The Practices of Hybrid Threats in the Legal Domain: A Typology of Lawfare Practices

Year 2023, Volume: 19 Issue: 44, 213 - 246, 27.04.2023

Turgut Muhammet Çalışkanlar , Can Demir

https://doi.org/10.17752/guvenlikstrtj.1258155

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The ever-changing character of conflicts has blurred the line between peace and war and added hybrid dimensions to the conflicts. Hybrid threats have become a concept that deeply affects conflict and security studies, as well as pointing to the character of today’s conflicts. When the term “lawfare” is used within the scope of hybrid threats, it refers to much more than just legal claims. However, it continues to exist as a subject that is not fully conceptualized and understood as there is not enough work on this subject. This study, first, discusses the theoretical background of hybrid threats and lawfare and then introduces the typological features of lawfare, which will contribute to a better understanding and conceptualization of the subject. In this regard, 20 independent cases in which law has been used as a tool of conflict are analysed in terms of actor, law type and hybridity, and then based on the similarities and differences between hybrid threats and non-hybrid threats cases, a typology has been worked out with a view to the better conceptualization of the subject.

Keywords

Hybrid Threats, Hybrid Warfare, Legal Domain, Lawfare, Typology

Hukuk Ortamında Hibrit Tehdit Uygulamaları: Çatışma Aracı Olarak Hukuk Uygulamalarının Bir Tipolojisi

Abstract

Çatışmaların durmaksızın değişen karakteri barış ve savaş arasındaki çizgiyi belirsiz hale getirmiş ve çatışmalara hibrit boyutlar kazandırmıştır. Hibrit tehditler, günümüzdeki çatışmaların karakterine işaret ettiği gibi çatışma ve güvenlik çalışmalarına yön veren bir kavram haline de gelmiştir. “Çatışma aracı olarak hukuk” hibrit tehditler kapsamında kullanıldığında hukuk mücadelesinden çok daha fazlasına işaret etmektedir ve bu konuda yeterli çalışma olmadığı için tam olarak kavramlaşmamış ve anlaşılamamış bir konu olarak varlığını sürdürmektedir. Bu çalışmada; ilk olarak hibrit tehditlerin ve çatışma aracı olarak hukukun teorik arka planı ele alınacak, akabinde çatışma aracı olarak hukukun tipolojik özellikleri ortaya konularak konunun daha iyi anlaşılmasına ve kavramlaştırılmasına katkı sağlanmaya çalışılacaktır. Bu kapsamda hukukun çatışma aracı olarak kullanıldığı 20 bağımsız örnek olay aktör, hukuk nevi ve hibritlik durumu açısından analiz edilmiş ve hibrit tehditler kapsamında ve bu kapsamda olmayan durumlar arasındaki benzerlik ve farklılıklardan yola çıkılarak, konunun daha iyi bir şekilde kavramsallaştırılması maksadıyla bir tipoloji oluşturulmuştur.

Keywords

Hibrit Tehditler, Hibrit Harp, Hukuk Ortamı, Çatışma Aracı Olarak Hukuk, Tipoloji

