Legal resilience in an era of grey zone conflicts and hybrid threats

References

• Alter, Karen J, James T Gathii, and Laurence R Helfer (2016) ‘Backlash against International Courts in West, East and Southern Africa: Causes and Consequences’, European Journal of International Law, 27:2, 293–328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrosio, Thomas (2016) ‘The Rhetoric of Irredentism: The Russian Federation’s Perception Management Campaign and the Annexation of Crimea’, Small Wars & Insurgencies, 27:3, 467–490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beichler, Simone A, Sanin Hasibovic, Bart Jan Davidse, and Sonja Deppisch (2014) ‘The Role played by Social-Ecological Resilience as a Method of Integration in Interdisciplinary Research’, Ecology and Society, 19:3, 4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson, Melinda Harm (2015) ‘Reconceptualizing Environmental Challenges: Is Resilience the New Narrative?’, Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law, 21, 99–128
   Google Scholar
• Bering, Juergen (2017) ‘The Prohibition of Annexation: Lessons from Crimea’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 49:3, 747–832.
   Google Scholar
• Biller, Jeffrey, and Michael, Schmitt (2018) ‘Un-caging the Bear? A Case Study in Cyber Opinio Juris and Unintended Consequences’, EJIL:Talk, <https://www.ejiltalk.org/un-caging-the-bear-a-case-study-in-cyber-opinio-juris-and-unintended-consequences/>
   Google Scholar
• Blank, Laurie R (2017) ‘Media Warfare, Propaganda, and the Law of War’, in Gross, Michael L and Tamar Meisels (eds), Soft war: the ethics of unarmed conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 88–103
   Google Scholar
• Borgen, Christopher J (2015) ‘Law, Rhetoric, Strategy: Russia and Self-Determination before and after Crimea’, International Law Studies, 91, 216–280.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkel, Theo (2017) ‘The Resilient Mind-Set and Deterrence’, in Paul AL Ducheine and Frans PB Osinga (eds), Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies (Winning without killing: The strategic and operational utility of non-kinetic capabilities in crises) (The Hague: TMC Asser), 19–38
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, Rosa (2018) ‘Rule of Law in the Gray Zone’, Modern War Institute, <https://mwi.usma.edu/rule-law-gray-zone/>
   Google Scholar
• Brownlie, Ian (1982) ‘The Reality and Efficacy of International Law’, British Yearbook of International Law, 52:1, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Cabinet Office (2018) National security capability review (London)
   Google Scholar
• Cantwell, Douglas (2017) ‘Hybrid Warfare: Aggression and Coercion in the Gray Zone’, ASIL Insights, <https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/21/issue/14/hybrid-warfare-aggression-and-coercion-gray-zone>
   Google Scholar
• Carr, Edward Hallett (1939) The twenty years’ crisis 1919–1939 (London: Macmillan and Co Ltd)
   Google Scholar
• Charap, Samuel (2015) ‘The Ghost of Hybrid War’, Survival, 57:6, 51–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clausewitz, Carl von (1834) Hinterlassene Werke des Generals Carl von Clausewitz über Krieg und Kriegführung, Vol III (Berlin: Dümmler)
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Harlan Grant (2018) ‘Multilateralism’s Life Cycle’, American Journal of International Law, 112:1, 47–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, James (2018) ‘The Current Political Discourse Concerning International Law’, Modern Law Review, 81:1, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, Willie (1994) ‘Maneuvering in the Gray Zone: The Gap Between Traditional Peacekeeping and War Fighting, Peacemaking, Peace-Enforcement, and Post-Conflict Peace-Building’, in Mokhtari, Fariborz L (ed) Peacemaking, peacekeeping, and coalition warfare: the future role of the united nations (Washington, DC: National Defense University), 175–185
   Google Scholar
• Demange, Lia Helena de Lima (2012) ‘The Principle of Resilience’, Pace Environmental Law Review, 30, 695–810.
   Google Scholar
• Dill, Janina (2017) ‘Abuse of Law on the Twenty-First-Century Battlefield: A Typology of Lawfare’, in Gross, Michael L and Tamar Meisels (eds), Soft war: the ethics of unarmed conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 119–133
   Google Scholar
• Dunlap, Charles (2001) 'Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Century Conflicts', <https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6193&context=faculty_scholarship>
   Google Scholar
• Dunlap, Charles J Jr (2008) ‘Lawfare Today: A Perspective’, Yale Journal of International Affairs, 3, 146–154.
   Google Scholar
• Dunlap, Charles J Jr (2010) ‘Does Lawfare Need an Apologia?’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2, 121–144.
   Google Scholar
• Dunlap, Charles J Jr (2011) ‘Lawfare Today… and Tomorrow’, International Law Studies, 87, 315–326.
   Google Scholar
• Dunlap, Charlie (2018) ‘Yes, There Are Plausible Legal Rationales for the Syria Strikes’, Lawfare, <https://www.lawfareblog.com/yes-there-are-plausible-legal-rationales-syria-strikes>
   Google Scholar
• Dupuy, Florian, and Pierre-Marie Dupuy (2013) ‘A Legal Analysis of China’s Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea’, American Journal of International Law, 107:1, 124–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eide, Asbjorn, Allan Rosas, and Theodor Meron (1995) ‘Combating Lawlessness in Gray Zone Conflicts Through Minimum Humanitarian Standards’, American Journal of International Law, 89:1, 215–223.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, Oonagh E, Valerie Hughes, Mark Jewett, and L Yves Fortier (2018) ‘Conclusion’, in Fitzgerald, Oonagh E, Valerie Hughes and Mark Jewett (eds), Reflections on Canada’s past, present and future in international law (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press), 481–484
   Google Scholar
• Franck, Thomas M (1970) ‘Who Killed Article 2(4)? Or: Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States’, American Journal of International Law, 64:4, 809–837
   Google Scholar
• Franck, Thomas M (1983) ‘Dulce et Decorum Est: The Strategic Role of Legal Principles in the Falklands War’, American Journal of International Law, 77:1, 109–124.
   Google Scholar
• Franck, Thomas M (2002) Recourse to force: tate action against threats and armed attacks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Fridman, Ofer (2018) Russian “hybrid warfare”: resurgence and politicization (London: Hurst)
   Google Scholar
• Gao, Zhiguo, and Bing Bing Jia (2013) ‘The Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea: History, Status, and Implications’, American Journal of International Law, 107:1, 98–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garmestani, Ahjond S, and Craig R Allen (eds) (2014) Social-ecological resilience and law (New York: Columbia University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Geiß, Robin (2015) ‘Russia’s Annexation of Crimea: The Mills of International Law Grind Slowly But They Do Grind’, International Law Studies, 91, 425–449.
   Google Scholar
• Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy (2018) Israel’s next northern war: operational and legal challenges (Washington, DC)
   Google Scholar
• Goldsmith, Jack, and Oona, Hathaway (2018) ‘Bad Legal Arguments for the Syria Airstrikes’, Lawfare, <https://lawfareblog.com/bad-legal-arguments-syria-airstrikes>
   Google Scholar
• Gorenburg, Dmitry (2019) The Kerch render (Helsinki)
   Google Scholar
• Grant, Thomas D (2015) Aggression against Ukraine: territory, responsibility, and international law (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan)
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, Christopher (1987) ‘The Concept of War in Modern International Law’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 36:2, 283–306.
   Google Scholar
• Grotius, Hugo (1625) De jure belli ac pacis libri tres (translated by Francis W Kelsey; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925)
   Google Scholar
• Habibi, Roojin, and Steven J Hoffman (2018) ‘Legalizing Cannabis Violates the UN Drug Control Treaties, but Progressive Countries Like Canada Have Options’, Ottawa Law Review, 49:2, 427–460.
   Google Scholar
• Hakimi, Monica (2017) ‘The Work of International Law’, Harvard International Law Journal, 58:1, 1–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakimi, Monica (2018) ‘The Jus ad Bellum’s Regulatory Form’, American Journal of International Law, 112:2, 151–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Louise Doswald-Beck (eds) (2005) Customary international humanitarian law, Volume I: Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Henkin, Louis (1979) How nations behave: law and foreign policy (2nd ed., New York: Columbia University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, Rosalyn (1994) Problems and process: international law and how we use it (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
   Google Scholar
• Hill, Steven (2016) ‘The Role of NATO’s Legal Adviser’, in Andraž Zidar and Jean-Pierre Gauci (eds), The role of legal advisers in international law (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff), 213–236
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, Frank G (2007) Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Warfare (Arlington: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies)
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, Frank G (2009) ‘Hybrid Warfare and Challenges’, Joint Force Quarterly, 52:1, 34–39.
   Google Scholar
• Holling, C S (1973) ‘Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4:1, 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Horton, Scott (2010) ‘The Dangers of Lawfare’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43, 163–179.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, David (2016) ‘What Does Lawfare Mean?’, Fordham International Law Journal, 40:1, 1–40.
   Google Scholar
• Humby, Tracy-Lynn (2014) ‘Law and Resilience: Mapping the Literature’, Seattle Journal of Environmental Law, 4:1, 85–130.
