by Şehrazat Yazıcı
Abstract
Contemporary global security paradigms remain heavily dependent on militarization, despite growing evidence that large-scale armament—particularly when integrated with artificial intelligence—constitutes a systemic risk rather than a sustainable security solution. Prevailing governance models continue to normalize catastrophic outcomes as prerequisites for ethical and structural transformation, postponing responsibility until irreversible harm has already occurred.
This article advances a preventive global governance model grounded in an ethical–ontological framework that reconceptualizes security beyond weapons-based deterrence. Drawing on interdisciplinary perspectives from political philosophy, AI ethics, and systems theory, it argues that disarmament should be understood not as a utopian aspiration but as an adaptive response to technological acceleration and escalating existential risk.
The proposed framework outlines a phased and controlled disarmament process coupled with the establishment of global artificial intelligence laboratories designed as peace-oriented infrastructures. These institutions prioritize early-risk detection, ethical oversight, conflict prevention, and diplomatic decision support, reframing artificial intelligence as a stabilizing and anticipatory governance tool rather than an instrument of military dominance.
By systematically addressing counterarguments related to power asymmetry, authoritarian resistance, and AI misuse, the article demonstrates that security can be preserved—and in critical respects enhanced—through intelligence-driven cooperation and ethical alignment. The analysis concludes that postponing disarmament until catastrophe is no longer a rational strategy, but a structural failure of collective responsibility in an era of unprecedented technological capability.
Keywords
Global Disarmament, AI Ethics, Preventive Governance, Post-Militarized, Security, Artificial Intelligence and Peace, Global Risk Management
1. Introduction
Humanity Cannot Afford to Wait for Catastrophe
The contemporary global security architecture remains deeply rooted in militarization, despite increasing evidence that large-scale armament no longer guarantees stability. On the contrary, the expansion of military capabilities—particularly through the integration of artificial intelligence—has introduced systemic risks that increasingly transform security infrastructures into potential vectors of large-scale harm rather than reliable instruments of protection [1].
Historically, major transformations in global governance have tended to follow moments of extreme devastation, including world wars, nuclear crises, and environmental disasters. Such patterns reflect a reactive model of ethical and institutional change, in which catastrophe functions as the primary catalyst for reform. Under conditions of autonomous weapon systems, algorithmic decision-making, and accelerated technological feedback loops, this paradigm becomes increasingly untenable. The margin for error has narrowed to the point where a single miscalculation may generate consequences beyond effective containment [2].
Global military expenditures continue to rise, even as transnational threats—climate instability, pandemics, cyber conflict, and mass displacement—demonstrate that the most pressing risks facing humanity are not reducible to conventional armed confrontation. The persistence of militarized security frameworks reflects not strategic necessity, but institutional inertia sustained by political interests and economic dependencies embedded within the military–industrial complex [3].
The integration of artificial intelligence into defense systems intensifies this contradiction. AI-driven surveillance, predictive analytics, and autonomous operational capabilities promise efficiency and deterrence, yet simultaneously erode human accountability and ethical oversight. By compressing decision-making timelines and delegating critical judgments to opaque computational processes, AI militarization increases the probability of escalation without deliberation, thereby amplifying systemic instability [4].
This article contends that delaying structural transformation until catastrophe legitimizes change is no longer a defensible strategy. Preventive global governance must replace reactive security paradigms. When approached as a phased, controlled, and ethically grounded process, disarmament emerges not as an idealistic ambition, but as a rational response to technological acceleration and cumulative existential risk [5].
Rather than framing artificial intelligence as an extension of military power, the analysis advances an alternative orientation in which AI supports peace-oriented infrastructures, including early-risk detection, ethical governance, diplomatic mediation, and conflict prevention. Within this framework, security is redefined not through weapons accumulation, but through intelligence, cooperation, and ethical alignment at a planetary scale [6].
By situating disarmament and AI governance within an integrated ethical–ontological model, the article challenges the assumption that peace requires coercive force or that safety derives primarily from deterrence. Instead, it advances the position that continued militarization represents a structural failure of collective responsibility under conditions of foreseeable and escalating harm [7].