References

• CARLSON John ve YEOMANS Neville (1975). “Whither Goeth the Law - Humanity or Barbarity”, (ed.) Margaret Smith and David Crossley, The Way Out - Radical Alternatives in Australia, Lansdowne Press, Melbourne.
• ÇALIŞKANLAR Turgut Muhammet (2022). “Tam Devlet ve Tam Toplum Yaklaşımlarının Toplumsal ve Kurumsal Dayanıklılığı Destekleme Maksadıyla Kullanılması”, (ed.) Gültekin Yıldız ve Barış Ateş, Hibrit Tehditleri Anlamak - Hibrit Tehditler ve Millî Savunma Sempozyumu (25-26 January 2022), National Defense University Publishing, Ankara, 19-30.
• DUNLAP Charles J. (2008). “Lawfare Today: A Perspective”, Yale Journal of International Affairs, Winter, 146-154.
• DUNLAP Charles J. (2009). “Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?”, Joint Force Quarterly, 3rd Quarter, 54, 34-39.
• DUNLAP Charles J. (2010). “Does Lawfare Need an Apologia?”, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 43:1, 121-143.
• DUNLAP Charles J. (2011). “Lawfare Today… and Tomorrow”, International Law Studies, 87, 315-325.
• DUNLAP Charles J. (2017). “Lawfare 101-A Primer”, Military Review, May-June, 8-17.
• Goldenziel, Jill I. (2021). “Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare.” Cornell Law Review, 106: 5, 1085–1171.
• GOLDSTEIN Brooke ve RYBERG Benjamin (2013). “The Emerging Face of Lawfare: Legal Maneu-vering Designed to Hinder the Exposure of Terrorism and Terror Financing”, Fordham International Law Journal, 36:3, 634-656.
• GUİLFOYLE, Douglas. “The Rule of Law and Maritime Security: Understanding Lawfare in the South China Sea.” International Affairs 95, no. 5 (September 1, 2019): 999-1017.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Publishing, Arlington.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2009). “Hybrid Warfare and Challenges”, Joint Force Quarterly, 52, 1st Quarter, 34-39.
• HUGHES David (2016). “What Does Lawfare Mean?”, Fordham International Law Journal, 40:1, 1-40.
• KALKAN Erol (2020). “The Longstanding Dispute Between Turkey And Greece: The Aegean Is-sue”, International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 28, 167-174.
• KITTRIE Orde F. (2016). Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• MONAGHAN Sean (2019). “Countering Hybrid Warfare-So What for the Future Joint Force?”, PRISM, 8:2, 82-98.
• MOSQUERA Andres B. Munoz ve BACHMANN Sascha Dov (2016). “Lawfare in Hybrid Wars: The 21st Century Warfare”, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 7, 63-87.
• OLKAN, K. B. (2021). Çin-ABD İlişkilerinde Güvenlik İkilemi: Tayvan Sorunu. Journal of Business Innovation and Governance, 4:1, 27-41.
• QUIRK, Sean. “Lawfare in the Disinformation Age: Chinese Interference in Taiwan’s 2020 Elections.” Harvard International Law Journal 62, no. 2 (June 15, 2021): 525–68.
• RAUGH David L. (2016). “Is the Hybrid Threat a True Threat?”, Journal of Strategic Security, 9:2, 1-13.
• TERRADOS Juan Jose (2019). “Hybrid Warfare”, The Three Swords Magazine, 35, 42-51.
• SARI A. (2018). “Hybrid Warfare, Law and the Fulda Gap”, Complex Battle Spaces, ed. Chris-topher Ford, Winston Williams, Oxford University Press, 2018.
• TRACHTMAN Joel P. (2016). “Integrating Lawfare and Warfare”, Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, 39:2, 267-282.
• VOYGER Mark (2018). “Russian Lawfare - Russia’s Weaponisation Of International And Domestic Law: Implications For The Region And Policy Recommendations”, Journal on Baltic Security, 4:2, 35-42.
• WEISSMANN Mikael, NILSSON Niklas, PALMERTZ Björn and WEISSMANN Per Thunholm (2021). Hybrid Warfare-Security and Asymmetric Conflict in International Relations, Bloomsbury Publishing, UK.
• WELCH Matthew (2017). “Book Review: Orde F. Kittrie, Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016”, Queen’s Law Journal, 42:2, 147-155.
• VOYGER, Mark (2018). “Russian Lawfare -- Russia’s Weaponisation Of International And Domestic Law: Implications For The Region And Policy Recommendations”, Journal on Baltic Security, 4:2, 35-42.
• YADAV Kunendra Singh (2019). “Hybrid Warfare Challenges to the Armed Forces: Realities and the Way Ahead”, CLAWS Journal, Winter, 122-141.
• YAHUDA, M. (2013). China’s New Assertiveness in the South China Sea. Journal of Contemporary China, 22:81, 446–459.
• ZAKHAR Tropin (2021). “Lawfare as Part of Hybrid Wars: The Experience of Ukraine in Conflict with Russian Federation”, Security&Defense Quarterly, 1:43, 15-29.
• ACUN Can ve KESKİN Bünyamin (2017). “The PKK’s Branch in Northern Syria, PYD-YPG”, https://setav.org/en/assets/uploads/2017/ 05/PYD_YPG_En.pdf, erişim 26.04.2022.
• AKSUNGER Selman (2020). “PKK/YPG continues to use child soldiers with impunity”, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/analysis-pkk-ypg-continues-to-use-child-soldiers-with-impunity/1953913, erişim 10.02.2022.
• ANDERSON Scott R., “Did the President Have the Domestic Legal Authority to Kill Qassem Soleimani?”, https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-president-have-domestic-legal-authority-kill-qassem-soleimani, erişim 15.04.2023.
• CHENG Deng (2012). “Winning Without Fighting: Chinese Legal Warfare”, https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/winning-without-fighting-chinese-legal-warfare, erişim 11.02.2022.
• CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/ files/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf, erişim 14.04.2023.
