Hybrid Warfare and the Legal Domain

2020 ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
Andres B. Munoz Mosquera ◽  
Sascha Dov Bachmann ◽  
J. Abraham Munoz Bravo
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
Andres B. Munoz Mosquera ◽  
Sascha Dov Bachmann ◽  
J. Abraham Munoz Bravo
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Summer 2020) ◽  
pp. 115-130
Author(s):  
Can Kasapoğlu

As the incumbent Turkish administration strives to pursue more aspiring goals in foreign affairs, Turkey’s military policy is fast developing in line with this vision. The nation’s defense technological and industrial base can now produce various conventional weaponry. Of these, without a doubt, Turkey’s drone warfare assets have garnered the utmost attention among the international strategic community. In tandem, the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) have gradually gained an expeditionary posture with forward deployments across a broad axis, ranging from the Horn of Africa to the Gulf and the Mediterranean. Meanwhile, the military’s doctrinal order of battle has been transforming to address the unfolding hybrid warfare challenges in Ankara’s hinterland. Turkey’s proxy warfare capabilities have also registered an uptrend in this respect. Nevertheless, Ankara will have to deal with certain limitations in key segments, particularly 5th generation aircraft and strategic weapon systems which, together, represent a severe intra-war deterrence gap in Turkey’s defense posture. The Turkish administration will have to address this specific shortfall given the problematic threat landscape at the nation’s Middle Eastern doorstep. This study covers two interrelated strategic topics regarding Turkey’s national military capacity in the 21st century: its defense technological and industrial base (DTIB) and its military policy, both currently characterized by a burgeoning assertiveness.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (001) ◽  
pp. 81-91
Author(s):  
V.L. DOROKHOV

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (002) ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
A.A. BARTOSH
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Peter Rautenbach

This article looks to tie together the polar opposite of hybrid warfare and nuclear deterrence. The reason for this is that hybrid warfare and its effects on nuclear deterrence need to be explored as there appears to be substantial increases in hybrid warfare’s usage. This article found that hybrid warfare has an erosion like effect on nuclear deterrence because it increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used. This may be due to both the fact that hybrid warfare can ignore conventional redlines, but also because the cyber aspect of hybrid warfare has unintended psychological effects on how deterrence functions. how does this relate to nuclear war? In short, cyber warfare attacks key concepts which make nuclear deterrence a viable strategy including the concepts of stability, clarity, and rationality. Therefore, hybrid warfare increases the chance of nuclear use.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-494
Author(s):  
Katsumi NITTA ◽  
Ken SATOH

AbstractArtificial intelligence (AI) and law is an AI research area that has a history spanning more than 50 years. In the early stages, several legal-expert systems were developed. Legal-expert systems are tools designed to realize fair judgments in court. In addition to this research, as information and communication technologies and AI technologies have progressed, AI and law has broadened its view from legal-expert systems to legal analytics and, recently, a lot of machine-learning and text-processing techniques have been employed to analyze legal information. The research trends are the same in Japan as well and not only people involved with legal-expert systems, but also those involved with natural language processing as well as lawyers have become interested in AI and law. This report introduces the history of and the research activities on applying AI to the legal domain in Japan.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Jenish Dhanani ◽  
Rupa Mehta ◽  
Dipti Rana

Legal practitioners analyze relevant previous judgments to prepare favorable and advantageous arguments for an ongoing case. In Legal domain, recommender systems (RS) effectively identify and recommend referentially and/or semantically relevant judgments. Due to the availability of enormous amounts of judgments, RS needs to compute pairwise similarity scores for all unique judgment pairs in advance, aiming to minimize the recommendation response time. This practice introduces the scalability issue as the number of pairs to be computed increases quadratically with the number of judgments i.e., O (n2). However, there is a limited number of pairs consisting of strong relevance among the judgments. Therefore, it is insignificant to compute similarities for pairs consisting of trivial relevance between judgments. To address the scalability issue, this research proposes a graph clustering based novel Legal Document Recommendation System (LDRS) that forms clusters of referentially similar judgments and within those clusters find semantically relevant judgments. Hence, pairwise similarity scores are computed for each cluster to restrict search space within-cluster only instead of the entire corpus. Thus, the proposed LDRS severely reduces the number of similarity computations that enable large numbers of judgments to be handled. It exploits a highly scalable Louvain approach to cluster judgment citation network, and Doc2Vec to capture the semantic relevance among judgments within a cluster. The efficacy and efficiency of the proposed LDRS are evaluated and analyzed using the large real-life judgments of the Supreme Court of India. The experimental results demonstrate the encouraging performance of proposed LDRS in terms of Accuracy, F1-Scores, MCC Scores, and computational complexity, which validates the applicability for scalable recommender systems.


Author(s):  
Alain Klarsfeld ◽  
Gaëlle Cachat-Rosset

Equality is a concept open to many interpretations in the legal domain, with equality as equal treatment dominating the scene in the bureaucratic nation-state. But there are many possibilities offered by legal instruments to go beyond strict equality of treatment, in order to ensure equality of opportunity (a somehow nebulous concept) and equality of outcomes. Legislation can be sorted along a continuum, from the most discriminatory ones (“negative discrimination laws”) such as laws that prescribe prison sentences for people accused of being in same-sex relationships, to the most protective ones, labeled as “mandated outcome laws” (i.e., laws that prescribe quotas for designated groups) through “legal vacuum” (when laws neither discriminate nor protect), “restricted equal treatment” (when data collection by employers to monitor progress is forbidden or restricted), “equal treatment” (treating everyone the same with no consideration for outcomes), “encouraged progress” (when data collection to monitor progress on specific outcomes is mandatory for employers), and mandated progress (when goals have to be fixed and reached within a defined time frame on specified outcomes). Specific countries’ national legislation testify that some countries moved gradually along the continuum by introducing laws of increasing mandate, while (a few) others introduced outcome mandates directly and early on, as part of their core legal foundations. The public sector tends to be more protective than the private sector. A major hurdle in most countries is the enforcement of equality laws, mostly relying on individuals initiating litigation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document