2. Theoretical Framework
Eteryanism as an Ethical–Ontological Model
Contemporary debates on global security and technological governance often suffer from a conceptual limitation: ethical frameworks are either treated as abstract moral appeals or dismissed as impractical idealism when confronted with realpolitik. This dichotomy has produced a false opposition between ethical reasoning and structural governance. The present framework challenges this opposition by positioning Eteryanism not as a belief system or visionary ideology, but as an ethical–ontological model grounded in human responsibility, systemic coherence, and technological accountability [8].
At its core, Eteryanism defines the human being not merely as a biological or political unit, but as a consciousness-bearing entity embedded within interconnected systems—social, technological, ecological, and planetary. This understanding reframes governance as a multidimensional responsibility rather than a mechanism of control. Security, within this framework, is not derived from domination or deterrence, but from relational stability and ethical alignment between systems and agents [9].
The concept of human core essence serves as a foundational analytical category. It refers to the irreducible dimension of human consciousness that precedes political identity, economic function, or national affiliation. By grounding governance in this shared ontological dimension, Eteryanism provides a universal ethical reference point without resorting to metaphysical absolutism or cultural relativism. This approach allows ethical norms to function as operational constraints rather than symbolic ideals [10].
From this perspective, violence and militarization are not neutral instruments of policy but indicators of systemic failure. Armed force becomes necessary only when governance mechanisms collapse or when ethical accountability is structurally absent. Thus, militarization is interpreted not as strength, but as a compensatory response to unresolved political, social, and ethical deficiencies [11].
Eteryanism aligns with risk-oriented and post-sovereign governance theories by emphasizing prevention over reaction. Rather than responding to crises after damage has occurred, the model prioritizes early detection of systemic imbalance—whether political, technological, or ecological. This preventive orientation is particularly critical in the age of artificial intelligence, where decision-making speed and scale exceed traditional human oversight capacities [12].
Unlike utopian political theories that rely on idealized human behavior, Eteryanism assumes cognitive limitations, power asymmetries, and institutional inertia as given conditions. Its contribution lies in proposing governance architectures that reduce harm even under non-ideal circumstances. Ethical alignment, within this framework, is not dependent on moral perfection but on structural design, transparency, and adaptive feedback mechanisms [13].
Artificial intelligence plays a central role in this model not as an autonomous authority, but as an ethical mediator. When designed within clearly defined normative boundaries, AI systems can assist in identifying emerging risks, monitoring ethical thresholds, and supporting deliberative decision-making processes. This reframing challenges dominant narratives that associate AI primarily with efficiency, control, or military advantage [14].
By integrating ontological assumptions about human consciousness with practical governance mechanisms, Eteryanism establishes a bridge between ethical theory and applied global policy. It rejects both moral fatalism and technological determinism, advancing instead a model in which responsibility scales alongside technological capability. Within this context, disarmament and AI governance emerge not as ideological preferences, but as logical extensions of an ethically coherent global order [15].
3. Militarization as a Systemic Risk
Why Armament No Longer Constitutes Security
The persistence of militarization as the dominant security paradigm reflects a structural inertia rather than an empirically justified strategy. While military expansion has historically been framed as a deterrent mechanism, contemporary conditions—characterized by technological acceleration, systemic interdependence, and globalized risk—have fundamentally altered its functional consequences. Armament no longer stabilizes international relations; instead, it amplifies volatility and magnifies the scale of potential failure [16].
The military–industrial complex operates not merely as a defense apparatus but as a self-reinforcing economic and political system. Defense expenditures generate employment, technological development, and political leverage, creating powerful incentives for perpetuating armament regardless of actual security outcomes. As a result, security policy becomes increasingly detached from threat assessment and increasingly aligned with economic dependency and institutional survival [17].
This structural distortion is exacerbated by the integration of artificial intelligence into military infrastructures. Autonomous systems, predictive analytics, and algorithmic targeting are promoted as solutions to human error and strategic uncertainty. However, by reducing the temporal space for deliberation and transferring decision-making authority to opaque computational processes, AI militarization introduces new layers of unpredictability and moral hazard [18].
Unlike conventional weapons, AI-driven systems operate through feedback loops that evolve in real time. Errors are not isolated incidents but can propagate across interconnected networks, triggering cascading effects beyond human intervention thresholds. In such environments, escalation may occur not through political intent, but through algorithmic interaction—a scenario that existing international legal and ethical frameworks are ill-equipped to address [19].
Moreover, the logic of deterrence presupposes rational actors capable of stable calculation. This assumption becomes increasingly fragile in systems where decision-making is partially automated and influenced by probabilistic models rather than contextual judgment. The delegation of lethal authority to machines undermines the very rationality upon which deterrence theory is founded, rendering militarization strategically incoherent in the age of artificial intelligence [20].
Empirical evidence further challenges the security benefits of sustained armament. Despite unprecedented global military spending, armed conflicts, asymmetric warfare, cyberattacks, and civilian displacement continue to rise. These patterns suggest that militarization does not resolve insecurity but redistributes it, often intensifying harm for non-combatant populations while failing to address root causes such as political instability, inequality, and environmental stress [21].
From a systemic perspective, militarization functions as a risk multiplier. It concentrates destructive capacity, normalizes violence as governance, and diverts resources from resilience-building domains such as public health, climate adaptation, education, and cooperative technological development. In this sense, armament does not merely fail to prevent catastrophe; it actively conditions the global system toward catastrophic outcomes [22].
This analysis supports a fundamental reclassification of militarization—not as a neutral policy choice, but as a systemic risk factor comparable to unchecked financial speculation or ecological degradation. Recognizing armament as a structural vulnerability rather than a safeguard is a prerequisite for reimagining security in a technologically advanced civilization [23].
4. A Gradual and Controlled Disarmament Model
From Militarized Security to Preventive Global Stability
Disarmament is frequently dismissed as impractical due to assumptions that it requires immediate, universal compliance or a sudden abandonment of existing security structures. Such assumptions misrepresent disarmament as an abrupt rupture rather than a managed transformation. This article advances a gradual and controlled disarmament model designed to function within existing political realities while systematically reducing structural reliance on armament [24].
The proposed model is incremental by design. It recognizes that militarization is deeply embedded within national economies, labor markets, and geopolitical power relations. Abrupt disarmament would therefore risk economic destabilization and political backlash. A phased approach, by contrast, allows for institutional adaptation, workforce transition, and the redistribution of resources toward non-military resilience-building sectors [25].
The first phase involves transparency and limitation. States commit to standardized disclosure of military expenditures, weapons development programs, and autonomous systems research. Transparency functions not as moral signaling, but as a stabilizing mechanism that reduces uncertainty, miscalculation, and arms-race dynamics. Historical arms-control agreements demonstrate that visibility itself constitutes a form of risk reduction [26].
The second phase focuses on budgetary reallocation rather than immediate force reduction. Military spending ceilings are gradually introduced, with incremental reductions tied to verified investments in civilian technologies such as renewable energy, public health infrastructure, disaster response systems, and non-militarized artificial intelligence research. This approach reframes disarmament as economic redirection rather than security withdrawal [27].
A critical component of this phase is industrial conversion. Defense industries are incentivized to transition toward civilian applications—space exploration, climate monitoring, medical technologies, and ethical AI development—thereby preserving employment while reducing dependency on weapons production. Empirical studies of post–Cold War conversion efforts indicate that such transitions are feasible when supported by coordinated policy frameworks [28].
The third phase addresses weapons de-escalation, prioritizing systems with the highest catastrophic potential. Nuclear arsenals and fully autonomous lethal weapons are subjected to accelerated reduction schedules under international verification regimes. Rather than eliminating technological knowledge, this phase redirects scientific expertise toward non-destructive domains, ensuring that innovation capacity is preserved without perpetuating existential risk [29].
Throughout all phases, security is maintained through cooperative mechanisms rather than unilateral vulnerability. Collective assurance frameworks, regional confidence-building measures, and AI-supported early-warning systems replace deterrence-based stability. These mechanisms aim to prevent conflict escalation before force deployment becomes conceivable [30].
Crucially, this model does not assume universal goodwill. It is structured to function under conditions of partial compliance, political asymmetry, and strategic mistrust. Incentive alignment—economic, technological, and diplomatic—serves as the primary driver of participation, while non-compliance triggers proportionate non-military countermeasures rather than escalation [31].
By embedding disarmament within a controlled, adaptive, and verifiable process, the model demonstrates that reducing armament need not undermine security. On the contrary, it suggests that long-term stability depends on the systematic dismantling of structures that convert technological progress into instruments of mass harm [32].
