Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Exploiting legal thresholds, fault-lines and gaps in the context of remote warfare
Stockholm University, Faculty of Law, Department of Law.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5935-0676
2017 (English)In: Research Handbook on Remote Warfare / [ed] Jens David Ohlin, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017, p. 186-210Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Conflicts increasingly involve action at a distance as opposed to traditional battlefield engagements. Development of new weapons, modern communications and growing economic interdependence between states push national decision-makers to adopt asymmetrical strategies, overt as well as covert. States may adopt such strategies to minimize the exposure to risk of their own forces while their opponents can be easily attacked and also for the purpose of avoiding attribution and retribution. Since international law is used as a tool for legitimizing state policies—in the words of Sari—legal thresholds, fault-lines and gaps will be used by states to portray their own actions as legal or at least belonging to a grey area but never illegal. These issues have been brought to the fore not least by increased tensions between the West and Russia. Russia states in its 2014 Military doctrine that the nature and characteristics of modern warfare conflict includes, inter alia: a) [i]ntegrated use of military force, political, economic, informational and other non-military measures nature, implemented with the extensive use of the protest potential of the population, and special operations forces … h) participation in hostilities irregular armed groups and private military companies; i) the use of indirect and asymmetric methods Action; j) the use of externally funded and run political forces and social movements. Russia perceives as one of the main military dangers ‘subversive activities of special services and organizations foreign states and their coalitions against the Russian Federation’.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017. p. 186-210
Keywords [en]
Remote warfare, Information operations, computer network attacks, CNA, psychological operations, psyops, influence operations, propaganda
National Category
Law and Society
Research subject
Legal Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-150640DOI: 10.4337/9781784716998.00015ISBN: 978-1-78471-698-1 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-150640DiVA, id: diva2:1169840
Available from: 2017-12-29 Created: 2017-12-29 Last updated: 2018-01-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Klamberg, Mark
By organisation
Department of Law
Law and Society

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 10 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf