Local Conflict, Global Impact: Lawfare in Warfare

This article reflects the authors individual perspectives and opinions. It does not constitute an official representation of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute. The content provided here is for educational and informational purposes only, and readers should be aware that it does not necessarily align with the official position of the institute. Readers are encouraged to independently verify information and seek guidance from appropriate academic authorities when necessary. The authors bear full responsibility for the content presented in this blog and any potential consequences resulting from it.

Written by: Dan Kuwali


Introduction

In today’s interconnected world, lawfare has become a significant tool in warfare, where local conflicts can lead to profound global consequences. As military actions increasingly intertwine with legal strategies, states leverage international law to gain legitimacy, undermine their opponents, and shape public opinion. This complex interplay illustrates how local disputes can escalate into broader geopolitical issues.

A rules based international order highlights the importance of international law in resolving conflicts and maintaining stability (jus ad pacem). However, the effects of lawfare extend beyond the battlefield, impacting humanitarian efforts, diplomatic relations, and the very foundations of international law. For instance, in the Russia’s war against Ukraine, international law has played a crucial role in framing narratives around sovereignty and territorial integrity, even in the face of misinformation that distorts public perception and hampers diplomatic efforts. Similarly, the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel demonstrates the role of international law, as both sides utilise legal arguments to justify their actions amid widespread disinformation campaigns.

The emergence of artificial intelligence(AI) and cyber warfare further complicates contemporary conflicts, allowing both state and non-state actors to exploit technology to manipulate information, disrupt communication, and evade accountability. As the international community navigates this evolving landscape, it is essential to recognisethat every conflict has the potential to reshape legal norms and affect international stability. To confront these challenges effectively, the global community must understand the implications of lawfare and develop strategies to ensure that the pursuit of international justice and a rule-based international order remains resilient.

Where Are We?

In the realm of contemporary strategic competition, the conventional dichotomy of winning versus losing has become increasingly obsolete. Today’s strategic landscape involves the nuanced application of various instruments without direct military engagement. Rather than engaging in overt armed conflict, adversaries often employ strategies that remain beneath the threshold of conventional war, such as the incremental approach known as Salami Slicing .” This shift has expanded the frontiers of conflict to include a broader array of strategic objectives intimately tied to political aims, fundamentally revolving around the concept of national power—the ability to shape others actions to achieve desired outcomes. In a high-stakes, volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world, maintaining superiority across multiple domains and employing integrated deterrence are not just critical, but the gravity of the strategic landscape. Cooperation among states is increasingly predicated on the ability to influence interests, while competition revolves around deterrence and access.

National power is wielded through various instruments, commonly categorised into diplomatic, informational, military, economic, and legal means. In strategic competition, States pursue activities that lie between routine statecraft and open warfare termed gray zone, defeating the linear approach to armed conflict. The grey zone is characterised by continuous engagement across this spectrum of tools beyond mere military measures. As global conflicts and geopolitical strategies become more intertwined, the concept of lawfare—strategically leveraging legal principles and systems to achieve military or political objectives—has become a pivotal element in understanding strategic competition and modern warfare. Lawfare has evolved significantly from its historical origins, reflecting a shift where legal arguments increasingly complement or even replace traditional military tactics.

Strategic competition and lawfare fundamentally reshape international norms governing state behaviour and the conduct of warfare. This discussion explores the operational mechanisms of lawfare in contemporary conflicts, its implications for international law—including human rights and global governance—and the transformative effects of cyber warfare and AI on this evolving field. The discussion emphasises the necessity for international law to adapt to new forms of conflict and proposes measures to strengthen international legal frameworks in response to the challenges of lawfare. Ultimately, lawfare should serve to resolve conflicts, not exacerbate them. In alignment with the principles of the Charter of United Nations, States should foster, rather than undermine, dialogue and negotiation forums to resolve disputes peacefully and avoid military confrontations.