5. Global AI Laboratories as a Peace Infrastructure
Reframing Artificial Intelligence Beyond Military Utility
The prevailing integration of artificial intelligence into global security frameworks has largely followed a militarized trajectory, prioritizing strategic advantage, surveillance dominance, and operational speed. This orientation reflects inherited security assumptions rather than an inherent characteristic of AI itself. As a general-purpose technology, artificial intelligence remains normatively indeterminate; its societal impact depends primarily on the governance architectures within which it is embedded [33].
This article proposes the establishment of global AI laboratories as peace-oriented infrastructures designed to counterbalance militarized applications of artificial intelligence. Unlike defense-driven research centers, these laboratories function as transnational institutions dedicated to early-risk detection, ethical governance, conflict prevention, and decision-support mechanisms for diplomacy. Their core objective is not efficiency in violence, but anticipatory stability in complex global systems [34].
The conceptual foundation of these laboratories rests on three principles: ethical alignment, preventive functionality, and institutional transparency. Ethical alignment ensures that AI systems operate within clearly defined normative constraints, prioritizing harm reduction and accountability. Preventive functionality emphasizes early identification of escalation patterns—political, economic, environmental, or technological—before they crystallize into armed conflict. Transparency guarantees auditability, public oversight, and resistance to covert militarization [35].
Within this framework, artificial intelligence is deployed as an analytical mediator rather than a sovereign decision-maker. AI systems support human deliberation by synthesizing large-scale data across domains such as climate stress, resource scarcity, migration flows, cyber incidents, and political instability. By identifying converging risk indicators, these systems enable timely diplomatic intervention and coordinated non-military responses [36].
A critical distinction must be drawn between predictive militarization and preventive governance. Whereas military AI seeks to anticipate enemy behavior for tactical advantage, peace-oriented AI laboratories focus on recognizing systemic fragilities that generate conflict potential. This shift transforms prediction from a tool of domination into a mechanism of collective foresight [37].
Institutionally, global AI laboratories operate through distributed networks rather than centralized authority. Regional centers are embedded within diverse geopolitical and ecological contexts, ensuring contextual sensitivity and reducing hegemonic control. Shared protocols, open standards, and cross-validation mechanisms enable interoperability while preserving pluralism in governance [38].
Concerns regarding misuse, surveillance overreach, or algorithmic bias are addressed through multilayered safeguards. These include independent ethical review boards, mandatory human-in-the-loop requirements, algorithmic impact assessments, and continuous monitoring for unintended consequences. Importantly, the laboratories are explicitly prohibited from developing or optimizing lethal applications, establishing a clear normative boundary between peace infrastructure and military research [39].
The legitimacy of global AI laboratories derives not from enforcement capacity but from functional credibility. Their value lies in producing actionable insights that reduce uncertainty, de-escalate tensions, and support cooperative solutions. Over time, demonstrated effectiveness in crisis prevention fosters trust, incentivizing broader participation even among states initially resistant to non-militarized security models [40].
By repositioning artificial intelligence within an architecture of ethical responsibility and global cooperation, the proposed laboratory network challenges the assumption that technological superiority must translate into coercive power. Instead, it advances a model in which intelligence—human and artificial—serves as the primary resource for sustaining peace in an interconnected and high-risk world [41].
6. Security Without Weapons
Redefining Defense Through Intelligence, Ethics, and Cooperation
Conventional security doctrines have long equated safety with the possession of superior weaponry. This equation, however, rests on assumptions formed under conditions of limited technological interdependence and slower decision cycles. In contemporary global systems—characterized by instantaneous communication, algorithmic escalation, and transboundary risk—security can no longer be coherently defined by destructive capacity alone [42].
A non-militarized security framework does not imply the absence of defense; rather, it entails a fundamental redefinition of what defense means. Within this model, protection is achieved through anticipation, resilience, and coordination instead of deterrence by force. The objective shifts from overpowering potential adversaries to preventing the structural conditions under which conflict becomes rational or inevitable [43].
Intelligence, in this context, refers not to espionage or dominance-oriented surveillance, but to comprehensive situational awareness. By integrating data across political, economic, environmental, and technological domains, security institutions can identify emerging threats long before they manifest as armed confrontation. Such intelligence prioritizes pattern recognition and systemic correlation over enemy profiling [44].