• DORAN Andrew (2021). “Lawfare: How America Can Make Russia and China Think Twice”, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/lawfare-how-america-can-make-russia-and-china-think-twice-183459, erişim 13.02.2022.
• DUNLAP Charles J. (2001). “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts”, https://people.duke.edu/~pfeaver/ dunlap.pdf, erişim 09.02.2022.
• DRESSLER Michael (2021). “Lawfare: Both an Existential Threat to the International Rule of Law and an Indispensable Tool of American Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century”, https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/ the-forum/lawfare-both-an-existential-threat-to-the-international-rule-of-law-and-an-indispensable-tool-of-american-foreign-policy-in-the-twenty-first-century/, erişim 07.01.2022.
• GIANNOPOULOS Georgios, SMITH Hanna ve THEOCHARIDOU Marianthi (2021). “The Landscape of Hybrid Threats: A Conceptual Model Public Version”, https://www.hybridcoe.fi/wp-content/ uploads/2021/02/conceptual_framework-reference-version-shortened-good_cover_-_publication_office.pdf, erişim 07.01.2022.
• HALPER Jeff (2014). “How Israel Undermines International Law Through ‘Lawfare’“, https://www.twn.my/title2/resurgence/2014/287-288/world1.htm, erişim 12.02.2022.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2009). “Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict”, https://www.files.ethz.ch/ isn/98862/SF240.pdf, erişim 18.04.2022.
• HOFFMAN Frank G. (2016). “The Contemporary Spectrum of Conflict: Protracted, Gray Zone, Ambiguous, and Hybrid Modes of War”, https://www.heritage.org/military-strength-topical-essays/2016-essays/the-contemporary-spectrum-conflict-protracted-gray, erişim 18.04.2022.
• KACOU Amien (2022). “Qualifying for Asylum Based on Persecution for Imputed Political Opinion”, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ qualifying-asylum-based-persecution-imputed-political-opinion.html, erişim 13.02.2022.
• KJENNERUD Erik Reichborn and CULLEN Patrick (2016). “What is Hybrid Warfare?”, https://nupi.brage.unit.no/nupi-xmlui/bitstream/ handle/11250/2380867/NUPI_Policy_Brief_1_Reichborn_Kjennerud_Cullen.pdf, erişim 14.01.2022.
• LIANG Qiao ve XIANGSUI Wang (1999). “Unrestricted Warfare”, https://www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf, 09.02.2022.
• MARTÍ José Luis (2020). “Lawfare and democracy. Law as a weapon of war”, https://revistaidees.cat/en/lawfare-and-democracy-law-as-a-weapon-of-war/, erişim 07.01.2022.
• MASTRO Oriana Skylar (2021). “How China is bending the rules in the South China Sea”, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/how-china-bending-rules-south-china-sea, erişim 30.11.2022.
• MONAGHAN Sean (2022). “Deterring Hybrid Threats: Towards a Fifth Wave of Deterrence Theory and Practice”, https://www.hybridcoe.fi/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/20220331-Hybrid-CoE-Paper-12-Fifth-wave-of-deterrence-WEB.pdf, erişim 04.04.2022.
• NATO STRATCOM COE (2019). “Hybrid Threats-A Strategic Communications Perspective”, https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-a-strategic-communications-perspective/79, erişim 07.01.2022.
• NICHOLS Michelle (2016). “Exclusive: U.N. report on Yemen says Houthis used human shields, Islamic State got cash”, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-un-exclusive-idUKKCN10F28B?edition-redirect=uk, erişim 10.02.2022.
• RICHTEROVÁ Jitka (2015). “Hybrid Threats”, https://www.studentsummit.cz/ wp-content/uploads/2019/02/PSS-Hybrid-Threats-NATO.pdf, erişim 07.01.2022.
• THAYER Bradley A. ve HAN Lianchao (2021). “The Growing Threat of China’s Lawfare”, https://thehill.com/opinion/international/546811-the-growing-threat-of-chinas-lawfare, erişim 14.02.2022.
• TREVERTON Gregory F., THVEDT Andrew, CHEN Alicia R., LEE Kathy and McCUE Madeline (2018). “Addressing Hybrid Threats”, https://www.hybridcoe.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Treverton-AddressingHybridThreats.pdf, erişim 10.01.2022.
• UNSC CTED (2021). “Efforts of European Member States to Prevent Terrorists from Abusing Asylum Systems while Ensuring Compliance with International Refugee and Human Rights Law: Challenges, Recommendations and Good Practices”, https://reliefweb.int/sites/ reliefweb.int/files/resources/CTED-REGIONAL-ANALYTICAL-BRIEF-April-2021-final.pdf, erişim 11.02.2022.
• VÄR René (2022). “Russia’s Legal Arguments to Justify its Aggression Against Ukraine”, https://icds.ee/wp-con-tent/uploads/dlm_uploads/2022 /11/ICDS_Analysis_Russias_Legal_Arguments_to_Justify_its_Aggression_Against_Ukraine_Rene_Vark_November_2022.pdf, erişim 15.04.2023.
• “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act”, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/countering-americas-adversaries-through-sanctions-act, erişim 13.02.2022.
• “Executive Order 13224”, https://www.state.gov/executive-order-13224/#state, erişim 13.02.2022. “Iraqi court issues arrest warrant for Trump over killing of paramilitary chief”, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/07/iraqi-court-issues-arrest-warrant-for-trump-over-killing-of-top-military-commander, erişim 11.02.2022.
• “The Sanctions that Could Really Hurt Russia”, https://edition.cnn.com/2022/ 02/22/business/sanctions-russia-ukraine/index.html, erişim 24.02.2022.