[
Owens, M., Reflection on Future War, Naval War College Review 2008, p.61-76; Glenn, R., All Glory is Fleeting: Insights from the
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Second Lebanon War, RAND, Santa Monica 2012; Jordan l., Hybrid War: Is the US Army Ready for the Face of 21st Century Warfare, US Army Command and General Staff, 2008.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hezbollah proved to be a perfect example of NSA that employed Hybrid Tactics in its conflict with Israel in Southern Lebanon in July 2006; Hoffman, F.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Munich Security Conference Broadened the Hybrid Concept to Include Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic, Financial, Intelligence and Law Enforcement.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Moseley A., “Just War Theory”, in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2009. Available at: https://www.iep.utm.edu/justwar/.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hubert D. and Weiss Th., The Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Development Research Centre, Canada 2001.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kemp, G. The Shift from Jus Ad Bellum to Jus Contra Bellum: The Prohibition of the Use of Force in Normative and Institutional Perspective. In Individual Criminal Liability for the International Crime of Aggression, Intersentia Publication, 2015.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stahn, C. Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Jus post Bellum: Rethinking the Conception of the Law of Armed Force, European Journal of International Law, Volume 17, Issue 5, 1 November 2006.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kretzmer D., The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum, The European Journal of International Law 2013, Vol. 24.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
ICJ, Nicaragua v United States of America, Ibid, Reports 1986, p. 14, paras 174-179.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 22 May 1969.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), A/RES/3314, (UNGAR 3314), 14 December 1974.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Barkham J., Information Warfare and International Law on the Use of Force, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 2001.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hsiao A., Is China’s Policy to Use Force against Taiwan a violation of the Principle of Non-Use of Force under International Law, New England Law Review, 1998, Vol. 32.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Valek P., Is Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention Compatible with the UN. Charter, Michigan Journal of International Law, 2005, vol. 26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ruys T., The Meaning of Force and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum- Are “Minimal”, Uses of force excluded from UN Charter 2(4), The American Journal of International Law, 2014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Piper D., The General Problem of Defining Aggression: The Legal Control of the Use of Force and the Definition of Aggression, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1972, Vol. 2.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bou-Nader Ph., The Baltic States should adopt the Self-Defense Pinpricks Doctrine: the “accumulation of events” threshold as a deterrent to Russian Hybrid Warfare, Journal on Baltic Security 2018, vol.3.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bachmann Sascha-Dominik and Kemp G., Aggression as Organized Hypocrisy? – How the War on Terrorism and Hybrid Threats Challenge the Nuremberg Legacy, Windsor Y B Access Just 32012.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hogan J., The Future of War: Cyber-Attacks and Aggression in International Law, Portland State University 2019.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mendoza J., Cyber Attacks and the Legal Justification for an Armed Response, School of Advanced Military Studies, Kansas 2017
]Search in Google Scholar