Understanding Lawfare

Lawfare involves the strategic deployment of legal mechanisms to gain an advantage in conflicts, whether military, political, or otherwise. It entails leveraging legal norms, treaties, and courts to influence or disrupt an adversary’s actions. Historically, lawfare has evolved from traditional military strategies to encompass a broader array of legal approaches, reflecting the changing nature of warfare where legal arguments increasingly complement or substitute conventional military tactics.

For instance, during the colonial era, legal treaties were often used to justify territorial expansions and control over indigenous populations. In contemporary settings, international law is frequently employed to challenge or validate actions within strategic competition or conflict zones. Notable examples include the application of international humanitarian law to evaluate the legality of military operations and the use of international courts to adjudicate disputes arising from conflicts.

Mechanisms of Lawfare

Lawfare operates through various mechanisms that utilise legal frameworks to influence the course of conflicts. Key strategies include:

1. Strategic Litigation: States and non-state actors may use lawsuits to challenge opponents actions or seek legal redress, potentially hindering adversarial operations or gaining leverage in diplomatic negotiations.

2. International Law Claims: States may assert their rights under international treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, to justify their actions or condemn their adversaries. This includes invoking legal arguments to support claims of or critique the actions of other States.

3. Use of International Courts: Institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are often drawn into lawfare. States may strategically use these courts to legitimise their actions or undermine their opponents. For instance, a state may bring a case before the ICJ to challenge an adversary’s territorial claims or military actions.

Impact on Global Governance and Human Rights

Lawfare is reshaping international norms and state behaviour. It influences how states interpret and apply international law, thereby altering norms related to state behaviour and warfare. The justification for the use of force to protect populations from human rights abuses and dictatorships presents a tension between state sovereignty and international legal obligations, particularly in humanitarian intervention, highlighting the evolving nature of global governance.

The strategic use of legal frameworks in warfare raises significant human rights concerns. Governments may exploit legal norms to justify actions that suppress dissent or violate human rights. For example, anti-terrorism laws may be used to justify the suppression of political opposition or civil liberties. Furthermore, lawfare exposes weaknesses in supranational accountability mechanisms. Further, lawfare has exposed the weakness in supranational accountability Mechanisms. For instance, holding parties accountable for war crimes and human rights abuses through legal systems presents significant challenges. Institutions like the ICC face limitations in prosecuting powerful nations and leaders, often due to political and practical obstacles.

Impact on Conflict and Competition

The integration of legal and military strategies has transformed modern warfare dynamics. Lawfare introduces a dual layer of conflict, where legal arguments and public relations campaigns complement traditional military strategies. Lawfare presents a significant shift in warfare dynamics. The convergence of legal and military strategies alters both the conduct and perception of conflicts. Legal arguments are frequently used to shape international public opinion and justify actions taken in conflict zones. Further, lawfare has resulted into weaponisation of legal norms. In some conflicts, legal arguments have been employed to justify military operations or delegitimise opponents. For example, legal justifications for humanitarian intervention often involve complex legal and ethical considerations.

Cases of Lawfare in Action

Several recent conflicts highlight the prominent role of lawfare:

1. The conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Sudan : Lawfare has been employed through various strategies, including ICC prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity as well as genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, legal complaints filed by nongovernmental organisations and international bodies, and strategic litigation addressing land rights and displacement. These legal frameworks have influenced peace processes and exerted political pressure in these conflicts.

2. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Lawfare has been utilised through ICC investigations into war crimes, the imposition of international sanctions based on legal grounds, and cases brought against Russia before the ICJ for alleged violations of international law, including genocide. Legal frameworks are used to document abuses, advocate for accountability, and influence the conflicts dynamics.

3. The Syrian Conflict: The international debate over the use of chemical weapons in Syria has involved extensive arguments in international courts and forums, highlighting the challenge of holding perpetrators accountable under international law.

