Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, and Autonomous Policy Decision-Making: A Crisis in International Relations Theory?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Political Economy of Robots

Part of the book series: International Political Economy Series ((IPES))

Abstract

Theories of international relations may soon confront a crisis of explanative power . This crisis emerges from a shift in how policymakers determine policy decisions to effectuate outcomes consistent with global policy objectives. International relations theory is a composite of heterodox traditions many of which are in disagreement but nonetheless share a common objective: the explanation of human decision-making under certain conditions. The emergence of information technologies has inundated policymakers with data derived from tracking, recording, and analyzing information technology user behavior. This data deluge has spawned new data analysis techniques and technologies leveraged when making and automating policy decisions. Automated systems are consequential actors in global politics. International relations theory must account for the agentive capacity of automated systems through reflexivity .

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Åkersten, S.I. 1987. The Strategic Computing Program. In Arms and Artificial Intelligence: Weapon and Arms Control Applications of Advanced Computing, ed. A.M. Din, 87–99. SIPRI: Stockholm, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angell, N. 1913. The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power to National Advantage. New York: GP Putnam’s sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, D.A. 1993. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkin, S. 2009. Realism, Prediction, and Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 5 (3): 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. 2009. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonvillian, W. 2006. Power play. The American Interest 2: 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, J. 1989. The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688–1783. New York: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. 2013. The poverty of grand theory. European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 483–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, L.R. 2011. The Democracy of Objects. Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchill, S., et al. 2013. Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, B.G.L. 2012. Rethinking Benchmark Dates in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations: 1354066112454553.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, E.H., and M. Cox. 2001. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Palgrave: Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Mauro, A., et al. 2015. What is Big Data? A Consensual Definition and a Review of Key Research Topics. AIP Conference Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Din, A.M. 1987. Arms and Artificial Intelligence: Weapon and Arms Control Applications of Advanced Computing. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, T., et al. 2013. The End of International Relations Theory? European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, Y.H. 2015. Diversity in IR Theory: Pluralism as an Opportunity for Understanding Global Politics. International Studies Perspectives 16 (1): 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figliola, P.M., and E.A. Fischer. 2015. Overview and Issues for Implementation of the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative: Implications for Federal Information Technology Reform Management, 1. Washington: C. R. Service, US Congressional Research Service (CRS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, B.B. 2006. The Soviet-American War Scare of the 1980s. International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 19 (3): 480–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, G.R. 2001. ARPA does Windows: The Defense Underpinning of the PC Revolution. Business and Politics 3 (3): 213–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gantz, J., and D. Reinsel. 2012. The Digital Universe in 2020: Big Data, Bigger Digital Shadows, and Biggest Growth in the Far East. https://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/idc-digital-universe-united-states.pdf. Accessed 2 Sep 2016.

  • Grudin, J. 2009. AI and HCI: Two Fields Divided by a Common Focus. AI Magazine 30 (4): 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzik, K. 2009. Discrimination by Design: Predictive Data Mining as Security Practice in the United States’ ‘War on Terrorism’. Surveillance & Society 7 (1): 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzini, S. 2013. The ends of International Relations theory: Stages of Reflexivity and Modes of Theorizing. European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 521–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. 2014. @War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, E., and S.M. Mitchell. 2013. The Triumph of Democracy and the Eclipse of the West. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, S. 1977. An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus: 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P.N. 2015. Pax Technica: How the Internet of Things May Set Us Free or Lock Us Up. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H., et al. 2014. Toward Scalable Systems for Big Data Analytics: A Technology Tutorial. IEEE Access 2: 652–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G.J. 2012. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P.T. 2010. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P.T. 2015. Must International Studies Be a Science? Millennium-Journal of International Studies 43 (3): 942–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R.O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Keohane, R.O., and Verba, S. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press: xi, 245 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodratoff, Y. 2014. Introduction to Machine Learning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D.A. 1996. Anarchy, Hierarchy, and the Variety of International Relations. International Organization 50 (1): 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D.A. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D.A. 2011. Why “isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress. International Studies Quarterly 55 (2): 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, D.A. 2013. Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 567–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Schönberger, V., and K. Cukier. 2013. Big Data: A Revolution that will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, J.J., and S.M. Walt. 2013. Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is Bad for International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 427–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, H. 1991. The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique. Review of International Studies 17 (1): 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T.M. 2006. The Discipline of Machine Learning. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Machine Learning Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, T. 2010. The Future of Security? Surveillance Operations at Homeland Security Fusion Centers. Social Justice 37 2/3 (120–121): 84–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, T., and N.A. Palmer. 2009. The Emerging Politics of DHS Fusion Centers. Security Dialogue 40 (6): 617–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, J., and T. Knutsen. 2007. Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newkirk, A.B. 2010. The Rise of the Fusion-Intelligence Complex: A Critique of Political Surveillance After 9/11. Surveillance & Society 8 (1): 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikutta, R. 1987. Artificial Intelligence and the Automated Tactical Battlefield. In Arms and Artificial Intelligence: Weapons and Arms Control Applications of Advanced Computing, ed. A.M. Din, 100–134. SIPRI: Stockholm, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oren, I. 2003. Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oren, I. 2006. Can Political Science Emulate the Natural Sciences? The Problem of Self-disconfirming Analysis. Polity 38 (1): 72–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oren, I. 2009. The Unrealism of Contemporary Realism: The Tension between Realist Theory and Realists’ Practice. Perspectives on Politics 7 (02): 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, T. 2015. Disruptive Power: The Crisis of the State in the Digital Age. USA: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peled, A. 2014. Traversing Digital Babel: Information, e-Government, and Exchange. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • PFAIB. 1990. The Soviet ‘War Scare’. Washington: The White House: 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. 2005. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, V. 2016. International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roland, A., and P. Shiman. 2002. Strategic Computing: DARPA and the Quest for Machine Intelligence, 1983–1993. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollins, J. 2008. Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress. DTIC Document.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, B.C. 1998. The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Ithaca: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneier, B. 2015. Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P.W. 2009. Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P.W., and A. Friedman. 2014. Cybersecurity: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, Q. 1990. The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. 1989. Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science, 3–27. The Study of International Relations: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. 2000. The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science? The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 2 (3): 374–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Q.Z. 2013. Taking the System Seriously: Another Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Studies Review 15 (4): 539–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, T., and B.J. Steele. 2016. Micro-moves in International Relations Theory. European Journal of International Relations: 1–25. doi:10.1177/1354066116634442.

  • Sylvester, C. 2013. Experiencing the End and Afterlives of International Relations/Theory. European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 609–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B., and D.L. Blaney. 2013. Thinking International Relations Differently. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turton, H.L. 2015. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waever, O. 1998. The Sociology of a Not so International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization 52 (04): 687–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, K.N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J.S., and A. Barker. 2013. Undefined by Data: A Survey of Big Data Definitions. arXiv:1309.5821. Accessed 2 Sep 2016.

  • Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wight, C. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winch, P. 1990. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehfuss, M. 2002. Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zetter, K. 2015. Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World’s First Digital Weapon. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, USA

    Ryan David Kiggins

Authors
  1. Ryan David Kiggins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan David Kiggins .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, Oklahoma, USA

    Ryan Kiggins

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kiggins, R.D. (2018). Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, and Autonomous Policy Decision-Making: A Crisis in International Relations Theory?. In: Kiggins, R. (eds) The Political Economy of Robots. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51466-6_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation