motives, identity and credibility of those making claims (including the author). While some may have no problem believing that Kenyan security forces have acted in malicious ways, the suggestion that officers did so in Northern Ireland might not attract the same support. Such determinations about the cause for effects or events do not result from a straightforward description of technology.65 Rather than just asking what the effects of weapons really are, as if this could be stated once and for all without scope for debate, this analysis has sought to see how certain devices have certain characteristics attributed to them.

Just as the accounts above have drawn on or implied a certain context for making sense of the likely operation of technology, so, too, has my analysis. Just as I have presented debates about non-lethals revolving around appeals to what is feasible in real-life situations, so my analysis has rested on appeals to what is likely in the ‘real world’. In this regard, it has been assumed and suggested that the strict adherence to rules in the use of force is highly unrealistic. This supposition has derived from my understanding of criminological, sociological and historical studies.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.