Ethics functions as an operational constraint rather than a moral abstraction. Ethical governance establishes boundaries that limit escalation, preserve human accountability, and prevent the normalization of violence as a policy instrument. In the absence of such constraints, security mechanisms tend to self-radicalize, expanding their mandate and justifying increasingly coercive measures under the logic of necessity [45].
Cooperation replaces unilateral deterrence as the primary stabilizing mechanism. Shared early-warning systems, joint crisis-response protocols, and multilateral mediation platforms reduce uncertainty and lower incentives for preemptive action. Empirical studies of cooperative security arrangements demonstrate that mutual transparency and institutionalized dialogue significantly decrease the likelihood of armed escalation, even among strategic rivals [46].
Cybersecurity provides a salient example of non-kinetic defense. Digital infrastructures underpin critical services ranging from healthcare to energy distribution, yet cyber threats cannot be deterred through traditional military force. Effective cyber defense depends on rapid information sharing, coordinated response capabilities, and robust ethical norms governing state behavior in digital пространства [47].
Similarly, environmental and public health risks underscore the inadequacy of weapon-centered security. Climate-induced displacement, resource scarcity, and pandemics generate instability through systemic stress rather than hostile intent. Addressing these threats requires adaptive governance, scientific collaboration, and equitable resource management—capacities that militarization neither supplies nor enhances [48].
The transition toward security without weapons thus represents not vulnerability, but strategic maturation. It acknowledges that in a deeply interconnected world, harm prevention is more effective than harm retaliation. Defense becomes a collective function oriented toward sustaining the conditions of peaceful coexistence rather than preparing for organized destruction [49].
By redefining security as an intelligence-driven, ethically bounded, and cooperative enterprise, this model directly challenges the presumption that safety must be enforced through violence. Instead, it affirms that enduring security emerges from the capacity to manage complexity without resorting to force, aligning technological capability with shared human responsibility [50].
7. Addressing Counterarguments
Why This Model Is Not Naive
Proposals advocating disarmament and non-militarized security are frequently met with skepticism grounded in three recurring objections: power asymmetry among states, the persistence of authoritarian regimes, and the risk of artificial intelligence misuse. These objections warrant careful examination, not dismissal. Addressing them directly is essential for evaluating the feasibility of a preventive, ethics-centered security model [51].
7.1 Power Asymmetry and Strategic Rivalry
A common critique asserts that disarmament disproportionately disadvantages states facing stronger adversaries, thereby exacerbating vulnerability. This argument presumes that security derives primarily from relative military capability. However, in highly interdependent systems, asymmetric armament often increases instability by incentivizing preemptive behavior and arms racing rather than deterring conflict [52].
The proposed model mitigates asymmetry not through equalization of force, but through equalization of risk visibility and response capacity. Shared early-warning mechanisms, transparency measures, and cooperative verification reduce informational advantages that typically favor militarized dominance. Security thus shifts from force accumulation to uncertainty reduction—a strategy shown to stabilize rival interactions under conditions of mistrust [53].
7.2 Authoritarian Resistance and Non-Compliance
Another objection concerns the behavior of authoritarian states presumed unlikely to engage in ethical governance or cooperative security frameworks. This critique assumes that the model requires universal compliance to function. In reality, the framework is explicitly designed for partial participation and heterogeneous political systems [54].
Incentive alignment replaces moral expectation. Economic access, technological cooperation, and institutional legitimacy are tied to participation in non-militarized security arrangements, while non-compliance triggers proportionate, non-violent countermeasures such as diplomatic isolation, trade restrictions, and exclusion from shared technological infrastructures. Historical evidence suggests that regimes respond to structured incentives even in the absence of normative alignment [55].
Importantly, the model avoids coercive regime change or forced democratization. Its objective is harm reduction, not ideological conformity. By decoupling security cooperation from internal political systems, it lowers barriers to engagement while maintaining ethical boundaries against violence escalation [56].
7.3 Artificial Intelligence Misuse and Governance Failure
Concerns regarding AI misuse represent perhaps the most substantial challenge to non-militarized security. Critics argue that advanced AI systems may be repurposed for surveillance, repression, or covert militarization, undermining ethical intent. This risk is real and must be addressed structurally rather than rhetorically [57].
