In recent months, suspicious fires in warehouses and aircraft, undersea power and internet cables being cut, GPS jamming, cyber operations against critical civilian infrastructure, and allegations of influence operations and election interference have been described as a “hybrid war.” Ta. both politicians and the media. So-called “hybrid threats” or “hybrid attacks” and allegations that proxies are used to project power while attempting to obscure attribution and legal and political responsibility are particularly worrying concerns in Europe. This is a sign of what should happen. Today’s geopolitical environment is characterized by heightened tensions between states, a militarized security environment, internal instability, the prominence of power through various covert and coercive means, and an increase in armed conflicts at the global level. characterized.
Although the concepts of “hybrid” threats, wars, or proxies are not defined in international law, the use of such terms can carry the implication that certain acts are taking place in a “gray zone.” It happens often. Conversely, the term “gray zone” suggests that the boundaries between armed conflict and peace are blurred, or that the law is unclear or non-existent in certain of these situations. It looks like. However, although some operations of this type are old and others new, international law always applies. And more specifically, when it comes to international humanitarian law (IHL), the determination of whether a particular situation constitutes an armed conflict remains a well-established legal framework derived from the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. It is an evaluation of facts based on criteria.
This post considers when a “hybrid attack” or “proxy war” constitutes an armed conflict as defined by IHL. Here are excerpts from the ICRC’s 2024 report on International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts.
“Competition,” “hybrid warfare,” “proxy” – tentative definitions of ambiguous concepts
In common usage, the term “competition” is often used to describe competition between nations at the political, economic, and military levels.
“Hybrid threat” or “hybrid warfare” refers to the use of a combination of different technologies or other means by a state or non-state actor to project power to destabilize an adversary. This is a commonly used term. “Hybrid” actions include military and non-military actions, covert or overt, kinetic or non-kinetic (such as disinformation or cyber operations), and lethal or non-lethal operations. Masu. The term may refer to operations affecting a country’s military, government, civilian population or infrastructure, and is often used to describe operations carried out by a combination of state and non-state actors.
A “proxy war” is defined as an organization (between a state actor and a non-state actor) that may be directly or indirectly supported politically, materially, financially, militarily or otherwise by another state or non-state actor. is a term used to refer to armed hostilities involving both parties (both actors). have unique strategic interests vis-à-vis other state or non-state actors;
Talking law to politics
The definition of armed conflict to which IHL applies remains unchanged. States and other actors must assess each situation of armed violence from a legal perspective and determine whether their activities constitute an armed conflict or form part of an existing conflict. For example, the ICRC estimates, based on widely established legal standards, that in 2024 there will be more than 120 armed conflicts around the world, with more than 60 different states and 120 non-state armed groups involved as parties to the conflicts. It was rated as being
The importance of determining whether a situation constitutes an armed conflict is first and foremost legal. Although parties may or may not consider themselves belligerents for various reasons, they are legally parties to an armed conflict and must comply with IHL.
Under IHL, armed conflicts can be international or non-international in nature. An international armed conflict is an armed conflict between two or more nations. Article 2 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Common Article 2) states that these treaties “shall not be subject to any declaration of war or other armed conflict that may arise between two or more States Parties. shall apply in all cases. Neither side recognizes a state of war. ”Therefore, any differences between two or more States that result in the use of force constitute an armed conflict within the meaning of common Article 2. It is. Any other hostile act against another state (by attacking or capturing enemy personnel or assets, interfering with military operations, or using or controlling territory without consent), the situation is an international armed conflict. It doesn’t matter how long the conflict lasts, how much carnage is committed, or how many troops are involved. This means that, in contrast to non-international armed conflicts, international armed conflicts do not require a particular level of intensity of hostilities.
A non-international armed conflict is an armed conflict between a State and a non-State armed group, or between such groups. Two conditions must be met for IHL to apply. One or more non-Parties must be organized. And the violence between the parties must be sufficiently severe.
In the classification of armed conflicts, any assessment must be objective and based solely on the facts on the ground. In that sense, new factual scenarios and narratives may require devising new, ad hoc, or additional legal criteria to establish whether such a situation constitutes an armed conflict. do not have. Therefore, under IHL, concepts such as ‘competition’, ‘complex threat’, ‘combined warfare’ or ‘proxy war’ must be evaluated on the basis of existing criteria.
For example, a relationship between states described as “competition” may or may not constitute an armed conflict, depending on whether it escalates to the use of force between states.
Similarly, acts referred to as “hybrid threats” or “hybrid attacks” are regulated by IHL only if they give rise to an armed conflict or occur in the context of (and are related to) an existing armed conflict. The latter applies even to acts that are not themselves subject to IHL. For example, cyber operations carried out in situations of armed conflict must comply with IHL and therefore cannot target health facilities, but this is not the starting point for all cyber operations against health facilities in peacetime . About armed conflict. Similarly, the prohibition on acts of violence or threats of violence whose main purpose is to spread fear among civilians also applies to influence operations carried out in situations of armed conflict. Applicability of IHL when conducted in peacetime. In situations where the acts referred to as “hybrid warfare” do not give rise to an armed conflict and do not occur in situations of armed conflict, these acts are regulated only by peacetime rules and not by IHL.
The state’s use of representation can and should be analyzed based on existing legal standards. For example, the classification of an armed conflict between state A, which controls a proxy state, and state B, which fights that proxy state, depends on the degree of control that state A has over the proxy state. For a conflict to qualify as an international armed conflict between states A and B, the agent’s actions must be legally attributable to state A. With respect to non-state armed groups acting as proxies, situations may arise when one state exercises “total control” over a state, when the armed group is fighting another state, Classified as an armed conflict (see paragraphs 298-306 for further information). Regardless of whether one politically characterizes the situation as a “proxy war,” in this case the “total control” test (strictly speaking, to determine whether a non-state armed group is a de facto organ of a state) ) is carried out. This is a legal test to determine whether the hostile acts of an agent against an enemy state can be attributed to the dominant state, thereby giving rise to an international armed conflict against these two states.
conclusion
In tense situations, how you explain or qualify events is important. Calling a situation a “war” or “war” when it does not actually amount to an armed conflict risks adding fuel to the fire. To avoid potentially dangerous misunderstandings, international law provides a consistent and definitive framework for assessing the facts. As illustrated in this post, political discourse around “competition,” “hybrid attacks,” “proxy wars,” or other “gray zone” terms is changing the legal classification of armed conflict and the application of IHL. It should not be obfuscated or replaced. Legally classifying these situations requires disentangling the facts on the ground and applying the law to these facts. This can be complicated by the difficulty in obtaining clear information, but that is a factual difficulty, not a legal one. Activities such as instituting economic policies, manipulating information, interfering in elections, and espionage do not themselves give rise to armed conflict.
