The Double-Edged Sword: Legitimising and De-Legitimising Power of Human Rights in a Hybrid Conflict

The paper explores the dual role of human rights in the context of hybrid conflicts, focusing on the Russian-Ukrainian war. Human rights, often regarded as a universal standard for justice, have become a potent tool both for legitimising and de-legitimising state power. In the hybrid warfare phase of the Russian-Ukrainian war, human rights were strategically employed by both sides to shape international and domestic narratives. Russia leveraged allegations of human rights abuses to delegitimise the Ukrainian government and justify its own actions, framing its intervention as a response to the alleged mistreatment of Russian-speaking populations. In response, the Ukrainian government had to demonstrate a commitment to protecting human rights, carefully managing the complex landscape of wartime governance while balancing military imperatives with legal and ethical obligations. Using text analysis methods, the study evaluates official statements and policy documents to uncover the rhetorical strategies employed by both sides. Through a case study, this paper critically examines how human rights discourse became a double-edged sword, influencing the power dynamics and legitimacy struggles in a hybrid conflict context. Rather than serving solely as a moral compass or a mechanism for accountability, human rights rhetoric was instrumentalised to bolster competing narratives of legitimacy and illegitimacy. The analysis delves into how this strategic manipulation of human rights influenced power dynamics, shaped international and domestic narratives, and ultimately impacted the conduct and perception of the war. By exploring the interplay between human rights, legitimacy, and hybrid warfare, the paper provides insights into the complexities of using a universalist framework in deeply polarised and contested geopolitical conflicts.