What question did this study set out to answer?

This research examines how traditional definitions of war and peace under international law fail to encompass hybrid warfare practices.

July 1, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Hybrid Warfare Legal Gaps. The Evolution of Hybrid Warfare: Disinformation and Grey Zone Operations Beyond International Law

View Full Paper

DDDemetre Dzotsenidze

Key Points

This research examines how traditional definitions of war and peace under international law fail to encompass hybrid warfare practices.
Reviewed existing literature on hybrid warfare and international law.
Analyzed the Tallinn Manual 2.0 framework against contemporary threats.
Identified gaps in legal frameworks regarding cyber and Grey Zone operations.
Hybrid warfare tactics often do not meet the threshold of an 'armed attack'.
States exploit these legal ambiguities to bypass international rules on sovereignty.
The lack of legal repercussions enables unauthorized interventions in conflicts.

Abstract

Hypothesis: International law’s usual split between war and peace does not cover modern hybrid warfare. As shown by Schmitt et al. (2017) in the Tallinn Manual 2.0, cyber and Grey Zone attacks often stay below the level of an "armed attack," making it hard to identify the attacker and allowing states to break sovereignty rules without facing legal punishment (Bachmann, 2023; Mazarr, 2015).

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Hybrid Warfare Legal Gaps. The Evolution of Hybrid Warfare: Disinformation and Grey Zone Operations Beyond International Law

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider