The Baltic states should adopt the self-defence pinpricks doctrine: the “accumulation of events” threshold as a deterrent to Russian hybrid warfare

Open access

Abstract

This article addresses a key legal debate that the Baltic NATO members ought to engage in: what constitutes an “armed attack” and what interpretation should be made of this concept in order to deter recent Russian hybrid warfare strategies. These questions are considered in connection with a more general issue regarding the law of self-defence: the question of what constitutes an armed attack in international law. This article will try to present a broad definition and context of Russian hybrid warfare and how it is challenging traditional jus ad bellum paradigms. Too few policy-makers have paid detailed attention to the new Russian “lawfare” in Ukraine, using specific military and non-military tactics in order to blur the lines between “armed attack” and mere political intervention. Meanwhile, legal scholars detach their analysis from actual policy-serving considerations and tend to acquiesce to some very restrictive theories of the use force in self-defence. For some countries, like the Baltic ones, facing strategic exposure – because of both threatening neighbours and low military capacities – the jus ad bellum paradigm should not be construed as another layer of obstacle.

Allain, J. (2004). The True Challenge to the United Nations System of the Use of Force: The Failures of Kosovo and Iraq and the Emergence of the African Union. 8 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, pp. 237-242.

Allison, R. (2014). Russian “deniable” intervention in Ukraine: how and why Russia broke the rules, International Affairs, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, available at: http://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/4760/39349_202339.pdf (accessed January 22nd, 2017).

Blank, S. (2011). Russian Military Politics and Russia’s 2010 Defense Doctrine. Strategic Studies Institute, available at: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub1050.pdf (accessed February 11th, 2017).

Bou Nader, P. (2016). Les interprétations extensives de l’article 51 de la Charte : De la légalité en droit international public des extensions temporelles et matérielles du droit de légitime défense. Germany. 200 pages.

Bowett, D. W. (1958). Self-Defense in International Law. Manchester. 294 pages.

Browne, R. (2016). Is Trump on a collision course with NATO?, CNN Politics, available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/trump-nato-challenge/ (accessed December 18th, 2016).

Chainoglou, K. (2008). Reconceptualising the law of self-defence. Brussels. 488 pages.

De Bock, C. (2007). Israel, Eté 2006: « légitime défense disproportionnée » ou « représailles » ? Analyse d’un glissement de langage. Revue québécoise de droit international, p. 55.

Dinstein, Y. (2005). War, Aggression and Self-Defence. 4th ed. Cambridge. 349 pages. GERASIMOV, V. Tsennost Nauki v Predvidenniye, Voenno-promyshlenni Kurier, February 27th, 2013, http://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/14632

Green, J. (2009). The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law. Oregon. 229 pages.

Güngör, O. (2007). Ethnic Russians and minority rights in the Baltic States during their EU accession process. Ph.D., available at: https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12609195/index.pdf (accessed February 5th, 2017).

Hernad, W. (2012). The Russian minority in Estonia. Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, available at: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/case-studies/russian-minority.pdf (accessed February 5th, 2017).

Captain Petri Huovinen (2011). Hybrid Warfare – Just a Twist of Compound Warfare?, Department of Military History, National Defence University, available at: https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/74215/E4081_HuovinenKPO_EUK63.pdf (accessed December 18th, 2016).

Jones, S. Ukraine: Russia’s new art of war, Financial Times, August 28th, 2014, available at https://www.ft.com/content/ea5e82fa-2e0c-11e4-b760-00144feabdc0 (accessed January 15th, 2017).

Jonson, P. (2010). The debate about Article 5 and its credibility – What is it all about?, Research Paper, NATO Defense College, No. 58, Rome, 12 pages.

Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, Remarks at USCYBERCOM Inter-Agency Legal Conference: International Law in Cyberspace, September 18th, 2012.

Monaghan, A. The “War” in Russia’s “Hybrid Warfare”, Strategic Studies Institute, Parameters. 45(4) Winter 2015-16, 65, available at http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/issues/Winter_2015-16/9_Monaghan.pdf (accessed January 14th, 2017).

Scarborough, R. Obama viewed NATO as a “threat” rather than peace alliance, top U.S. general charges, The Washington Times, 2016, available at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/9/obama-viewed-nato-threat-ratherpeace-alliance-top/ (accessed December 18th, 2016).

Shuster, S. Can NATO Survive a Donald Trump Presidency?, TIME, 2016, available at: http://time.com/4569578/donaldtrump-nato-alliance-europe-afghanistan/ (accessed December 18th, 2016).

Sierpinski, B. (2006). La légitime défense en droit international : quelques observations sur un concept juridique ambigu, Revue Québécoise de droit international, 19.1, pp. 79-120.

Zourek, J. (1975). La notion de légitime défense en droit international, Annuaire International de Droit International, pp. 1-80.

Journal Information

A publication of the Baltic Defence College

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 455 452 45
PDF Downloads 256 255 19