Speech as "Hybrid Warfare"
Copyright (c) 2025 Zeno-Zencovich Vincenzo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Long ago one used to say: “In a war truth is the first casualty.” The saying now should go: “In a modern war the first shot is a speech.” This paper wishes to point out how, over the last decade, informational activities have been classified as a form of “hybrid warfare” that should be countered and defeated. It analyses how traditional propaganda is now qualified as hybrid warfare and what are its consequences under international law, what does one mean for “disinformation” or “misinformation”, and how and who can determine it, as well as what are the consequences of the weaponisation of informational activity in a democratic system and in its public debate. The paper argues that a hybrid warfare is a catch-all expression which can include any kind of activity deemed as “hostile” by a country, the notion of disinformation is misleading and fuzzy, and is apt to include any sort of speech, from simple facts to statements of opinion, finally, the emphasis on hostile speech as a form of hybrid warfare has a spillover effect in domestic public debate with a powerful silencing effect on non-conventional views.
Keywords:
How to Cite
References
Armijo, E. (2021). Speech Regulation by Algorithm. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 30(2), 245–263. Online: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol30/iss2/3
Casey-Maslen, S. (2024). Hybrid Warfare under International Law. Hart Publishing. Online: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509979608
Cetina Presuel, R. (2021). Un estira y afloja: La definición de las reglas para la libre expresión en las plataformas de redes sociales. Jurídicas CUC, 17(1), 499–556. Online: https://doi.org/10.17981/juridcuc.17.1.2021.18
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2018). Resolution 2217. Legal Challenges Related to Hybrid War and Human Rights Obligations. Online: https://tinyurl.com/44xk6jbd
Ducaru, S. D. (2016). The Cyber Dimension of Modern Hybrid Warfare and its Relevance for NATO. Europolity, 10(1), 7–23. Online: https://tinyurl.com/zzdhwpew
European Commission (2024, May 17). Commission Welcomes New Sanctions against Disinformation and War Propaganda. Online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2682
European Council (2021, June 21). Council Conclusions on a Framework for a Coordinated EU Response to Hybrid Campaigns. Online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/06/21/council-conclusions-on-a-framework-for-a-coordinated-eu-response-to-hybrid-campaigns
Fogt, M. M. (2021). Legal Challenges or ‘Gaps’ by Countering Hybrid Warfare. Building Resilience in Jus ante Bellum. Southwestern Journal of International Law, 27(1), 28–100.
Fridman, O., Kabernik, V. & Pearce, J. C. (Eds.). (2018). Hybrid Conflicts and Information Warfare. New Labels, Old Politics. Lynne Rienner.
Friedland, S. (2024, June). Speech Labels and Bias. Paper presentation. Free Speech Discussion Forum in Budapest, 13-14 June, 2024, Budapest.
Galeotti, M. (2022). The Weaponisation of Everything. A Field Guide to the New Way of War. Yale University Press. Online: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv28bqm27
Grant, J. P. & Barker, J. C. (2009). Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195389777.001.0001
Hoffman, F. G. (2018). Examining Complex Forms of Conflict: Gray Zone and Hybrid Challenges. Prism, 7(4), 30–47.
Jovanovski, Z. (2021). Challenges of International Humanitarian Law in Regulating Conflicts from the Era of Hybrid Warfare. Balkan Social Science Review, 18, 149–167. Online: https://doi.org/10.46763/bssr2118149j
NATO (2024, May 7). Countering Hybrid Threats. Online: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_156338.htm
NATO Allied Command Transformation (s. a.). Cognitive Warfare. Online: https://www.act.nato.int/activities/cognitive-warfare/
Ó Fataigh, R. & Voorhoof, D. (2022). Freedom of Expression and the EU’s Ban on Russia Today: A Dangerous Rubicon Crossed. Communications Law, 27(4), 186–193.
Quintais, J. P., Appelman, N. & Fahy, R. (2023). Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation. German Law Journal, 24(5), 881–911. Online: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.53
Ronzitti, N. (2021). Diritto internazionale dei conflitti armati. Giappichelli.
Rühle, M. (2021). NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats. In D. P. Jankowski & T. Stępniewski (Eds.), NATO in the Era of Unpeace. Defending Against Known Unknowns (pp. 59–80). Instytut Europy Środkowej.
Sassi, S. (2022). La soft war dell’Unione Europea: il caso RT-France c. Consiglio. Il Diritto dell’informazione e dell’informatica, 38(6), 1199–1259.
Saul, B. (2022, July). The Law of the Jungle: Western Hypocrisy over the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Australian Book Review, (444). Online: https://tinyurl.com/26y8z3zd
Vigevani, G. E. (2023). Piattaforme digitali private, potere pubblico e libertà di espressione. Rivista di diritto costituzionale, 61(1), 41–54.
Wagner, B., Kettemann, M. C., Tiedeke, A. S., Rachinger, F. & Sekwenz, M.-T. (2024). Mapping Interpretations of the Law in Online Content Moderation in Germany. Computer Law & Security Review, 55. Online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106054
Weissmann, M., Nilsson, N., Palmertz, B. & Thunholm, P. (Eds.). (2021). Hybrid Warfare. Security and Asymmetric Conflict in International Relations. I.B. Tauris. Online: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781788317795
Zeno-Zencovich, V. (2024). The EU’s Regulation of Speech: A Critical View. University of the Pacific Law Review, 55(2), 175–183.
The author is grateful to Professor Giulio Bartolini whose assistance was of invaluable help in correcting a series of flaws in the first draft of this paper.