Lawfare and International Humanitarian Law: A shift in the war experience for Western democracies

Abstract

Apart from offering a review on lawfare, this article considers situations where one less-law-abiding actor – namely, a non-state actor – uses the International Humanitarian Law (IHL)’s compliance of its opponent to obtain leverage on the battlefield. Using the United States (US) as an example, it appears that IHL’s compliance is yet not to be subjugated by the pursuit of military interests. Broadening the analysis to NATO nations due to the similarity of their IHL’s conceptualization and political proximity, it defends that IHL shall remain respected by these states as disregarding it would be a treason of their political regime and the moral grounding binding governments with their populations.

Notes

1 Marco Sassòli, Antoine Bouvier and Anne Quintin, “L’évolution historique du droit international humanitaire,” in Un droit dans la guerre?, 2nd ed. (Genève: Comité international de la Croix-Rouge, 2012), 1.

2 Steven Metz and Phillip Cuccia, “2010 SSI Annual Strategy Conference Report: Defining War for the 21^st Century” (2010 Strategic Studies Institute Annual Strategy Conference Report), US Army War College | Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle, PA (2011), 23, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2011/ssi_metz-cuccia.pdf.

3 “The Laws of War,” The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library in memory of Sol Goldman, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp.

4 “Instruction for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code). 24 April 1863,” IHL Databases International Humanitarian Law Databases, International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/110.

5 “Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight. Saint Petersburg, 29 November / 11 December 1868,” IHL Databases International Humanitarian Law Databases, International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/declaration1868.

6 Lawrence Freedman, The Future of War: A History (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2017), 27.

7 “The Laws of War,” The Avalon Project.

8 “Development of modern international law,” International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC, https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/who-we-are/history/since-1945/history-ihl/overview-development-modern-international-humanitarian-law.htm.

9 Ibid.

10 Gregory P. Noone, “The History and Evolution of the Law of War Prior to World War II,” Naval Law Review 47 (2000): 176.

11 Ibid.

12 Sassòli, Bouvier and Quintin, “Notion, objectif et problématique du droit international humanitaire,” 1.

13 Richard R. Baxter, “The Role of Law in Modern War,” American Society of International Law Proceedings 47 (1953): 91.

14 Margaret MacMilan, “‘War: How Conflict Shaped Us,’ by Margaret MacMillan: An Excerpt,” New York Times, October 6, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/books/review/war-how-conflict-shaped-us-by-margaret-macmillan-an-excerpt.html.

15 Andreas Paulus and Mindia Vashakmadze, “Asymmetrical war and the notion of armed conflict - a tentative conceptualization,” International Review of the Red Cross 91, no. 873 (2009): 97, doi: 10.1017/S181638310999018X.

16 “Panic, fear and stoicism in Ukraine as Russia invades,” Al Jazeera, February 24, 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/ukrainian-civilians-react-as-russian-forces-invade.

17 Kendra Dupuy & Siri Aas Rustad, “Trends in Armed Conflict, 1946-2017” (no. 05-2018, Peace Research Institute Oslo, Oslo, Sweden. 2018), 2, https://reliefweb.int/report/world/trends-armed-conflict-1946-2017>.

18 “Conflicts,” RULAC: Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts, Geneva Academy, https://www.rulac.org/browse/conflicts.

19 Evan J. Wallach, “The Law of War in the 21st Century: A Lecture Presented by the Honorable Evan J. Wallach to the Federal Circuit Historical Society, October 22, 2019,” Journal of the Federal Circuit Historical Society 13 (2019): 22.

20 Noone, The History and Evolution of the Law of War Prior to World War II,” 176.

21 Orde F. Kittrie, Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 11.

22 Matthew J. Aiesi, “Part II: Combating Enemy Lawfare on the Battlefield,” The Army Lawyer, no. 2 (2023): 25.

23 Hans-Peter Gasser, “Le droit international humanitaire et la protection des victimes de la guerre,” Comité international de la Croix-Rouge, last modified November 1998, https://www.icrc.org/fr/doc/resources/documents/misc/5fzfn6.htm.

24 Aiesi, “Part II: Combating Enemy Lawfare on the Battlefield,” 26.

25 Ibid.

26 Nigel D White, Democracy goes to war: British military deployments under international law (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press), 269.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid, 270.

29 Ibid, 295.

30 Kelly D. Wheaton, “Strategic Lawyering: Realizing the Potential of Military Lawyers at the Strategic Level,” The Army Lawyer 1, no. 9 (2006): 7.

31 Jill I. Goldenziel, “Information Lawfare: Messaging and the Moral High Ground,” Journal of National Security Law & Policy 12, no. 2 (2022): 233.

32 David Kilcullen, “The Evolution of Unconventional Warfare,” Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies 2, no. 1 (2019): 68, doi: 10.31374/sjms.35.

33 RULAC: Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts.

34 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 11.

35 Amnon Rubinstein and Yaniv Roznai, “Human Shields in Modern Armed Conflicts: The Need for a Proportionate Proportionality,” Stanford Law & Policy Review 22, no. 1 (2011): 93.

36 Ibid, 95.

37 Plato, The Republic, trans. Benjamin Jowett (independently published, 2021), 40.

38 Jon Miller, “Hugo Grotius,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, last modified January 8, 2021, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grotius/#NatuLaw.

39 “What are jus ad bellum and jus in bello,” International Committee of The Red Cross, last modified January 15, 2015, https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0.

40 Miller, “Hugo Grotius.”

41 Sassòli, Bouvier and Quintin, “Notion, objectif et problématique du droit international humanitaire,” 1.

42 Miller, “Hugo Grotius.”

43 Ibid.

44 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 11.

45 Ibid.

46 Peter M. Olson, “A NATO perspective on applicability and application of IHL to multinational forces,” International Review of the Red Cross 95, no. 891-92 (2013): 653-54.

47 “NATO renews pledge to strengthen training on International Humanitarian Law,” NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, last modified December 17, 2019, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_172070.htm?selectedLocale=en (accessed January 3, 2024).

48 Olson, “A NATO perspective on applicability and application of IHL to multinational forces,” 654-55.

49 John Carlson and Neville Yeomans, “Whither goeth the law – Humanity or Barbarity,” Laceweb, last modified December, 2013, http://www.laceweb.org.au/whi.htm.

50 Ibid.

51 Charles J. Dunlap Jr., “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts” (paper presented at the Humanitarian Challenges in Military Intervention Conference at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy Kennedy at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Washington D.C., 29 November 2001).

52 Ibid, 4.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Charles J. Dunlap Jr., “Lawfare Today: A Perspective,” Yale Journal of International Affairs 3, no. 1 (2008): 146.

56 Charles J. Dunlap Jr., “Lawfare Today… and Tomorrow,” International Law Studies 87 (2011): 315.

57 Charles J. Dunlap Jr., “Yes, there is a consensus that ‘lawfare’ exists… But America still needs a strategy for it,” Lawfire, September 23, 2021, https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2021/09/23/yes-there-is-consensus-that-lawfare-exists-but-america-still-needs-a-strategy-for-it/.

58 Jill I. Goldenziel, “Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare,” Cornell Law Review 106, no. 5 (2021): 1094-95.

59 Dunlap, “Lawfare Today… and Tomorrow,” 315.

60 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War.

61 Ibid, 21.

62 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 8.

63 Ibid, 11.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid.

67 Goldenziel, “Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare.” .

68 Ibid, 1091.

69 Ibid, 1099.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid, 1100.

75 Ibid, 1087.

76 Michael Dressler, “Lawfare: Both an Existential Threat to the International Rule of Law and an Indispensable Tool of American Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century,” Penn State Law Review, last modified March 6, 2021, https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/the-forum/lawfare-both-an-existential-threat-to-the-international-rule-of-law-and-an-indispensable-tool-of-american-foreign-policy-in-the-twenty-first-century/.

77 Anne Hsiu-An Hsiao, “China and the South China Sea ‘Lawfare’,” Issues & Studies 52, no. 2 (2016): 20-21, doi: 10.1142/S1013251116500089.

78 Louis-Benoit Lafontaine, “The Space Occupied by International Law in the Dynamics of Sino-American Competition,” Network for Strategic Analysis, February 4, 2022, https://ras-nsa.ca/the-space-occupied-by-international-law-in-the-dynamics-of-sino-american-competition/.

79 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 163.

80 Stefan Halper, “China: The Three Warfares” (2013), 431, https://cryptome.org/2014/06/prc-three-wars.pdf.

81 Ibid.

82 Doug Livermore, “China’s ‘Three Warfares’ In Theory and Practice in the South China Sea,” Georgetown Security Studies Review, March 25, 2018, https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2018/03/25/chinas-three-warfares-in-theory-and-practice-in-the-south-china-sea/.

83 Dressler, “Lawfare: Both an Existential Threat to the International Rule of Law and an Indispensable Tool of American Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century.”.

84 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 162.

85 Carine Monteiro da Silva, “ThucyBlog n° 232 – Le droit comme arme de guerre : quelques distinctions entre les concepts américain (lawfare) et chinois (guerre du droit),” Centre Thucydide, July 7, 2022, https://www.afri-ct.org/2022/thucyblog-n-232-le-droit-comme-arme-de-guerre-quelques-distinctions-entre-les-concepts-americain-lawfare-et-chinois-guerre-du-droit/.

86 Robert D. Williams, “International Law with Chinese Characteristics: Beijing and the ‘Rules-Based’ Global Order” (The Brookings Institution, 2020), 4-5, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FP_20201012_international_law_china_williams.pdf.

87 Elsa B. Kania, “‘AI Weapons’ in Chinese Military innovation” (The Brookings Institution, 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/FP_20200427_ai_weapons_kania.pdf; Elsa B. Kania, “China’s Strategic Ambiguity and Shifting Approach to Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems,” Lawfare Blog, April 17, 2018, https://www.lawfareblog.com/chinas-strategic-ambiguity-and-shifting-approach-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems.

88 Goldenziel, “Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare,” 1141.

89 Ibid.

90 Mark Voyger, “Russian Lawfare – Russia’s Weaponisation of International Law And Domestic Law: Implications For The Region And Policy Recommendations,” Journal on Baltic Security 4, no. 2 (2018): 2, doi: 10.2478/jobs-2018-0011.

91 Ibid, 3.

92 Ibid, 2-3.

93 Ibid, 3.

94 Malcom Jorgensen, “The Weaponisation of International Law in Ukraine,” Völkerrechtsblog: International Law & International Legal Thought, March 15, 2022, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-weaponisation-of-international-law-in-ukraine/.

95 Dunlap, “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts.”.

96 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War,11.

97 Malcom N. Shaw, International Law, 9 ed, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 202), 38-39.

98 Heike Krieger, “International Law and Governance by Armed Groups: Caught in the Legitimacy Trap?,” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 12, no. 4 (2018): 564, doi: 10.1080/17502977.2018.1504489.

99 Zakaria Daboné “International law: armed groups in a state-centric system,” International Review of the Red Cross 93, no. 882 (2011): 409, doi:10.1017/S1816383112000057.

100 Shaw, International Law, 9-10.

101 Ibid.

102 Brian Z. Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 129.

103 Miro Cerar, “The Relationship between Law and Politics,” Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law 15, no. 1 (2009): 23.

104 Ibid.

105 Dunlap, “Yes, there is a consensus that ‘lawfare’ exists… But America still needs a strategy for it.”

106 Dale Stephens, “The Age of Lawfare,” International Law Studies 87, (2011): 327.

107 Michael Scharf and Elizabeth Andersen, “Is Lawfare Worth Defining - Report of the Cleveland Experts Meeting - September 11, 2010,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1-2 (2010): 12.

108 Dunlap, “Lawfare Today: A Perspective,”146; Charles J. Dunlap Jr., “Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” Joint Force Quarterly, no. 54 (2009): 35.

109 Dunlap, “Lawfare Today: A Perspective,” 146.

110 Dunlap, “Lawfare Today… and Tomorrow,” 315.

111 Goldenziel, “Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare,” 1094.

112 Cristiano Zanin Martins, Valeska Teixeira Zanin Martins and Rafael Valim, Lawfare: waging war through law (New York: Routledge, 2022).

113 Ibid, 8.

114 Ibid.

115 Leila Nadya Sadat and Jing Geng, “On Legal Subterfuge and the So-Called Lawfare Debate,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 153 (2010): 161.

116 Joel P. Trachtman, “Integrating Lawfare and Warfare,” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 39, no. 2 (2016): 269.

117 Paul R. Williams, “Lawfare: A War Worth Fighting,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 145.

118 Ryder McKeown, “The Power and Perils of International Law: A Review Essay on Lawfare, Constructivism and International Lawpower,” International Politics Reviews 5, no. 2 (2017): 108, doi:10.1057/s41312-017-0036-2.

119 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 8.

120 Goldenziel, “Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare,” 1098.

121 Dunlap, “Lawfare Today: A Perspective,” 146; Dunlap, Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” 35; Dunlap, “Lawfare Today… and Tomorrow,” 315.

122 Dunlap, “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts,” 4.

123 Michael A. Newton, “Illustrating Illegitimate Lawfare,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 256.

124 Ibid.

125 Scott Horton, “The Dangers of Lawfare,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 168.

126 Alex Macleod & Philippe Bonditti, Relations internationales: théories et concepts, 4^th ed (Outremont: Athena Éditions, 2019), 341-46.

127 Horton, “The Dangers of Lawfare,” 167.

128 Ibid, 168.

129 Ibid.

130 Melissa A. Waters, “Lawfare in the War on Terrorism: A Reclamation Project,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 332.

131 David Scheffer, “Whose Lawfare Is It, Anyway,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 220.

132 Scheffer, “Whose Lawfare Is It, Anyway,” 226-227.

133 Horton, “The Dangers of Lawfare,” 178.

134 Alexander Orakhelashvili, The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 285.

135 Ibid, 286.

136 Ibid.

137 David Kennedy, “Lawfare and Warfare” in The Cambridge Companion to International Law, eds. James Crawford and Martti Koskenniemi (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2015), 167.

138 Jamie A. Williamson, “The Knight's Code, Not His Lance,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 447.

139 Ibid, 448.

140 Stephens, “The Age of Lawfare,” 327.

141 Kittrie, Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, 11; Goldenziel, “Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare,” 1099.

142 Adrien Schu, “Lawfare : critique d’un concept défaillant,” Raisons Politiques 1, no. 85: 48-49.

143 Ibid.

144 “Instrumentalize,” Lexico, https://www.lexico.com/definition/instrumentalize.

145 Susan W. Tiefenbrun, “Semiotic Definition of Lawfare,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 51.

146 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 8.

147 Dunlap, “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts,” 4.

148 Kittrie, Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, 11.

149 Goldenziel, Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare,” 1099.

150 Orde F. Kittrie, “Lawfare and U.S. National Security,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 396.

151 Ibid.

152 Ibid.

153 Ibid.

154 Aiesi, “Part II: Combating Enemy Lawfare on the Battlefield,” 26.

155 Robert Kolb and Richard Hyde, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts (London: Hart Publishing, 2008), 15.

156 “What is International Humanitarian Law,” Canadian Red Cross, https://www.redcross.ca/how-we-help/international-humanitarian-law/what-is-international-humanitarian-law#What%20is%20International%20Humanitarian%20Law.

157 Sassòli, Bouvier and Quintin, “Le droit international humanitaire, branche du droit international public,” in Un droit dans la guerre?, 18.

158 Anne Quintin, The Nature of International Humanitarian Law: A Permissive or Restrictive Regime? (Cheltenham, UK: Elgar Publishing Limited, 2020), 94.

159 Kolb and Hyde, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, 43.

160 “International Humanitarian Law: Answers to your questions,” International Committee of The Red Cross, 6, https://shop.icrc.org/international-humanitarian-law-answers-to-your-questions-pdf-en.html.

161 “The Laws of War,” The Avalon Project.

162 ICRC, “Development of modern international law.”.

163 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950) [Convention I]; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950) [Convention II]; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950) [Convention III]; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1950, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) [Convention IV].

164 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS (entered into force 7 December 1978) [Protocol I]; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1978) [Protocol II]; Protocol Addition to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem, 12 August 2005, 2404 UNTS 261 (entered into force 14 January 2007) [Protocol III].