4. The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict : Legal arguments concerning alleged war crimes and territorial disputes have been central to this ongoing conflict, with the ICJ and ICC involved in investigating and adjudicating related claims.

5. Drone Strikes and targeted killings: The justification of drone strikes under international law involves complex arguments around state sovereignty, self-defence, and the principles of proportionality and distinction.

The Future of Lawfare

As technological advancements reshape the landscape of conflict, lawfare is also evolving. Cyber warfare and AI present new challenges and opportunities:

1. Cyber Operations : Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure and information systems complicate the application of traditional laws of war. The attribution of cyberattacks and the legal responses to these actions remain contentious issues.

2. AI in Legal Decision-Making: AI technologies can streamline legal processes and predict potential conflicts. However, the use of AI raises ethical and legal questions about decision-making and accountability in warfare.

3. Disinformation , misinformation, and Propaganda: The rapid spread of disinformation through cyber capabilities can undermine legal norms and manipulate public perception, complicating legal responses to information warfare.

4. Accountability and Enforcement: The anonymous nature of cyber operations and the cross-border nature of digital conflicts create challenges for legal enforcement and accountability.

What Should Be Done?

The United Nations (UN) was established to prevent future global conflicts, promote international cooperation, and protect human rights, addressing the failures of the League of Nations and the devastation of the Second World War. Its main goals include providing a forum for peaceful dispute resolution, fostering economic and social development, offering humanitarian aid, and stabilising post-war regions. While the means and methods of warfare have evolved, the core reasons for outlawing warfare in the UN Charter remain unchanged. However, the rise of lawfare in strategic competition and conflict has undermined the use of peaceful conflict resolution as outlined in the Charter.

International law provides essential guidelines for managing conflicts and fostering peace through principles such as jus ad bellum (the law governing the decision to go to war) and jus in bello (laws regulating the conduct of warfare). Nevertheless, the concept of jus ad pacem —the right to peace—is often overlooked despite its critical importance. Conflicts like those in the DRC and Libya, where international actors play significant roles, underscore the need for greater attention to jus ad pacem. The exploitation of conflict zones, particularly in Africa, where arms and ammunition are frequently dumped, highlights the urgency of employing lawfare to address the root causes of violence and promoting peaceful resolutions. Likewise, navigating strategic competition where African States are often used as pawns and proxy in games Global Powers play requires responsible use of lawfare.

While the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) upholds International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the UN Human Rights Council enforces International Human Rights Law (IHRL), there is a notable gap in efforts to incentivise and facilitate negotiations to prevent and resolve conflicts. The absence of a specialised institution dedicated to conflict-prevention and resolution has contributed to ongoing internecine wars and civilian abuses. The UN’s focus on jus ad bellum and the ICRC’s concentration on jus in bello may have overshadowed the development of jus ad pacem, a crucial link between these areas of law. Regional actors, such as the African Union (AU), could play a pivotal role in conflict resolution as they are closer to conflict zones. For example, the AU should consider establishing a dedicated body for ending wars on the continent, and while the AU Panel of the Wise could be well-suited for this task, it has yet to fully realise its potential for conflict resolution.

Conclusion

Lawfare represents a critical intersection of law and conflict in the modern era. As global conflicts increasingly involve both legal and military strategies, understanding lawfare is essential for navigating contemporary warfare. The rise of cyber warfare and AI further complicates this landscape, necessitating ongoing dialogue and reform in international legal frameworks. Addressing these challenges will require collaboration among states, international organisations, and civil society to ensure that legal principles are upheld in an increasingly complex global environment. By recognising and adapting to the evolving nature of lawfare, the international community can better manage conflicts andstrategic competition and uphold justice in an ever-changing world. Although the methods and means of warfare have evolved, the foundational reasons for prohibiting armed conflict, as outlined in the UN Charter, remain unchanged. Lawfare should be conducted within the framework established by the UN Charter. Lawfare should ultimately be employed to resolve, not exacerbate, conflicts.

Share with your friends
Scroll to top