External Communication in Social Media During Asymmetric Conflicts

Social media increasingly shapes the way in which we perceive conflicts and conflict parties abroad. Conflict parties, therefore, have started using social media strategically to influence public opinion abroad. This book explores the phenomenon by examining, (1) which strategies of external communication conflict parties use during asymmetric conflicts and (2) what shapes the selection of these communication strategies. In a comprehensive case study of the conflict in Israel and Palestine, Bernd Hirschberger shows that the selection of strategies of external communication is shaped by the (asymmetric) conflict structure.

The Temporal Scope of the Laws of Armed Conflict in Multinational Military Operations

The chapter explores the temporal scope of the law of armed conflict in multinational military operations. In particular, it is discussed under which conditions armed conflicts begin and terminate as a matter of international humanitarian law (IHL). Asymmetric conflict structures, fluctuating levels of violence, and the involvement of a multitude of state and non-state actors who enter and leave the battlefield at different stages during the hostilities make it especially difficult to determine the end of an armed conflict. Often, periods of intense fighting alternate with periods of relative calm. It is therefore argued that two requirements should be satisfied before an armed conflict within the meaning of IHL ought to be considered over: the situation must fall below a certain qualitative threshold separating the armed conflict from the post-conflict phase; and the threshold must be crossed with a degree of stability and permanence.

Asymmetric Actors in Asymmetric Conflicts

The chapter provides an analysis of the various dimensions and implications of asymmetry in armed conflicts. Multinational military operations are typically—albeit not necessarily—made up of states with significant military capabilities, and they often operate in asymmetric contexts. Against this backdrop, the author differentiates between legal, factual, and methodological asymmetries. On this basis, he identifies areas in which asymmetric conflict structures pose significant problems in the context of multinational military operations. In doing so and in view of actors such as the Islamic State that deliberately disrespect even the most fundamental rules of IHL, the author also explores the limits of such approaches. Nevertheless, he argues that for a multinational military, there is a strong strategic (policy) incentive to adhere to and implement all feasible precautions and human rights law.

Why Minor Powers Risk Wars with Major Powers

Major powers have immense resources at their disposal, while minor powers are assumed to avoid wars and power politics due to structural and material constraints. This provokes the question why do some minor powers nonetheless decide to militarily engage their vastly stronger opponents, particularly major powers? Inspired by several theoretical insights, this book proposes a more complex framework of minor powers in interstate asymmetric conflict. It analyses five conditions highlighted by previous studies: domestic crisis, foreign support, window of opportunity, anomalous beliefs, and regime stability. The theoretical framework works well with a mixed-methods approach, a medium-N research design (Qualitative Comparative Analysis), and three case studies: Iraq (1990), Moldova (1992), and Serbia (1999). The book finds that by looking through the lenses of multiple theories, one can observe a more nuanced relationship how different conditions interact in impacting minor powers’ decisions. Ultimately, minor powers militarily engage major powers when facing a more important domestic crisis and when they also believe that they have a window of opportunity or support from another major power in order to constrain major powers’ capability and resolve. Looking at the current conflict in Syria, there are important policy implications given the observation that minor powers do and will continue to challenge major powers in the future.