Lawfare as part of hybrid wars: The experience of Ukraine in conflict with Russian Federation

• Autorzy: Tropin Zakhar

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35467/sdq/132025

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The main objective of the article is to prove the need for the state to have a centralised legal strategy to ensure the protection of state interests on an international level during a hybrid conflict. Centralisation of control and the planning and implementation of legal actions on an international level are core elements of such a strategy, especially for actions under the jurisdiction of international institutions. This article provides an analysis of treaties and of the practice of adjudication in Ukraine during the conflict with the Russian Federation. The findings of the study show that the legal dimension of hybrid conflict has some sub-levels: legal actions of states in hybrid conflicts taken at interstate level; the level of enterprises controlled by the state; and the private level. The practice of Ukraine shows that the exercising of a multilevel legal encounter during a hybrid war faces a number of problems including the intersection of actions (sometimes even direct conflict), even among authorities involved in the legal protection of state interests; and problems with collecting and analysing the information necessary to protect state interests in the legal dimension; state authorities that are not directly involved in a legal encounter may exercise actions which will complicate the legal position of the state. One of the first steps taken by the state in a hybrid conflict is, therefore, to create special authority or entrust an existing one with the coordination of the functions of lawfare. The next step of such an authority is the strategic "programming" of the opponent's legal actions with the aim of achieving an advantage in the legal dimension of a hybrid conflict.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

lawfare; Russia-Ukrainian War; hybrid warfare

• Wydawca: Akademia Sztuki Wojennej
• Czasopismo: Security and Defence Quarterly
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 33, No. 1
• Strony: 15--29
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 50 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Tropin Zakhar

• Institute of International Relations, Department of International Law, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Melnikova Street, Kyiv, Ukraine

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2533-6451

Bibliografia

• 1. Almang J. (2019) ‘War, vagueness and hybrid war’, Defence Studies, 19(2), pp. 189–204. doi: 10.1080/14702436.2019.1597631.
• 2. BBC (2016) Russia-Ukraine road blockades hit trade. Available at: https://.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35577726 (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 3. BBC (2018) Ukraine-Russia sea clash: Who controls the territorial waters around Crimea? Available at: https://.bbc.com/news/world-46345317 (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 4. Beck A. (2014) ‘China’s strategy in the Arctic: a case of lawfare?’, The Polar Journal, 4(2), pp. 306–318. doi: 10.1080/2154896X.2014.954886.
• 5. Caliskan M. (2019) ‘Hybrid warfare through the lens of strategic theory’, Defense & Security Analysis, 35(1), pp. 40–58. doi: 10.1080/14751798.2019.1565364.
• 6. EU – Ukraine Association Agreement no dateAssociation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part. Available at: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/november/tradoc_155103.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 7. Euroactiv (2017) Russia asks UN to set up mission for east Ukraine. Available at: https://.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/news/russia-asks-un-to-set-up-mission-for-east-ukraine/ (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 8. Filho G., Farias A., and Oliveira G. (2017) ‘Considerações sobre o Instituto do Lawfare’, Line Revista Multidisciplinar e de Psicologia, 10(33), pp. 363–369. doi: 10.14295/idonline.v10i33.661.
• 9. Financial Times (2015) Ukraine imposes economic blockade on a blacked-out Crimea. Available at: https://.ft.com/content/d5487eaa-9203-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 10. Glavcom no date. Proposals of “Maritime expert platform” on urgent measures for de-occupation of Crimea and struggle with occupation of Black and Azov Seas. Available at: https://glavcom.ua/pub/pdf/49/4935/2_propoziciya.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3YWSSX1G_SUu6AC8UV7TWpmIY2CXyClyMVK4mfcuPzH6zHihxDd6MRo5g (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 11. Glenn R. (2009) ‘Thoughts on “Hybrid” Conflict’, Small Wars Journal, pp. 1–8. Available at: https://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docstemp/188-glenn.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 12. Hoffman F. G. (2007) Conflict in the 21th century: the rise of hybrid wars. Arlington, TX: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
• 13. Hsiao A. (2016) ‘China and the South China Sea “Lawfare”’, Issues & Studies, 52(2), pp. 1–42. doi: 10.1142/S1013251116500089.
• 14. ICJ no dateMaritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine). Available at: https://.icj-cij.org/en/case/132 (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 15. INTERFAX (2018a) Russia illegally detains 93 vessels heading to Ukrainian ports in Sea of Azov since April 29. Available at: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/517112.html (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 16. INTERFAX (2018b) Video of attempt by Russian diplomats to take Nord vessel crew out of Ukraine posted on Internet. Available at: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/497742.html (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 17. International Crises Group (2018) Peacekeeping in Ukraine’s Donbas: Opportunities and Risks Ukraine. Available at: https://.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/eastern-europe/ukraine/donbas-peacekeeping-opportunities-and-risks (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 18. International Partnership for Human Rights (2017) Attacks on Civilians and Civilian Infrastructure in Eastern Ukraine: period covered March 2014-November 2017. Brussels, Belgium.
• 19. ITLOS no date. Case concerning the detention of three Ukrainian naval vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures. Available at: https://.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/case-concerning-the-detention-of-three-ukrainian-naval-vessels-ukraine-v-russian-federation-provisional-measures/ (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 20. Johnson R. (2018) ‘Hybrid War and Its Countermeasures: A Critique of the Literature’, Small Wars & Insurgencies, 29(1), pp. 141–163. doi: 10.1080/09592318.2018.1404770.
• 21. Jones C. (2016) ‘Lawfare and the juridification of late modern war’, Progress in Human Geography, 40(2), pp. 221–239. doi: 10.1177/0309132515572270.
• 22. KMU (2020) MFA launches Platform to Coordinate Actions on Release of the Ukrainian Political Prisoners by Russia. Available at: https://.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/mzs-zapuskaye-platformu-shcho-koordinuvatime-mizhnarodni-diyi-zi-zvilnennya-rosiyeyu-ukrayinskih-politvyazniv (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 23. Kyivpost (2016) Svoboda Party report resumption of blockade of Russian truck transit in Ukraine. Available at: https://.kyivpost.com/article/content/ukraine-politics/svoboda-party-report-resumption-of-blockade-of-russian-truck-transit-in-ukraine-408928.html?cn-reloaded=1 (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 24. Lawfareblog. About Lawfare: A Brief History of the Term and the Site. Available at: https://.lawfareblog.com/about-lawfare-brief-history-term-and-site (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 25. Lee S. (2014) ‘China’s “Three Warfares”: Origins, Applications, and Organizations’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 37(2), pp. 198–221. doi: 10.1080/01402390.2013.870071.
• 26. Magda Y. (2018) Russia’s Hybrid Aggression: Lessons For the World. Kyiv: Kalamar.
• 27. McKeown R. (2015) ‘Legal asymmetries in asymmetric war’, Review of International Studies, 41(1), pp. 117–138. doi: 10.1017/S0260210514000096.
• 28. Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (1993). Available at: http://.cisarbitration.com/2017/02/03/minsk-convention-on-legal-assistance-and-legal-relations-in-civil-family-and-criminal-matters/ (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 29. Mises Institute (2011) Marko Marjanovic: Is Humanitarian War the Exception? Available at: https://mises.org/library/humanitarian-war-exception (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 30. Mosquera A., Bachmann S. D. and Bravo J. (2019) ‘Hybrid Warfare and the Legal Domain’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), pp. 98–104. doi. 10.1080/09546553.2018.1555975.
• 31. Munoz A. and Bachmann S. (2016) ‘Lawfare in Hybrid Wars: The 21st Century Warfare’, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 7(1), pp. 63–87. doi: 10.1163/18781527-00701008.
• 32. NKRZI no date. ITU published the communication on Ukraine’s denial of illegal actions of the Russian Federation when using telephone codes in the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol and a statement of the Secretary-General of ITU on supporting Ukraine’s sovereign right to regulate telecommunications sector within its internationally recognized borders. Available at: https://nkrzi.gov.ua/index.php?r=site/index&pg=99&id=1603&language=en (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 33. Popescu N. (2015) ‘Hybrid Tactics : neither new nor only Russian’, ISSU Alert, pp. 1–2. Available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030001921/http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/187819/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/8a1ac8d8-2722-4245-82db-b18f13deb3be/en/Alert_4_hybrid_warfare.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 34. Prokip A. (2020) ‘A New Era of Gas Wars between Ukraine and Russia’, Wilson Center. Available at: https://.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/new-era-gas-wars-between-ukraine-and-russia (Accessed: 23 November 2020).
• 35. Rajkovic N. (2020) ‘Performing “Legality” in the Theatre of Hostilities: Asymmetric Conflict, Lawfare and the Rise of Vicarious Litigation’, San Diego International Law Journal, 21(2), pp. 435–446.
• 36. Rajkovic N. and Vennesson P. (2012) ‘The Transnational Politics of Warfare Accountability: Human Rights Watch versus the Israel Defense Forces’, International Relations, 26(4), pp. 409–429. doi: 10.1177/0047117812445450.
• 37. Reuters (2017) Ukraine bans all trade with rebel-held territory, as separatists seize assets. Available at: https://.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-blockade-cargo-idUSKBN16M14T (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 38. Robinson P. (2003) Just War in Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
• 39. Roth A. (2018) ‘Russia demands nerve agent samples in standoff with UK over poisoned spy’, the Guardian, 13 March. Available at: https://.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/russia-demands-nerve-agentsamples-uk-deadline-spy-poisoning (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 40. Scharf M. and Andersen E. (2010) ‘Is Lawfare worth defining? Report of the Cleveland Experts Meeting, September 11, 2010’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43(1), pp. 11–27.
• 41. Sharkov D. (2016) ‘Russia Claims Ukraine Open Airspace Led to MH17 Crash’, Newsweek, 29September. Available at: https://.newsweek.com/russia-claims-ukraine-not-closing-airspace-led-mh17-crash-504222 (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 42. Ukraine Crises Media Center (2020) Crimea: water supply becoming a tool for political pressure. Available at: https://uacrisis.org/en/74909-crimea-water-supply (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 43. Ukraine Crises Media Center (2017) What you need to know about the case of former Tornado battalion servicemen. Available at: https://uacrisis.org/en/55087-need-know-case-former-tornado-battalion-servicemen (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 44. Ukrainian Association of International Law (2014) Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, RF Aggression and International Law. Kyiv: K.I.S.
• 45. Ukrainian Association of International Law (2016) Panel discussion on international legal issues of hybrid wars. Available at: https://youtu.be/aCiODI83AV4 (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 46. UNIAN (2019) Russian TV propagandist Ernst on fake MH17 footage: “We made a mistake”. Available at: https://.unian.info/politics/10789058-russian-tv-propagandist-ernst-on-fake-mh17-footage-we-made-a-mistake.html (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 47. Vanhullebusch M and Shen W. (2016) ‘China’s Air Defence Identification Zone: Building Security through Lawfare’, China Review, 16(1), pp. 121–150.
• 48. Voyger M. (2018) ‘Russian Lawfare–Russia’s Weaponisation Of International And Domestic Law: Implications For Th Region And Policy Recommendations’, Journal of Baltic Security, 4(2), pp. 35–42. doi: 10.2478/jobs-2018-0011.
• 49. WTO (2019) Russia — Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit. Available at: https://.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds512_e.htm (Accessed: 20 October 2020).
• 50. Zadorozhnii O. (2015) Russian doctrine of international law after the annexation of Crimea. Kyiv: K.I.S.

Uwagi

„Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).”