ARRCADE FUSION 17
Trident Juncture 16 was my fifth exercise with the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC). This year, the ARRC returned to RAF St Mawgan, just outside of Newquay in Cornwall. The purpose of the exercise was to evaluate NATO Joint Force Command HQ in Naples before it assumes the role of the headquarters for NATO’s Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) in 2017. The exercise was also designed to certify that the ARRC is ready to assume the role of the Land Component Command of the VJTF next year.
At the end of April, I spent a few days time in Warsaw attending the EUCOM/SHAPE international legal conference. The theme this year was 'The Legal Aspects of the National Security Response to Russian Aggression'. My presentation explored the topic of 'Lawfare on the Home Front'.
This year's ARRC legal conference (ARRCADE BRIEF 2015) focused on the legal challenges presented by hybrid warfare threats. The confernece built on the workshop on hybrid warfare I convened in collaboration with the ARRC in Exeter in September 2015, as well as the lessons learned during exercise ARRCADE FUSION 2015. Read on for a summary of the event by the ARRC public affairs team.
I have spent some time in Latvia with the ARRC on its annual exercise, ARRCADE FUSION 15. The exercise was designed to tests the ARRC's 'ability to control simulated troop formations within a challenging and dynamic fictional scenarios'. Make sure you watch the video about the exercise.
The University of Exeter’s Strategy and Security Institute hosted a high-level workshop on 16–17 September 2015 to examine the legal implications of ‘hybrid warfare’. The event, convened in collaboration with the NATO Office of Legal Affairs and the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, brought together senior legal advisors and experts from across the UK and
The subject of hybrid warfare – a strategy which blends conventional and irregular means of warfare – has attracted considerable attention in recent years. While the concept and its practical implications remain the subject of debate, it is clear that legal considerations and arguments play an important element of hybrid conflict. However, so far the legal aspects of hybrid warfare have received only limited attention. To address this gap, I had the pleasure of convening an expert workshop at the Strategy and Security Institute of the University of Exetetr in collaboration with the NATO Office of Legal Affairs and the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. The workshop brought together senior legal advisors and experts from across the UK and NATO in an effort to deepen our understanding of the subject and set the direction for future work. I intend to take forward some of this work in the context of a research project on the legal aspects of hybrid warfare.
For a couple of years, I have contributed to the NATO Legal Advisors Course at NATO School Oberammergau. In the past, I spoke about the European Union's practice in the field of status of forces agreements and the application of the rules of international responsibility to NATO. This year, my brief was to place the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 into its broader context by providing an overview of the legal framework governing the status of foreign armed forces in international law. In doing so, my aim was to dispell two persisent myths: first, that the so-called 'law of the flag' principle represents the traditional position of international law in this area and, second, that in the absence of status of forces agreements, soldiers enjoy the same legal position as tourists. In this post, I briefly explain why both of these assumptions are wrong.
In this short contribution to the NATO Legal Gazette, I examine the impact the NATO SOFA has had over the past six decades, in particular its possible contribution to the formation of rules of customary international law.
Conference on 'Partners, Cooperation and Ad Hoc Relations'