Downloads provided by UsageCounts
Hybrid warfare is currently among the most trending topics. Hybrid threats arise in digital, cybernetic, and virtual environments and materialise in the real world. Despite being a somewhat vague term, hybrid activities include cyberwarfare, information warfare, and the emerging and evolving concept of cognitive warfare which appears from their intersection. These buzzwords gained popular attention in the context of the Russo- -Ukrainian conflict and such terms are now in vogue. Even though these topics are in the spotlight, there is also widespread confusion about what exactly these usages mean and what the implications are in branding them as “warfare”. Indeed, all these concepts are fluid, nebulous, and lack an undisputed legal definition. This article aims to clarify their meaning and to shed light on the characteristics of such terms – differences, similarities and overlaps – in the context of hybrid warfare and show the faulty reasoning upon which misunderstandings are based. The paper concludes with a glimpse into the future, closing with a reflection on multi-domain operations facilitated by a fully integrated human- -computer interaction in the metaverse, where physical reality is merged and interacts with digital virtuality.
IHL, defence, NATO, fake news, conflict, social media, Geneva Conventions, Geneva conventions, security, information, communication, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, censorship, internet, social media, NATO, European Union, international law, international humanitarian law, IHL, armed conflict, Geneva Conventions, defence, defense, security, metaverse, fake news, false information, cognitive warfare, hybrid warfare, cognitive, cyber, information, international humanitarian law, metaverse, warfare, information, cognitive, law of war, false information, International Law, war, European Union, UE, misinformation, armed conflict, Internet, Metaverse, international humanitarian law, Law of War, hybrid conflict, cyber, propaganda, defense, disinformation, International Humanitarian Law, warfare, censorship, internet, EU
IHL, defence, NATO, fake news, conflict, social media, Geneva Conventions, Geneva conventions, security, information, communication, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, censorship, internet, social media, NATO, European Union, international law, international humanitarian law, IHL, armed conflict, Geneva Conventions, defence, defense, security, metaverse, fake news, false information, cognitive warfare, hybrid warfare, cognitive, cyber, information, international humanitarian law, metaverse, warfare, information, cognitive, law of war, false information, International Law, war, European Union, UE, misinformation, armed conflict, Internet, Metaverse, international humanitarian law, Law of War, hybrid conflict, cyber, propaganda, defense, disinformation, International Humanitarian Law, warfare, censorship, internet, EU
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
| views | 42 | |
| downloads | 46 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts