Brick0302 ....
Please make use of the Hail & Farewell forum (and your User Profile) to introduce yourself. It provides context for those reading your posts.
With respect to this thread (without getting into the merits of using the term "hybrid" militarily), I think it's important to distinguish between the words "war" (an armed conflict) and "warfare" (how that armed conflict is conducted). That distinction applies both legally (on that, I'm on firm ground) and militarily (on which, I've placed reliance on the opinions of others - such as Wilf).
From a legal standpoint, there is no such thing as a "hybrid war" - you either have a "war" (defined in Hague terms), or an "armed conflict" (defined in Geneva terms, which are broader than Hague), or you do not.
Legally, one might speak in terms of "hybrid warfare"; that is warfare involving state and non-state actors; or warfare involving regular combatants and irregular combatants; or warfare involving the political struggle and the military struggle (common to all warfare, except perhaps the ultimate state of "absolute war" in CvC's theoretical sense). However, using that term in any particular context is meaningless unless the context is particularly defined. In which case, you probably do not need the term.
PS: I originally said that Geneva's terms are "slightly broader" than Hague. That is true for state on state armed conflicts. However, Geneva (via Common Articles 2 & 3) introduced the concept of "Powers" to armed conflicts which are not nation-states. Since most conflicts since 1990 have involved at least one non-state actor ("powers" not signatory to Geneva), Geneva in that respect is infinitely broader than Hague.
Bookmarks