Page 35 - Coespu 2020-1

Figure 1. Number of armed conflicts by type of conflict, 1946-2017. Sources: Peace Research Institute Oslo
(PRIO), Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP)
conflicts in the early 1990s” ; as academic efforts, is struggling (i) Pervasive. Contempo-
2. The predominant form of to come up with a common fra- rary conflicts may impact dif-
conflict is intrastate rather than in- mework of understanding. Al- ferent dimensions of society
terstate, and the level of internatio- though there is no consensus (security, economy, politics, cul-
nalization is extraordinarily high. over a shared definition yet, a ture, etc.) and different ac-
Externals actors intervene and wide terminology has been deve- tors (i.e. public and private);
their intervention increases both loped such as asymmetric warfa- (ii) Diffused. They not only
conflict duration and lethality ; re, irregular warfare, open sour- blur national boundaries, but also
3. State-based violence re- ce warfare and hybrid warfare . temporal and sociocultural ones;
mains high and “the past six years (iii) De-localised. They take
have all recorded higher levels of The “hybrid” connotation of con- place, at multiple levels, in different
non-state violence than any other flict appears to be particularly su- areas of the world, and are waged
year since 1989 (…) The better ited for reading the above-men- by different actors with different we-
part of this surge in non-state vio- tioned changes, because it is apons (i.e. hard and soft powers);
lence is due to the many interre- intrinsically based on adaptation. (iv) Interconnected. Although
bel conflicts in Syria, intercartel In fact, this term, that was ini- an event occurs within a defined
violence in Mexico, and commu- tially used to describe innovative context, the effects it produces may
nal conflicts in Nigeria, mainly strategies and tactics applied by have repercussions far beyond the
along farmer–herder lines” . both State and non-State actors mere boundaries of that context .
(i.e. Russia and Hezbollah) , has
These trends reflect an under- been adopted and expanded by As a “new” actor of these “new”
lying and ongoing evolution NATO and the EU to define “hy- conflicts, Daesh has for instance
in the nature of today’s confli- brid threats” as adaptive, uncon- masterfully interpreted the evol-
cts , in which unconventiona- ventional and multidimensional . ving scenario and its experience
lity is growing in importance. Further analysis allows for the could offer some lessons to learn
The international community, possibility to identify specific fe- from. It is active in several coun-
through military doctrines as well atures of the “hybrid warfare”: tries of the world from America

35