127 6 CONCLUSION actively integrate values into the designs on a structural basis. The result is that the moral effects of a design can only be evaluated and adjusted after the implementation in society. Pesch (2015) notes that engineers relate to different institutional domains, such as the market, the state and science. The consequence is that engineers do not have a clearly defined accountability forum and that they rely on engineering ethics and codes of conduct. However, these codes of conduct are often not robustly enough institutionalized to be regarded as a good regulative framework. Therefore, engineers use methods such as the Value-Sensitive Design and Constructive Technology Assessment as proxies for accountability forums. The need to develop and use these proxies for engineering practices reveals that a governance perspective on responsibility and control lacks robust institutionalized frameworks. From a military perspective, control is described as a process to check if current and planned orders are on track and if the objectives to achieve a goal are met (Alberts & Hayes, 2006; Liao, 2008; NATO, 2017). Control aims to make adjustments to the plan if the current state deviates from the planned end-state of the mission. Control measures bound the mission space by limiting the area of operation, duration of military operations and by defining the order of battle. Control consists of procedures for planning, directing and coordination of resources for a mission and this includes standard operating procedures (SOPs), Rules Of Engagement (ROEs), regulations, military law, organizational structures and policies (Pigeau & McCann, 2002). Control in a military perspective is an instrument to bound and check if the actions are in line with the planned military goal and to adjust the planning when the current state deviates from the end state. This resembles the notion of control in an engineering perspective because there is a goal, input and feedback loop to adjust the system. The insufficiency of traditional notions of control to make sense of the human control over Autonomous Weapon Systems required to ground accountability, has led to the introduction of the notion of Meaningful Human Control in the political debate on Autonomous Weapon Systems. However, a common definition of this notion has been lacking in practice for a long time (Ekelhof, 2019). Often the notion of Meaningful Human Control has a very operational view and is strongly, if not exclusively, focused on the relation between one human controller and one technical system, and tries to identify the different conditions under which that controller may be able to effectively interact with the system. We may call this a narrow notion of Meaningful Human Control, insofar as the broader perspective of governance of control, organisational aspects, values and norms does not seem to be incorporated. In an attempt to overcome the conceptual impasse on the notion of Meaningful Human Control, Santoni de Sio and Van den Hoven (2018) tried to offer a deeper philosophical
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw