Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2021)


Hybrid Threats – Means of Destabilization of Law and Order in Modern Democratics Societes. Idea and Methodology of Proposed Research

DOI:  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2022-07-19


Threats are one of the most serious threats to the legal order of a democratic state. Their non-linear, asymmetric nature makes them more dangerous than other threats to the legal order. The use of multifaceted measures as a weapon disrupts, above all, the legal order of the state. Hybrid threats rely heavily on non-military domains. Civilian populations are central to the hybrid threat scenarios as sources for potential socio-political vulnerabilities and as targets for non-military threats and attacks, not least disinformation campaigns. A significant part of the hybrid threat phenomena is psychological. Actors targeting communities/societies to exacerbate weaknesses do not necessarily create social vulnerabilities themselves but make use of divisions that already exist in civil society. Using disinformation, populations are targeted and used as potential weapons within the state/society in question. This paper shows a concrete scientific approach to the study to of this issue.


  1. Bilgic, Ali. 2013. “Trust in world politics: converting «identity» into a source of security through trustlearning.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 68, no. 1:36–51. [Google Scholar]
  2. Choo, Kim-Kwang R. 2011. “The cyber threat landscape: Challenges and future research directions.” Computers & Security 30:719–31. [Google Scholar]
  3. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6):1241–299. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cusumano, Eugenio, and Marian Corbe, eds. 2017. A Civil-Military Response to Hybrid Threats. London–New York–Shanghai: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fuchs, Christian. 2017. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. 2nd edition. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gashi, Bejtush, and Ejup Maqedonci. 2017. “Hybrid Threats – Global Challenge of Modern Times.” Polemos 20, no. 1–2:91–102. [Google Scholar]
  7. Giegerich, Bastian. 2016. “Hybrid Warfare and the Changing Character of Conflict.” Connections: The Quarterly Journal 15, no. 2:65–72. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hoogensen, Gjørv, G. 2014. Understanding Civil-Military Interaction:Lessons Learned from the Norwegian Model. Military Strategy and Operational Art series. London: Ashgate Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  9. Major, Claudia, and Christian Mölling. 2015. “A Hybrid Security Policy for Europe: Resilience, Deterrence, and Defence as Leitmotifs.” Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik 22:1–4. [Google Scholar]
  10. Marfelt, Mikkel M. 2016. “Grounded Intersectionality: Key Tensions, a Methodological Framework, and Implications for Diversity Research.” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion 35, no.1:31–47. [Google Scholar]
  11. O’Loughlin, Ben. 2015. “The permanent campaign.” Media, War & Conflict 8, no. 2:169–71. [Google Scholar]
  12. Parashar, Swati. 2016. “(En)Gendering the Maoist Insurgency in India: Between Rhetoric and Reality.” Postcolonial Studies 19, no. 4:445–62. [Google Scholar]
  13. Reichborn–Kjennerud, Erik, and Patrick Cullen. 2016. What is Hybrid Warfare? Policy Brief. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. [Google Scholar]
  14. Roell, Peter. 2016. “Migration – A New Form of «Hybrid Warfare»?” ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defence and International Security 422:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  15. Shea, Jamie. 2016. “Resilience: a core element of collective defence.” NATO Review, 30.03.16. [accessed: 19.11.2021]. [Google Scholar]


Download data is not yet available.