The proposed governance architecture incorporates multilayered safeguards: mandatory human-in-the-loop oversight, algorithmic transparency requirements, independent auditing, and enforceable prohibitions against lethal optimization. These mechanisms do not eliminate risk entirely, but they significantly constrain misuse by increasing detection probability and accountability costs [58].
Crucially, the risk of AI misuse is not unique to peace-oriented systems; it is amplified within militarized contexts where secrecy, urgency, and strategic competition limit oversight. From a comparative risk perspective, ethical AI governance within transparent, civilian institutions presents a lower overall threat profile than continued weaponization under national security exemptions [59].
7.4 The Charge of Idealism
The final critique labels the model as idealistic, arguing that it underestimates human aggression and geopolitical competition. This charge conflates realism with fatalism. The model does not assume benevolent actors or harmonious interests; it assumes persistent conflict potential and seeks to manage it without escalating destructive capacity [60].
By embedding ethical constraints into institutional design rather than individual virtue, the framework aligns with realist insights about power while rejecting the conclusion that violence is inevitable. It advances a form of pragmatic realism oriented toward damage minimization and systemic resilience rather than domination [61].
Taken together, these responses demonstrate that the proposed model is not naive, but deliberately conservative in its assumptions about human behavior and political structure. Its ambition lies not in denying conflict, but in preventing foreseeable harm by redesigning the systems through which security is pursued [62].
8. Conclusion
Disarmament as an Evolutionary Necessity
The analysis presented in this article challenges the prevailing assumption that security must be rooted in militarization and enforced through escalating destructive capacity. In an era defined by artificial intelligence, systemic interdependence, and accelerating global risk, this assumption is no longer defensible. Security architectures built on deterrence and armament increasingly function not as safeguards, but as catalysts for large-scale, irreversible harm [63].
The central argument advanced here is neither moralistic nor idealistic. It is grounded in risk analysis, institutional design, and technological realism. Waiting for catastrophe to legitimize ethical transformation represents a failure of foresight rather than a necessity of history. Preventive global governance, anchored in gradual disarmament and ethically governed artificial intelligence, emerges as a rational response to conditions in which reaction is no longer sufficient [64].
Disarmament, when structured as a phased, controlled, and verifiable process, does not signify vulnerability. On the contrary, it reflects an advanced capacity for collective self-regulation. By redirecting resources from weapons production toward resilience-building domains—such as climate adaptation, public health, cooperative technology, and anticipatory governance—societies strengthen their ability to absorb shocks without resorting to organized violence [65].
The proposed global AI laboratories exemplify this shift. Artificial intelligence, detached from military optimization and embedded within transparent ethical frameworks, becomes a tool for early-risk detection, conflict prevention, and informed diplomacy. This reorientation does not deny the dangers of AI misuse; rather, it confronts them through institutional accountability instead of secrecy and escalation [66].
Crucially, the model does not rely on assumptions of universal goodwill or moral convergence. It is designed to operate under conditions of partial compliance, political asymmetry, and persistent rivalry. Incentive alignment, cooperative mechanisms, and non-violent enforcement tools replace coercive force, reducing overall risk even in the presence of non-cooperative actors [67].
From an evolutionary perspective, the continued expansion of militarized security represents a maladaptive response to technological progress. As destructive capacity outpaces ethical governance, the probability of systemic collapse increases. Evolutionary stability, by contrast, requires that responsibility scale alongside power. Disarmament, in this sense, is not an abandonment of security, but its necessary transformation [68].
The findings of this study suggest that humanity has reached a threshold at which traditional security paradigms generate more danger than protection. Reimagining defense through intelligence, ethics, and cooperation is no longer a speculative vision of the future; it is a present imperative. The question is not whether such a transformation is possible, but whether it will occur by design or by devastation [69].
In conclusion, a technologically advanced civilization cannot justify postponing ethical responsibility until catastrophe provides clarity. Preventive governance, gradual disarmament, and peace-oriented artificial intelligence constitute a coherent and achievable pathway toward global stability. Choosing this path affirms not optimism about human nature, but commitment to collective survival in a world where the cost of failure has become absolute [70].
Footnotes
[1] SIPRI, Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
[2] Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, Oxford University Press.
[3] Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Farewell Address,” 1961; contemporary analyses of the military–industrial complex.
[4] Paul Scharre, Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War, W. W. Norton & Company.
