(ret.) Gary Sharp for his valuable insights. Tom Leary for enduring countless “What if?” hypotheticals with characteristic good humor, and Rear Adm. The author especially wishes to thank Naz Modirzadeh for her encouragement and endless patience, Capt. Navy, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. The views expressed herein are those of the author in her personal capacity and are not necessarily those of the U.S. Naval War College J.D., 2010, McGeorge School of Law B.A., 2007, Gardner-Webb University. Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Given these potential impacts on international norms, the legal challenges surrounding gray zone tactics must be clarified. Those states may stretch their use-of-force determinations to encompass these tactics in order to expand response options-including those involving uses of force in self-defense-and such expanded responses could become the norm. Further, some states could conclude that current legal frameworks do not allow for effective responses to gray zone tactics. On the other hand, a mischaracterization of or hasty response to such tactics could result in the serious and rapid escalation of military engagements. If victim states are consistently unable to respond effectively, similar gray zone tactics may become normalized, thus permitting this type of state-to-state interaction. Sections IV and V then analyze these examples under the principle of non-intervention, which has been described as “one of the vaguest branches of international law.” Ĭonsidering levels of diplomatic and military tension among the major actors in current gray zone campaigns, how states understand and respond to gray zone tactics carries important consequences. Section III briefly analyzes these examples under a use-of-force framework, illustrating the potential difficulties that may arise when approaching gray zone tactics from that paradigm. unmanned underwater vehicle and Iran’s use of armed small boats to harass U.K. Section II introduces three examples of military-on-military gray zone tactics: Russia’s use of military aircraft to fly close to U.S. Section I undertakes a deeper examination of the problem, including questions on the definition of, motivation behind, and effects of these tactics. This Article explores the application and value of analyzing gray zone tactics through a non-intervention framework. Given this reality and the frustrations that accompany a use-of-force analysis, victim states will likely continue to find current understandings of gray zone tactics and response options unsatisfying. However, fitting military-on-military gray zone tactics into an unlawful intervention framework is likely to prove a difficult task in many instances, because these tactics often implicate international, as opposed to solely domestic, affairs. Ĭertain gray zone tactics clearly violate the principle of non-intervention. An alternative-and novel-approach is to evaluate whether such tactics violate the principle of non-intervention, which prohibits coercive actions intended to cause a victim state to do or refrain from doing something falling solely within the victim state’s domestic affairs. Yet, as this Article explains, many victim states may find the use-of-force framework unsatisfying. Where gray zone tactics involve one state using its military forces against another state, a use-of-force analysis is an appropriate starting point in evaluating these tactics and determining lawful response options. Do military-on-military gray zone tactics violate the prohibition on the threat of or use of force? Are gray zone tactics armed attacks? Something else entirely? The fact that gray zone tactics elude familiar categories of military action makes understanding potential responses difficult, as the range of permissible responses depends in part on how international law categorizes the initial act. Whether by design, necessity, or chance, these tactics fall somewhere between war and peace on the use-of-force spectrum, though exactly where they fall is difficult to say with any certainty. These tactics exceed the limits of accepted peacetime competition between states but avoid rising to a level that would warrant a conventional military response. States increasingly use their military forces to execute “gray zone tactics” in pursuit of strategic objectives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |