Editor's Note: This post is part of the sixth annual Transatlantic Workshop on International Law and Armed Conflict joint blog series.
Aurel Sari is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom and the director of the Exeter Centre for International Law. His scholarship focuses primarily on international conflict and security law and the law relating to military operations. He has published widely in leading academic journals on the law of armed conflict, status of forces agreements, peace support operations, international human rights law and the legal framework of European security and defense policy. He writes for Lawfare in a personal capacity.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Over the last few years, “hybrid warfare” has become firmly established in the Western security lexicon. The concept features prominently in NATO and EU policy instruments and has informed the United States’ National Security Strategy adopted in December 2017. (I analyzed this idea in more depth here.)
Readers of Lawfare will be interested to learn that the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has just published its report on the British Government’s policy on the use of drones for targeted killing. The report is the outcome of an inquiry launched by the Joint Committee in October 2015.
In this comment, I would like to offer some thoughts in response to Butch Bracknell’s recent post on the targeting of ISIL oil transport trucks by the US in eastern Syria.
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.