On Qualification of the Phenomenon of Hybridism of the Use of Force and the Problem of Interference in Internal Affairs of a State

The purpose of this article is to eliminate methodological discrepancies in the definition of the problem of “hybrid” use of force and the possibility of using this construct when interfering in the internal affairs of states. In any conflict situation, the behavior of states in moving towards their national goals can be explained through how they do combine and synchronize (as it is often defined at the present time — «hybrid») the use of means of compellence and coercion available to them. In general, conceptually «hybrid war» can be described as “the synchronized use of multiple instruments of national power, specially selected to obtain mutually reinforcing effects on specific vulnerabilities across the entire spectrum of social processes. The substance of the modern security environment has led to an increase in the number of areas of conflict of interests of actors, the complexity and dynamism of conflicts, and the unpredictability of their outcomes. The formation of the practice of attribution of international responsibility, and the development of the international institutions supporting it, took place gradually and, ultimately, led to such a development of the international security environment, which made an appeal to «hybridity» to promote national interests in the process of political competition of social groups or individuals with divergent interests for power inevitable. The problem of terminology is one of the main obstacles to a clear understanding of the operation of the «hybridity» construct in political competition. The active use of the definition «hybrid» by propaganda in combination with the terms «war», «threats», «hostilities in the gray zone», «operations», «tactics», «competition does not turn into a state of war» political discourse, since these terms are almost never linked to the definition of the desired state of international relations by the state leadership. And if we are talking about the outcome of the collision of interests of actors in competition or conflict, then this desired result is «historically» defined by the term «victory». Thus, the definition of the substance of «victory» is a necessary initial point to onset analyzing the possibilities of turning to any of the instruments of national power in a «hybrid» confrontation.

1. Korostelev S. V. Political legitimization of acts of the use of force in international relations: Doctoral dissertation. SPb., 2021 [Electronic source]. URL: https://disser.spbu.ru/files/2021/disser_korostelev.pdf (accessed: 23.09.2021). (In Rus).

2. Korostelev S. V. The influence of the properties of the modern security environment on the determination of the content of the “victory” phenomenon and the possibility of applying international humanitarian law. Legal forms of experience of history: practices and limits: monograph / ed. by S. V. Bochkarev. SPb. : Asterion, 2020. 694 p. (In Rus).

3. Korostelev S. V., Kachuk V. N. Some aspects of the impact of neutrality status on trade relations of states // Vestnik INGEKONA. Ser. Economics. 2011. N 3 (46). P. 218–221. (In Rus).

4. Shalkus G. A. Creation and activity of Japanese concessions in northern Sakhalin in 1925–1944 // Siberian Trade and Economic Journal [Sibirskii torgovo-ekonomicheskii zhurnal]. 2008. N 7. P. 87–91. (In Rus).

5. Cullen P. J., Reichborn-Kjennerud E. MCDC Countering Hybrid Warfare Project: Understanding Hybrid Warfare. A Multinational Capability Development Campaign project. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. January 2017.

6. Harp James F. The Evolution of the Trinity: A 21st Century “Hybrid” War Theory. USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT. 2011. 36 p.

7. Morgenthau Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 6 ed. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1985.

8. Wigg R. Churchill and Spain: the Survival of the Franco Regime, 1940–45. Portland, Or. : Sussex Academic Press/ISBS, 2008.