   Google Scholar
• Hurd, Ian (2017) How to do things with international law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)
   Google Scholar
• International Security Advisory Board (2017) Report on gray zone conflict (Washington, DC: International Security Advisory Board)
   Google Scholar
• Irani, Freya (2018) ‘Lawfare’, US Military Discourse, and the Colonial Constitution of Law and War’, European Journal of International Security, 3:1, 113–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, Van (2017) ‘Tactics of Strategic Competition: Gray Zones, Redlines, and Conflicts before War’, Naval War College Review, 70:3, 39–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, Rachel (2004) The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: an exercise in law, politics, and diplomacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Kittrie, Orde F (2016) Lawfare: law as a weapon of war (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Korman, Sharon (1996) The right of conquest: the acquisition of territory by force in international law and practice (Oxford: Clarendon)
   Google Scholar
• Koskenniemi, Martti (1990) ‘The Politics of International Law’, European Journal of International Law, 1:1, 4–32.
   Google Scholar
• Koskenniemi, Martti (2009) ‘The Politics of International Law–20 Years Later’, European Journal of International Law, 20:1, 7–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraska, James (2018) ‘The Kerch Strait Incident: Law of the Sea or Law of Naval Warfare?’, EJIL:Talk, <https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-kerch-strait-incident-law-of-the-sea-or-law-of-naval-warfare/>
   Google Scholar
• Kunz, Josef L (1945) ‘The Problem of the Progressive Development of International Law’, Iowa Law Review, 31:4, 544–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauterpacht, Hersch (1933) The function of law in the international community (Oxford: Clarendon)
   Google Scholar
• Leed, Maren (2015) ‘Square Pegs, Round Holes, and Gray Zone Conflicts’, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 16:2, 133–143
   Google Scholar
• Luban, David (2010) ‘Carl Schmitt and the Critique of Lawfare’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43, 457–471.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, Niklas (2004) Law as a social system (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Mälksoo, Maria (2018) ‘Countering Hybrid Warfare as Ontological Security Management: The Emerging Practices of the EU and NATO’, European Security, 27:3, 374–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattis, James N, and Frank G Hoffman (2005) ‘Future Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars’, Proceedings Magazine, 131, 18–19.
   Google Scholar
• Maurice, John Frederick (1883) Hostilities without declaration of war (London: HMSO)
   Google Scholar
• Mazarr, Michael J (2015) Mastering the gray zone: understanding a changing era of conflict (Carlisle: The United States Army War College)
   Google Scholar
• Mearsheimer, John J (1994) ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, International Security, 19:3, 5–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China (2016) ‘Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China on the Award of 12 July 2016 of the Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration Established at the Request of the Republic of the Philippines’, Chinese Journal of International Law, 15:4, 905–907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monaghan, Andrew (2015) ‘The “War” in Russia’s “Hybrid Warfare’, Parameters, 45:4, 65–74.
   Google Scholar
• Morgenthau, Hans Joachim (1929) Die internationale Rechtspflege, ihr Wesen und ihre Grenzen (Leipzig: Noske)
   Google Scholar
• Morgenthau, Hans Joachim (1948) Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace (New York: Knopf)
   Google Scholar
• Morton, Jeffrey S (2002) ‘The Legality of NATO’s Intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999: Implications for the Progressive Development of International Law’, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 9:1, 75–102.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz Mosquera, Andres B, and Sascha Dov Bachmann (2016) ‘Lawfare in Hybrid Wars: The 21st Century Warfare’, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 7:1, 63–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasu, Hitoshi (2016) ‘Japan’s 2015 Security Legislation: Challenges to Its Implementation under International Law’, International Law Studies, 92, 248–280.
   Google Scholar
• Noone, Gregory P (2010) ‘Lawfare or Strategic Communications?’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1–2, 73–86.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connell, Mary Ellen (2015) ‘Myths of Hybrid Warfare’, Ethics and Armed Forces, 2:2, 27–30.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, Peter M (2014) ‘The Lawfulness of Russian Use of Force in Crimea’, Military Law and the Law of War Review, 53:1, 17–44.
   Google Scholar
• Patrikarakos, David (2017) War in 140 characters: how social media is reshaping conflict in the twenty-first century (New York: Basic Books)
   Google Scholar
• Peters, Anne (2018) ‘How Not to Do Things with International Law’, Ethics & International Affairs, 32:4, 483–491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plokhy, Serhii (2011) ‘The Call of Blood: Government Propaganda and Public Response to the Soviet Entry into World War II’, Cahiers du Monde Russe, 52:52/2–3, 293–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, Patrick (2016) ‘Sorry, Folks. There is no rules-based world order’, National Interest, <http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/sorry-folks-there-no-rules-based-world-order-17497>
   Google Scholar
• Porter, Patrick (2018) ‘A world imagined: nostalgia and liberal order’, <https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/world-imagined-nostalgia-liberal-order>
   Google Scholar
• Reisman, W Michael (1998) ‘Stopping Wars and Making Peace: Reflections on the Ideology and Practice of Conflict Termination in Contemporary World Politics’, Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 6:1, 5–56.