165 Canadian Red Cross, “What is International Humanitarian Law.”

166 Shaw, International Law, 1031.

167 Vincent Chetail, “The contribution of the International Court of Justice to international humanitarian law,” International Review of the Red Cross 85, no. 850 (2003): 268.

168 “5 principes fondamentaux,” Croix-Rouge Française, https://www.croix-rouge.fr/La-Croix-Rouge/Droit-International-Humanitaire/5-principes-fondamentaux.

169 Kelisiana Thynne, “The Universality of IHL - Surmounting the Last Bastion of the Pacific,” Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 41, no. 2 (2010): 136.

170 “Customary Law,” International Committee of The Red Cross, https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/customary-law.

171 Dunlap, Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” 36.

172 Ibid.

173 Waseem Ahmad Qureshi, “Lawfare: The Weaponization of International Law,” Houston Journal of International Law 42, no. 1 (2019): 55.

174 Dunlap, Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” 36.

175 Ibid.

176 Ibid.

177 Ibid.

178 Kittrie, Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, 19.

179 “Rule 15. Principle of Precautions in Attack,” IHL Database: Customary IHL, International Committee of The Red Cross, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule15; Protocol I, 3 arts. 51(5)¶b, 57 ; Protocol II, art. 13 (1); “Rule 14. Proportionality in Attack” IHL Database: Customary IHL, International Committee of The Red Cross, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter4_rule14.

180 NATO. “Statement by the NATO Spokesman on avoiding civilian casualties.” Press release April 28, 1999. https://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-072e.htm.

181 Charles J. Dunlap Jr., “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts,” 4.

182 Dunlap, Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” 36; Rule 15., IHL Database: Customary IHL ; Protocol I, art. 57(1); Protocol II, art. 13(1).

183 Kittrie, Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, 19.

184 “Timeline: The U.S. War in Afghanistan,” Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan.

185 Cameron Glenn, “Timeline: US Policy on ISIS,” Wilson Center, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-us-policy-isis.

186 Qureshi, “Lawfare: The Weaponization of International Law,” 56.

187 Rubinstein and Roznai, Human Shields in Modern Armed Conflicts: The Need for a Proportionate Proportionality,” 93.

188 “Human Shields,” How does Law Protect in War?, International Committee of The Red Cross, https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/human-shields.

189 Convention III, art. 23.

190 Convention IV, art. 28.

191 Protocol I, art. 51(7).

192 “Rule 97. Human Shields,” IHL Database: Customary IHL, International Committee of The Red Cross, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule97.

193 Ibid.

194 “Protection of Civilians: ACO Handbook,” Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, NATO, 32, https://shape.nato.int/documentation/protection-of-civilians-aco-handbook-.

195 Amichai Cohen and David Zlotogorski, Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law: Consequences, Precautions, and Procedures (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021), 145.

196 Laurie R. Blank, “A New Twist on an Old Story: Lawfare and the Mixing of Proportionalities,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2011): 723.

197 Sassòli, Bouvier and Quintin, “La conduite des hostilités,” in Un droit dans la guerre?, 20-21.

198 Charles J. Dunlap Jr., “No Good Options against ISIS Barbarism: Human Shields in 21st Century Conflicts,” American Society of International Law 110, (2016-2017): 315.

199 Eric Schmitt, “U.S. Caution in Strikes Gives ISIS an Edge, Many Iraqis Say,” New York Times, May 26, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/world/middleeast/with-isis-in-crosshairs-us-holds-back-to-protect-civilians.html.

200 Matthew Rosenberg and Eric Schmitt, “In ISIS Strategy, U.S. Weighs Risk to Civilians,” New York Times, December 19, 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/us/politics/in-isis-strategy-us-weighs-risk-to-civilians.html.

201 Ibid.

202 Matthew Rosenberg and Eric Schmitt, “In ISIS Strategy, U.S. Weighs Risk to Civilians,”.

203 Kittrie, Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, 18.

204 Sun Tzu, L’art de la Guerre, trans.Francis Wang (Flammarion, 2017), 40.

205 Rubinstein and Roznai, Human Shields in Modern Armed Conflicts: The Need for a Proportionate Proportionality,” 107.

206 Theodor Meron, “The Humanization of Humanitarian Law,” American Journal of International Law 94, no. 2 (2000): 241.

207 Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen, “Aidōs and Dikē in International Humanitarian Law: Is IHL a Legal or a Moral System?,” The Monist 99, no. 1 (2016): 27.

208 Ibid.

209 Ibid, 34.

210 J.-Maurice Arbour and Geneviève Parent, Droit international public, 7 ed (Montréal, QC: Éditions Yvon Blais, 2017), 37.

211 Moodrick-Even Khen, “Aidōs and Dikē in International Humanitarian Law: Is IHL a Legal or a Moral System?,” 34.

212 Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 29 July 1899 (entered into force 9 April 1900).

213 Rupert Ticehurst, “The Martens Clause and the Laws of Armed Conflict,” International Review of the Red Cross 79, no. 824 (1997): 133.

214 Ibid.

215 D. W. Greig, “The Underlying Principles of International Humanitarian Law,” Australian Yearbook of International Law 9, (1980): 49.

216 “Martens Clause,” How does Law Protect in War?, International Committee of The Red Cross, https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/martens-clause.

217 Ibid.

218 Peeler, The Persistence of Reciprocity in International Humanitarian Law, 28.

219 Ibid.

220 Barrack H. Obama, “Barrack H. Obama Nobel Lecture: A Just and Lasting Peace,” The Nobel Prize, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2009/obama/lecture/ (accessed January 2, 2024).

221 “Manuel de droit des opérations militaires,” Direction des affaires juridiques État-major des armées, Ministère des Armées, 1, https://www.onlinelibrary.iihl.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Manuel-de-droit-des-op%C3%A9rations-militaires_%C3%A9dition-2022-1.pdf.

222 Patrick Savidan, “Politique et morale sont inséparable en démocratie,” Le Monde, March 20, 2014, https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2014/03/20/politique-et-morale-sont-inseparables-en-democratie_4386723_3232.html.

223 Plato, The Republic, 40.

224 John Kane, The Politics of Moral Capital (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 10.

225 Ibid.

226 Kathleen M. McGraw “Manipulating Public Opinion with Moral Justification,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 560, (1998): 130.

227 Ryder McKeown, “International Law and its discontents: Exploring the dark sides of international law in international relations,” Review of International Studies 43, no. 3 (2017): 437.

228 Ibid.

229 Marco Sassòli, International humanitarian law: rules, controversies, and solutions to problem arising in warfare (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2019), 74.

230 Ibid, 75.

231 Dunlap, “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts,” 4.

232 Jean-Frédéric Morin and Jonathan Paquin, Foreign policy analysis: a toolbox (Cham: Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), 173-74.

233 Steven A. Boylan, “Public Opinion: A Center of Gravity Leaders Forget,” Military Review 95, no. 5 (2015): 95-96.

234 Adam S. Chilton, “The Laws of War and Public Opinion: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 171, no. 1 (2015): 199-198.

235 Olson, “A NATO perspective on applicability and application of IHL to multinational forces,” 653-55.

236 Kane, The Politics of Moral Capital, 10-11.

237 Massimo Tommasoli, “Rule of Law and Democracy: Addressing the Gap Between Policies and Practices,” United Nations: UN Chronicles, December, 2012, https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/rule-law-and-democracy-addressing-gap-between-policies-and-practices.

238 Ibid.

239 Dunlap, “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts,” 4.

240 Carl von Clausewitz, On War (Bolton, ON: Pacific Publishing Studio, 2010), 9.

241 Dunlap, Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” 35.

242 Ibid.

243 Dunlap, “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts,” 4.

244 Dunlap, Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” 35.

245 “Clausewitz, On War, Excerpts relating to term ‘Center[s] of Gravity,’” Clausewtiz.com, https://www.clausewitz.com/opencourseware/Clausewitz-COGexcerpts.htm.

246 Dunlap, “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts,” 4.

247 Charles J. Dunlap Jr., “Lawfare: Introduction to the Concept of Lawfare,” in National Security Law & Policy, eds. John Norton Moore, Guy B. Roberts, and Robert F. Turner, 3 rd ed (Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2015), 838.

