Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution
We will begin with a discussion about how the hybrid warfare context is different from other conflict contexts. We will describe some complexity aspects that make hybrid warfare challenging to negotiators. We will then discuss whether classical negotiation theory prescriptions apply to a hybrid warfare context, especially regarding interests. We will argue that these prescriptions related to classical negotiations are unlikely to work in this context. We will focus our analysis on a subset of hybrid warfare attacks, consisting of short-term, time-sensitive, high-risk crises, where negotiations are possible and necessary, such as ransom demands, rather than on hybrid warfare situations which state actors, diplomats, or security professionals are called to manage.5 We will explore how negotiators can better deal with such negotiable crises. We note that such events are likely part of a broader hybrid warfare strategy, and therefore their negotiated conclusion is not the same as the end of hybrid warfare hostilities. Nevertheless, the costs and risks to human life make engagement necessary. We will conclude with suggestions about how negotiators might handle such hybrid warfare crisis situations and that most classical interest-based advice does not help. We hope that our thoughts on how individual negotiators can approach hybrid warfare will contribute to a growing understanding of how to defend our interests in this complex environment.
Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Cynthia Alkon & Sanda Kaufman,
A Theory of Interests in the Context of Hybrid Warfare: It's Complex,
Cardozo J. Conflict Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1893