A Critical Review of Hybrid Warfare

How should we understand hybrid warfare, which has recently been attracting attention, in international law? Until recently, war, in terms of international law, was relatively clear. The initiation of the war could also be visually confirmed, the performers of the war were also the state, and the method of war was based on traditional military conflict. However, the appearance of the battlefield in the 21st century is different from the past. It has come to a point where it is no longer possible to say that only physical armed conflict is the only form of war. Hybrid warfare is at the center of the discourse about the emergence of a new form of warfare. When Russia annexed Crimea through a hybrid warfare in 2014, the international community paid attention to this new idea. From the perspective of international law, hybrid warfare is problematic. This is because hybrid warfare has a so-called gray zone, which is difficult for opposing countries or the international community to respond immediately. Therefore, there are areas that are difficult to approach with traditional armed conflict law or international humanitarian law. Some even argue that the rules of international law in wartime become meaningless. However, there are some points to consider whether this approach is really valid. Is international law useless in hybrid warfare? Based on previous studies related to hybrid warfare, there are parts that need to be critically considered on hybrid warfare and its discourse itself. First, there are parts that need to be separated from the existing discourses and narratives about hybrid warfare. Unlike conventional discourse, it is difficult to say that hybrid warfare is limited to a specific country. Today's war may require a change in perception, as it may have become a daily situation where hybrid elements must be considered. Second, this study points out that the reason for the occurrence of international legal problems in relation to hybrid warfare may be a problem of perception. The gray zone, legal and information warfare issues can also be approached with a shift in perception. The perspective on war has changed, and accordingly, the understanding of the exclusive legal application of the dichotomous international law on war may need to change. Rather than being immersed in the problem of distinction between peacetime and wartime, we may have to have a ‘complex perspective.’ However, this approach has a limitation. More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reinterpret and redefine the concepts of “peace” and “war.”