248 Aiesi, “Part II: Combating Enemy Lawfare on the Battlefield,” 25.

249 William George Eckhardt, “Lawyering for Uncle Sam When He Draws His Sword,” Chicago Journal of International Law 4, no. 2 (2003): 441.

250 Amnon Rubinstein and Yaniv Roznai, “Human Shields in Modern Armed Conflicts: The Need for a Proportionate Proportionality,” 95.

251 Dunlap, Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” 36.

252 Aurel Sari, “Legal resilience in an era of grey zone conflicts and hybrid threats,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 33, no. 6 (2020): 849.

253 Qureshi, “Lawfare: The Weaponization of International Law,” 64.

254 Ibid, 65; Andres B. Munoz Mosquera, Sascha Dov Bachmann & J. Abraham Munoz Bravo, “Hybrid Warfare and the Legal Domain,” Terrorism and Political Violence 31, no. 1 (2019): 98.

255 Zakhar Tropin, “Lawfare as Part of Hybrid Wars: The Experience of Ukraine in Conflict with Russian Federation,” Security and Defence Quarterly 33, no. (2021): 16-17; Aurel Sari, “Hybrid Warfare, Law, and the Fulda Gap” in Complex Battlespaces: The Law of Armed Conflict and the Dynamics of Modern Warfare, eds. Winston S. Williams and Christopher M. Ford (New York : Oxford University Press, (2019), 163; Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 40-43.

256 Munoz Mosquera, Dov Bachmann & Abraham Munoz Bravo, “Hybrid Warfare and the Legal Domain,” 101.

257 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 41.

258 Wheaton, “Strategic Lawyering: Realizing the Potential of Military Lawyers at the Strategic Level,” 7.

259 Kevin Rousseau, “International Law and Military Strategy: Changes in the Strategic Operating Environment,” Journal of National Security Law & Policy 9, no. 1(2017): 1.

260 Ibid.

261 David Luban, “Carl Schmitt and the Critique of Lawfare,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 43, no. 1 (2010): 471.

262 Dunlap, “Lawfare Today: A Perspective,” 146; Dunlap, Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21st-Century Conflicts?,” 37.

263 Ibid.

264 Christine Bell, “Post-conflict Accountability and the Reshaping of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law” in International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, ed. Orna Ben-Naftali (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 328.

265 Munoz Mosquera, Dov Bachmann & Abraham Munoz Bravo, “Hybrid Warfare and the Legal Domain,” 100.

266 Craig Martin, “What Are the Limits on Lawfare?,” Opinio Juris, May 5, 2019, http://opiniojuris.org/2019/05/05/what-are-the-limits-on-lawfare/.

267 Ibid.

268 Ibid.

269 Wheaton, “Strategic Lawyering: Realizing the Potential of Military Lawyers at the Strategic Level,” 7.

270 Major General Barre R. Seguin, “A warfighter’s perspective on ‘lawfare’ in an era of hybrid threats and strategic competition,” Lawfire, March 13, 2020, https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2020/03/13/a-warfighters-perspective-on-lawfare-in-an-era-of-hybrid-threats-and-strategic-competition/.

271 Wheaton, “Strategic Lawyering: Realizing the Potential of Military Lawyers at the Strategic Level,” 2.

272 Ibid, 8.

273 Ibid, 9.

274 Ibid.

275 Seguin, “A warfighter’s perspective on ‘lawfare’ in an era of hybrid threats and strategic competition.” .

276 Ibid.

277 Ibid.

278 Ibid.

279 Dunlap, “Lawfare Today: A Perspective,” 148; Dunlap, “Lawfare Today… and Tomorrow,” 315.

280 Sassòli, Bouvier and Quintin, “L’évolution historique du droit international humanitaire,” 1.

281 Goldenziel, Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare,” 1087.

282 Munoz Mosquera, Dov Bachmann & Abraham Munoz Bravo, “Hybrid Warfare and the Legal Domain,” 98.

283 Kittrie, Law as a Weapon of War, 11.

284 Ibid, 331.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Louis-Benoît Lafontaine

Louis-Benoit Lafontaine ([email protected]) holds a master’s degree in international studies and a master’s degree in international and transnational law from Laval University. This paper is built upon his master’s thesis.