Legal operations in a global context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2217.2024.59.55-61Keywords:
legal operations, hybrid warfare, legal norms, strategic goalsAbstract
Background. The emergence of the concept of warfare, defined as the use of law to wage war, has prompted a reassessment of the strength of the international order based on the rule of law. Similar to the regulation of cyberspace, information threats, and instruments of economic and financial pressure, warfare is a non-kinetic action that does not follow the traditional course of an armed attack. Caught off guard, states do not know
how to respond to these non-kinetic actions as they take place in a new and rapidly changing regulatory environment.
Methods. The source base of the study is formed by documents of international organizations and scientific publications on legal operations. The author uses the dialectical, historical, comparative legal methods to track the transformation of views on the processes of planning and conducting legal operations; systemic and structural, formal and logical methods to determine the provisions which should be taken into account in the process of introducing the concepts of legal operations into the activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; and methods of analysis, generalization and synthesis to develop relevant proposals.
Results. International official documents (agreements, protocols, conventions, recommendations, standards, declarations, communiqués, messages, charters) that regulate and govern the issue of hybrid warfare were summarized and systematized; Proposals for the implementation of legal operations concepts in Ukraine were developed.
Conclusions. The results of this study develop the ideas of other researchers on the expediency of introducing the concept and implementation of legal operations in the context of hybrid warfare.
Downloads
References
Almang, J. (2019). War, vagueness and hybrid war, Defence Studies, 19(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702436.2019.1597631
Beck, A. (2014). China's strategy in the Arctic: a case of lawfare? The Polar Journal, 4(2), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2014.954886
Caliskan, M. (2019). 'Hybrid warfare through the lens of strategic theory'. Defense & Security Analysis, 35(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2019.1565364
Filho, G., Farias, A. & Oliveira, G. (2017). Considerações sobre o Instituto do Lawfare. Line Revista Multidisciplinar e de Psicologia, 10(33), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.14295/idonline.v10i33.661
Glenn, R. (2009). Thoughts on "Hybrid" Conflict. Small Wars Journal, 1–8. https://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/188-glenn.pdf
Hoffman, F. G. (2007). Conflict in the 21th century: the rise of hybrid wars. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
Hsiao, A. (2016). China and the South China Sea "Lawfare". Issues & Studies, 52(2), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S1013251116500089
Johnson, R. (2018). Hybrid War and Its Countermeasures: A Critique of the Literature. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 29(1), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2018.1404770
Jones, C. (2016). Lawfare and the juridification of late modern war. Progress in Human Geography, 40(2), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515572270
Lee, S. (2014). China's "Three Warfares": Origins, Applications, and Organizations. Journal of Strategic Studies, 37(2), 198–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2013.870071
Rajkovic, N., & Vennesson, P. (2012). The Transnational Politics of Warfare Accountability: Human Rights Watch versus the Israel Defense
Forces. International Relations, 26(4), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117812445450
Voyger, M. (2018). Russian Lawfare – Russia's Weaponisation of International and Domestic Law: Implications for The Region and Policy
Recommendations'. Journal of Baltic Security, 4(2), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.2478/jobs-2018-0011
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Дмитро Хом'яков

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.





