{"id":24523,"date":"2025-03-17T10:46:13","date_gmt":"2025-03-17T09:46:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=24523"},"modified":"2025-03-20T18:11:42","modified_gmt":"2025-03-20T17:11:42","slug":"lawfare-the-mortal-kombat-of-jurisprudence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/lawfare-the-mortal-kombat-of-jurisprudence\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawfare: The Mortal Kombat of Jurisprudence"},"content":{"rendered":"

Carl von Clausewitz, a prominent Prussian military theorist at the beginning of the 19th century, in his major work \u201cVom Kriege\u201d (On War),\u00a0described<\/u><\/a> war as nothing more than the continuation of politics\u00a0by other means.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>While von Clausewitz primarily focused on military means and methods as the main components of war, 200 years later, modern warfare extends far beyond\u00a0traditional battlefronts. Contemporary\u00a0armed conflicts, whether\u00a0international or\u00a0non-international, are rarely fought only\u00a0by soldiers.\u00a0Instead, they often involve mobilizing various organizations, institutions, and\u00a0inhabitants of a territory\/state in war representing different professions. Even ordinary citizens<\/u><\/a>\u00a0can contribute to the war effort\u00a0through their smartphones. This broadening of warfare has created space for other domains such as economic warfare, political warfare, cyber warfare, propaganda, etc. Altogether, these elements\u00a0are usually categorized\u00a0under the term \u201chybrid warfare\u201d\u00a0or \u201chybrid wars\u201d, a concept\u00a0popularized<\/u><\/a> by Frank Hoffman in 2007. While hybrid warfare combines<\/u><\/a> conventional and unconventional tactics, it also encompasses a distinct dimension known as \u201clawfare\u201d.<\/p>\n

Since its introduction<\/u><\/a> to the public by John Carlson and Neville Yeomans and its resurgence in 2001 by Charles J. Dunlap Jr., lawfare has been largely understood as a method or means of warfare. One of the most quoted definitions<\/u><\/a> describes lawfare as the strategic use of law with the purpose of delegitimizing, harming, or annihilating an enemy<\/strong>. Given that the term \u201clawfare\u201d is a blend of \u201claw\u201d and \u201cwarfare\u201d,\u00a0it is unsurprising that many scholars directly connect\u00a0such use of law with securing military advantages during armed conflicts.\u00a0In 2025 lawfare is a complex phenomenon and while technology evolves,\u00a0defining lawfare becomes even more challenging.<\/p>\n

Contrary to the above-mentioned approach, this research holds the position<\/u><\/a>, that lawfare is not necessarily a component of an armed conflict, and additionally does not inevitably\u00a0constitute a negative phenomenon.\u00a0Having in mind the two mutually exclusive approaches in recent years scholars have attempted\u00a0to classify lawfare. Definitions and classifications for lawfare range from narrow interpretations, which\u00a0confine it to wartime applications, to broader\u00a0frameworks<\/u><\/a>\u00a0that divide the concept into several\u00a0subcategories, while also including so-called \u201cpeacetime lawfare\u201d. Adhering to the latter approach, as well as considering existing classifications of the concept, the present study\u00a0categorizes\u00a0lawfare into the following subcategories:<\/p>\n