The Rising Threat of Lawfare: When the Law Becomes a Weapon of War

Introduction

We now live in a world where war is no longer waged solely with weapons but also with words, narratives, and legal filings. “Lawfare”, a term coined by U.S. Air Force Colonel Charles J. Dunlap Jr., has emerged as one of the most potent tools of modern conflict. It refers to the exploitation of legal systems and principles to achieve strategic military or political objectives. This concept, which was once obscure, has gained significant attention, especially in geopolitical disputes where the courtroom is now the new battlefield.

The phenomenon of lawfare reveals both the strength and fragile nature of international legal institutions. On one hand, it offers the promise of holding violators responsible by legal means. On the other, its misuse could damage the credibility of the judiciary, possibly transforming the law from a protective shield into a weapon. The essence of this article is the duality of law in the context of modern conflicts. By analyzing recent case studies and the moral dilemmas they present, it ultimately argues that unchecked legal manipulation risks delegitimizing the very institutions that were meant for global peace and justice.

Understanding Lawfare: Origins and Evolution

Lawfare is broadly defined as “the strategy of using—or misusing—law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve operational objectives”.¹ It involves the deliberate use of legal tools—such as international court proceedings, human rights accusations, or treaty manipulation—as instruments of war or deterrence.

Not all lawfare, however, is done with malicious intent or has negative outcomes. For instance, a positive situation occurs when the survivors of war crimes seek justice at an international tribunal. In contrast, a negative case arises when countries or actors resort to legal proceedings and the main purpose is not to achieve justice but to intimidate or slander the rival. Distinguishing these two situations is of the utmost significance, as lawfare is not inherently unlawful—it is the intention and context that determine its legitimacy.

Case Studies of Lawfare in Action

Russia and Ukraine

Following its 2014 annexation of Crimea, Russia put forward the argument of “self determination” and historical claims to justify its actions—claims dismissed by the international community. In response, Ukraine started a lawfare campaign by bringing several legal proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC).

Ukraine alleged that Russia violated the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.² This legal battle continues to frame the broader war in a moral and legal context, which helps Ukraine gain sympathy and soft power even when it is outmatched militarily.

Israel-Palestine

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is another textbook case of lawfare. In 2015, Palestine became one of the parties to the Rome Statute and was granted access to the ICC, subsequently an investigation was opened into alleged war crimes committed by Israel.³ Critics argue that this move was less about justice and more about internationalizing the conflict to pressure Israel.

Israel, in turn, has framed these legal actions as a form of delinquency, contending that they are using international legal mechanisms to initiate a partisan conflict. Whether viewed as a pursuit of justice or as manipulative lawfare, the legal theater plays a central role in shaping global narratives around this conflict.

Sudan and Omar al-Bashir

A watershed moment in international criminal law occurred when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was indicted by the ICC in 2009.⁴ However, it also sparked accusations of selective prosecution. The African Union (AU), in particular, dismissed the warrant as neo-colonial lawfare, reasoning that the ICC had unfairly singled out African leaders for indictment.⁵

This resistance represents a form of counter-lawfare—where regional blocs contest the legitimacy of international legal action, which is seen as biased. It raises complex questions: When is international law a tool of justice, and when is it a tool of political domination?

Legal and Ethical Challenges of Lawfare

The strategic use of law in warfare raises significant legal and ethical dilemmas. One of the primary issues is the decline of legitimacy. When international law is used and perceived as a political instrument, its credibility is compromised. In such cases, institutions like the ICC run the risk of being viewed as battlegrounds for global power plays rather than impartial tribunals.

Lawfare also threatens the principle of neutrality. When actors cherry-pick legal cases or delay prosecutions for strategic reasons, the equal application of the law is undermined. This selective justice delegitimizes victims’ claims and can also embolden perpetrators who believe they can escape accountability by utilizing legal loopholes.

Moreover, lawfare can prolong conflicts. Legal maneuvers that appear performative or punitive often entrench positions, which makes diplomatic resolutions more difficult. For example, legal indictments issued mid-conflict can make warring parties less likely to negotiate for fear of prosecution post-peace.⁶

Finally, lawfare risks the disproportionate targeting of weaker states. Geopolitical influence frequently causes powerful countries to avoid scrutiny, while smaller or non-Western states face full legal consequences. This imbalance not only deepens global inequality but also reinforces skepticism about whether international law is truly universal.

The Way Forward: Reclaiming Legal Integrity

To prevent lawfare from undermining the foundations of international justice, reform and vigilance are essential. First, legal institutions must reaffirm their independence and impartiality. International courts should be shielded from political interference, with transparent selection processes and balanced geographic representation.

Second, there must be equal access and consistent enforcement of legal norms. The same standards applied to Sudan or Palestine must also apply to the U.S., China, or Russia. No state should be above international law.

Third, academic and policy discourse must include critical evaluations of lawfare. Legal scholars and diplomats should distinguish between legitimate legal advocacy and manipulative legal strategy, and create legal doctrines to prevent abuse.⁷

Ultimately, reform efforts should focus on redefining legal ethics in global governance. This includes developing mechanisms to assess the intent behind legal actions and measures to address misuse—akin to sanctions for frivolous lawsuits in domestic law.

Conclusion

Lawfare symbolizes both the power and peril of legal tools in contemporary global conflict. It illustrates how law can serve justice—or be twisted to perpetuate injustice. While its strategic use is not inherently unlawful, its ethical misuse demands immediate attention.

The integrity of international law depends on a collective commitment to fairness, consistency, and impartiality. In the face of growing geopolitical tensions and strategic litigation, the world must not allow the weaponization of law in times of war. Instead, we must reclaim it as the pursuit of peace, accountability, and truth.

Reference(S):

¹ Charles J Dunlap Jr, ‘Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Century Conflicts’ (Harvard University Carr Center, 2001).

² International Court of Justice, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Preliminary Objections) [2023] ICJ Rep.

³ International Criminal Court, ‘Situation in Palestine’ (ICC, 2021).

⁴ International Criminal Court, The Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir (Warrant of Arrest) ICC-02/05- 01/09, 4 March 2009.

⁵ African Union, ‘Decision on the Meeting of African States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)’ (AU, 2009) Doc Assembly/AU/Dec.245(XIII).

⁶ Noah Weisbord, The Crime of Aggression: The Quest for Justice in an Age of Drones, Cyber Attacks, Insurgents, and Autocrats (Princeton University Press 2019).

⁷ William A Schabas, Unimaginable Atrocities: Justice, Politics, and Rights at the War Crimes Tribunals (OUP 2012).