It has been a busy few months since the start of the term in September. I have spent some of this time discussing my research on the legal aspects of hybrid warfare with professional and academic colleagues. On 13 September 2017, I spoke before an audience of military and civilian legal advisors in Stuttgart
I am re-posting a news item from the Exeter Centre for International Law: ‘Law is an asymmetric capability’ was the message that Dr Aurel Sari conveyed at two international conferences last month. Speaking on 13 September 2017 before an audience of military and civilian legal advisors in Stuttgart (Germany), Dr Sari offered an overview
Earlier this year, human rights charity Reprieve published a report entitled ‘Britain’s Kill List. In its report, Reprieve claims to reveal shocking proof that exposes the involvement of the British Government in a global assassination project. In particular, Reprieve alleges that the British Government has been complicit in preparing and executing a ‘kill list’ for
At the end of April, I spent a few days time in Warsaw attending the EUCOM/SHAPE international legal conference. The theme this year was 'The Legal Aspects of the National Security Response to Russian Aggression'. My presentation explored the topic of 'Lawfare on the Home Front'.
This year's ARRC legal conference (ARRCADE BRIEF 2015) focused on the legal challenges presented by hybrid warfare threats. The confernece built on the workshop on hybrid warfare I convened in collaboration with the ARRC in Exeter in September 2015, as well as the lessons learned during exercise ARRCADE FUSION 2015. Read on for a summary of the event by the ARRC public affairs team.
I recently had the pleasure and privilege of convening a workshop on the legal aspects of hybrid warfare and influence operations at the Strategy and Security Institute of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. Held in collaboration with the NATO Office of Legal Affairs (many thanks to NATO Legal Adviser Steven Hill) and the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, the event brought together senior legal advisors and experts working in a national and international capacity over the course of one and a half days. The workshop was held under the Chatham House Rule. While this prevents me from describing the proceedings and participants in greater detail, I have written up my thoughts on the subject, shaped in part by the discussions we had at Exeter, in a blog post published at Lawfare.
The University of Exeter’s Strategy and Security Institute hosted a high-level workshop on 16–17 September 2015 to examine the legal implications of ‘hybrid warfare’. The event, convened in collaboration with the NATO Office of Legal Affairs and the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, brought together senior legal advisors and experts from across the UK and
The subject of hybrid warfare – a strategy which blends conventional and irregular means of warfare – has attracted considerable attention in recent years. While the concept and its practical implications remain the subject of debate, it is clear that legal considerations and arguments play an important element of hybrid conflict. However, so far the legal aspects of hybrid warfare have received only limited attention. To address this gap, I had the pleasure of convening an expert workshop at the Strategy and Security Institute of the University of Exetetr in collaboration with the NATO Office of Legal Affairs and the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. The workshop brought together senior legal advisors and experts from across the UK and NATO in an effort to deepen our understanding of the subject and set the direction for future work. I intend to take forward some of this work in the context of a research project on the legal aspects of hybrid warfare.
Judicial imperialism is defeating the British armed forces. At least this is what the authors of a report recently published by the Policy Exchange, an influential British think tank, claim. There is little doubt that the British armed forces are facing significant legal challenges. These must be addressed as a matter of priority. However, neither the fiery tone of the Policy Exchange's latest report nor its actual policy recommendations are best suited to preserve the operational freedom of the military. In this post, we seek to explain why this is so.
Led by Professor Noëlle Quénivet (UWE Bristol) and Dr Aurel Sari (University of Exeter), the purpose of the present project aims to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the challenges posed by international human rights law and its real and perceived impact on military operations. The work is funded by the British Academy and will involve a series of workshops and other activities over two years.