[5] Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, Sage Publications.
[6] Luciano Floridi et al., “AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society,” Minds and Machines.
[7] Author, Author’s monograph on preventive disarmament and AI ethics, Year.
[8] Martha Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Harvard University Press.
[9] Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press.
[10] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, critical interpretation of universal moral agency.
[11] Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research.
[12] Ulrich Beck, World at Risk, Polity Press.
[13] Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice, Harvard University Press.
[14] Luciano Floridi, The Ethics of Information, Oxford University Press.
[15] Author, Author’s monograph on ethical–ontological models of preventive governance, Year.
[16] Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies, ECPR Press.
[17] Seymour Melman, The Permanent War Economy, Simon & Schuster.
[18] United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), The Weaponization of Increasingly Autonomous Technologies.
[19] Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky, “The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence.
[20] Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, Yale University Press (critical reassessment in AI context).
[21] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Global Military Expenditure Database.
[22] Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, climate–security interdependence analysis.
[23] Ulrich Beck, Risk Society Revisited, reflexive modernization and systemic risk theory.
[24] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament.
[25] Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation, institutional adaptation and economic restructuring.
[26] Thomas C. Schelling and Morton Halperin, Strategy and Arms Control, transparency and stability mechanisms.
[27] World Bank, Global Public Goods and Development, resource reallocation frameworks.
[28] David Goldfischer, The Best Defense: Policy Alternatives for U.S. Nuclear Security, defense conversion studies.
[29] International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Global Nuclear Weapons Spending Report.
[30] UNIDIR, Confidence-Building Measures in the Digital Age.
[31] Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, incentive-based compliance models.
[32] Author, Author’s monograph on phased disarmament and preventive global governance, Year.
[33] Bresnahan & Trajtenberg, “General Purpose Technologies,” Journal of Econometrics.
[34] OECD, Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, policy-oriented institutional models.
[35] Floridi, Cowls et al., “AI4People: Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society,” Minds and Machines.
[36] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Human Development Report, data-driven risk analysis.
[37] Sheila Jasanoff, The Ethics of Invention, foresight and technological governance.
[38] Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons, polycentric governance applied to global systems.
[39] European Commission, Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, safeguards and oversight mechanisms.
[40] Keohane & Nye, Power and Interdependence, trust-building through functional institutions.
[41] Author, Author’s monograph on global AI laboratories and peace-oriented governance, Year.
[42] Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars, transformation of security paradigms.
[43] Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, post-militarized security theory.
[44] OECD, Global Risk Assessment and Strategic Foresight, integrated intelligence models.
[45] Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, critical analysis of security rationalities.
[46] Karl Deutsch et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area, cooperative security mechanisms.
[47] United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE), Norms of Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace.
[48] World Health Organization, Managing Epidemics, non-military security challenges.
[49] Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means, positive peace framework.
[50] Author, Author’s monograph on security beyond militarization, Year.
[51] Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society, order and skepticism in international relations.
[52] Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics.
[53] Charles Glaser, Rational Theory of International Politics, information and stability.
[54] Stephen Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy, partial compliance and governance.
[55] Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox, incentive-based international cooperation.
[56] Jack Snyder, Myths of Empire, restraint and security policy.
[57] Virginia Dignum, Responsible Artificial Intelligence, risk governance.
[58] IEEE, Ethically Aligned Design, AI oversight frameworks.
[59] UNIDIR, AI, Security, and Risk Reduction, comparative risk analysis.
[60] Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, realism reassessed.
[61] Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society, structural ethics.
[62] Author, Author’s monograph on pragmatic ethics and preventive security, Year.
[63] Ulrich Beck, World at Risk, global systemic vulnerability.
[64] Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan, non-linear risk and prevention.
[65] Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom, resilience and capability-based security.
[66] Luciano Floridi, The Ethics of Information, responsibility in technological systems.
[67] Robert Keohane, After Hegemony, cooperation without dominance.
[68] Jared Diamond, Collapse, maladaptive societal responses to complexity.
[69] Hannah Arendt, Responsibility and Judgment, ethical thresholds in modernity.
[70] Author, Author’s monograph on evolutionary ethics and preventive governance, Year.
Copyright © 2026 Şehrazat Yazıcı.
The theoretical framework presented here is the original intellectual work of the author and may not be reproduced, cited extensively, or used without permission.