   Google Scholar
• Reisman, W Michael (2013) The quest for world order and human dignity in the twenty-first century: constitutive process and individual commitment (The Hague: Hague Academy of International Law)
   Google Scholar
• Renz, Bettina (2016) ‘Russia and “Hybrid Warfare’, Contemporary Politics, 22:3, 283–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rich, Roland (1993) ‘Recognition of States: The Collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union’, European Journal of International Law, 4:1, 36–65.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, Anthea (2017) Is international law international? (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, Peter (2016) Legal accountability and Britain’s wars 2000–2015 (Abingdon: Routledge)
   Google Scholar
• Ruggie, John Gerard (1993) ‘Wandering in the Void: Charting the UN’s New Strategic Role’, Foreign Affairs, 72:5, 26–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruhl, J B (2010) ‘General Design Principles for Resilience and Adaptive Capacity in Legal Systems—With Applications to Climate Change Adaptation Adaptation and Resiliency in Legal Systems’, North Carolina Law Review, 89:5, 1373–404
   Google Scholar
• Sari, Aurel (2019) ‘Hybrid Warfare, Law and the Fulda Gap’, in Christopher M Ford and Winston S Williams (eds), Complex battlespaces: the law of armed conflict and the dynamics of modern warfare (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 161–190
   Google Scholar
• Schelling, Thomas C (2008) Arms and influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, Michael N, and Andru E Wall (2014) ‘The International Law of Unconventional Statecraft’, Harvard National Security Journal, 5:2, 349–76.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarzenberger, Georg (1943) ‘Jus Pacis Ac Belli?: Prolegomena to a Sociology of International Law’, American Journal of International Law, 37:3, 460–479.
   Google Scholar
• Shany, Yuval (2014) ‘Does International Law Grant the People of Crimea and Donetsk a Right to Secede: Revisiting Self-Determination in Light of the 2014 Events in Ukraine’, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 21:1, 233–244.
   Google Scholar
• Shea, Jamie (2016) ‘Resilience: A Core Element of Collective Defence’, NATO Review, <https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2016/also-in-2016/nato-defence-cyber-resilience/en/index.htm>
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, Gerry (2001) ‘Two Liberalisms’, European Journal of International Law, 12:3, 537–572.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, PW and Brooking, Emerson T (2018) Likewar: the weaponization of social media (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt)
   Google Scholar
• Ssenyonjo, Manisuli (2018) ‘State Withdrawal Notifications from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: South Africa, Burundi and the Gambia’, Criminal Law Forum, 29:1, 63–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens, Dale (2011) ‘The Age of Lawfare’, International Law Studies, 87, 327–357.
   Google Scholar
• Tamanaha, Brian Z (2006) Law as a means to an end: threat to the rule of law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Tenenbaum, Élie (2015) ‘Hybrid Warfare in the Strategic Spectrum: An Historical Assessment’, in Guillaume Lasconjarias and Jeffrey A Larsen (eds), NATO’s response to hybird threats (Rome: NATO Defense College), 95–112
   Google Scholar
• Thucydides (2009) The Peloponnesian war (translated by Martin Hammond; Oxford: Oxford University Press)
   Google Scholar
• Trachtman, Joel P (2016) ‘Integrating Lawfare and Warfare’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 39:2, 267–282.
   Google Scholar
• Tugendhat, Tom, and Laura Croft (2013) The fog of law: an introduction to the legal erosion of British fighting power (London: Policy Exchange)
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of State (1956) Foreign relations of the United States: diplomatic papers, 1939, Vol I (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office)
   Google Scholar
• United States Special Forces Command (2015) The gray zone (Tampa, FL: United States Special Operations Command)
   Google Scholar
• Voetelink, Joop (2017) ‘Reframing Lawfare’, in Paul AL Ducheine and Frans PB Osinga (eds), Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies (Winning without killing: The strategic and operational utility of non-kinetic capabilities in crises) (The Hague: TMC Asser), 237–254
   Google Scholar
• Wassermann, Felix Martin (1947) ‘The Melian Dialogue’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 78, 18–36
   Google Scholar
• Wirtz, James J (2017) ‘Life in the “Gray Zone”: Observations for Contemporary Strategists’, Defense and Security Analysis, 33:2, 106–114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, Jeremy (2018) ‘Cyber and International Law in the 21st Century’, <https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/cyber-and-international-law-in-the-21st-century>
   Google Scholar