Search

This paper analyzes a case of environmental activism after one of the largest oil spills in Peruvian Amazonia, the 2014 Cuninico oil spill. A relatively more independent judiciary, environmental legislation, and weak though autonomous regulatory agencies led to a shift in institutional opportunity structure over the previous 20 years. The embryonic environmental state produced evidence of environmental harm and sanctioned state-owned oil enterprise Petroperú. However, that was not enough to produce timely measures to protect the affected communities. Indigenous peoples affected by the spill worked with human rights lawyers and civil society coalitions to bring the company to court. Almost a decade of high court activism has meant a burdensome process of 'lawfare' with important legal triumphs for plaintiffs. In 2020, a historic ruling mandated financial compensation for affected communities. Despite these triumphs, the long wait for the restitution of justice hints at an uncertain future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThis article examines the vulnerability of the law of the sea to grey-zone lawfare based on the maxim pacta sunt servanda, arguing that this rule can readily be employed as a means of lawfare. Through the broad lenses of (1) passage and operational rights in sovereign waters and (2) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) operational rights, the susceptibility to grey-zone lawfare stratagems and tactics based on both “different pacta” and “different servanda” claims are examined. To this end, the specific issues leveraged to illustrate these uses of the different available pacta strategies in grey-zone lawfare at sea are archipelagic sea lanes passage through neutral archipelagic waters, and due regard in respect of third state operational rights in the EEZ. The analysis of each of these contexts then facilitates assessment of the methodology and rule-source tactics that can be exploited when employing pacta sunt servanda as a means of lawfare in respect of grey-zone operations at sea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024 9(1), 53-68 | European Forum Insight of 2 May 2024 | (Table of Contents) I. Le contexte des interventions devant la CIJ. – II. Les modalités d’intervention devant la CIJ. – II.2. L’intervention en interprétation de l’art. 62 du Statut de la CIJ. – II.2. L’intervention en interprétation de l’art. 63 du Statut de la CIJ. – III. Les principaux arguments des interventions. – III.1. La question centrale de la compétence de la Cour: art. IX de la Convention. – III.2. L’interprétation des arts I et VIII de la Convention. – III.3. L’interprétation des arts II et III de la Convention. – IV. Impact procédural des interventions multiples devant la CIJ. – IV.1. Le double objectif des déclarations d’intervention des États membres de l’Union européenne. – IV.2. Une crainte de retard rapidement rassurée. – IV.3. L’ordonnance du 5 juin 2023. – V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) In the context of the litigation relating to the Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Member States of the European Union (EU) have in turn filed a declaration of intervention on the basis of art. 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. Scarcely deployed in practice, this procedure allows third parties’ States to the proceedings to declare the interpretation they adopt on the convention in dispute to which they are parties. In the present case, the States, on the one hand, interpret the convention in such a way as to ensure the jurisdiction of the Court and, on the other hand, that the use of armed force without the authorization of the Security Council is not a means of prevention or repression, even in the case of a potential genocide. In doing so, the intervening States openly show their support for Ukraine. Furthermore, the massive use of the declaration of intervention also tends to look like a instrumentalization of the law, directed towards Russia.

The Spanish Constitutional Court has occupied a central position in the Spanish political system since the Transition. Its decisions have completed, and still complete, the articles of the 1978 Constitution. Nevertheless, despite its intense activity in civil and administrative issues, this institution has progressively lost support among public opinion. To a large extent, the Court is now considered a politicized organization serving the interests of Conservative political forces. The growing intrusion of the judiciary in Spanish politics has increased this feeling. How to explain this biased viewpoint? In this paper, we argue that there are two reasons for this declining trust. On the one hand, the Court is the collateral victim of party politics which forced it to take sides. The Court is subject to a process of polarization affecting the whole Spanish political system. On the other hand, the Court has interfered regularly in the political debate by imposing its view, up to blocking parliamentary debates in late 2022. This double process is analysed from a new institutional perspective. We identified four critical junctures involving the Court and political parties, namely the delaying of decisions, the veto on governmental policy, the recusing of justices, and the blockade of appointments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guatemala's 2023 was defined by the year's most stunning and tumultuous election in all Latin America. After his shocking second-place finish in the first round, little-known anti-corruption candidate Bernardo Arévalo of the young Movimiento Semilla party won the presidency. Following years of increasing democratic decline and a vicious lawfare campaign against regime opponents, the 2023 election, which was meant to further bolster authoritarianism, became a democratic breakthrough. This article takes stock of the 2023 electoral cycle, analyzing the social, political, and international factors favorable for authoritarian consolidation alongside the surprising dynamics of democratic resilience. Guatemala's recent anti-democratic slide was spurred not by executive aggrandizement but by prosecutorial and judicial entities on a political mission and intent on using legal instruments to criminalize dissent. However, through a combination of divisions in the ruling coalition, momentum from prior anti-corruption mobilization, and robust international backing, actors from below, namely indigenous communities and the broad-based opposition movement cultivated by Semilla, saved Guatemalan democracy. In so doing, they carved a path toward political renewal that few could have imagined a year earlier, though its promises remain fragile and uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

La prelibertad concedida al ex vicepresidente de la República del Ecuador Jorge David Glas Espinel a través de la acción de hábeas corpus y su computo de la pena ha sido controversial tanto para la ciudadanía, así como para el mundo del derecho. Con ello ha aumentado la crítica y opinión acerca de los hechos sucedidos a partir de la continuación de su pena domiciliaria. Fueron cuatro las ocasiones en las que se plantearon medidas de seguridad entre las que suscitaron destitución y revocación hasta que finalmente el 28 de noviembre del 2022 obtuvo la boleta para su liberación de la cárcel nº4. A partir de ahí se realiza un análisis jurídico y cronológico desde la primera circunstancia en que fue concedida la garantía hasta su salida del centro penitenciario tomando como referencia el estudio del hábeas corpus desde su concepción. Para ello se analiza esta garantía jurisdiccional y su manejo mediante entrevistas en profundidad con expertos del área con la finalidad de evidenciar el papel que ha jugado esta herramienta de protección establecida en la Constitución la cual puede conformar la contrafigura de lo que promulga. The pre-release granted to the former Vice President of the Republic of Ecuador Jorge David Glas Espinel through the action of habeas corpus and calculation of the sentence has been controversial both for the general public as well as for the world of law. With this, criticism and opinion have arisen about the events that occurred after the following of his house sentence. There were four occasions on which security measures were raised, including those that led to dismissal and revocation until finally on November 28, 2022, he obtained the ticket for his release from jail no. 4. From there, a legal and chronological analysis is carried out from the first circumstance in which the guarantee was granted until his departure from the penitentiary center, taking as a reference the study of habeas corpus since his conception. For this reason, this jurisdictional guarantee and its management are analyzed through in-depth interviews with experts in the area in order to demonstrate the role of this protection tool established in the Constitution, which can form the counterfigure of what it promulgates.

In the ongoing global power riualry between states like the USA, China and Russia, lawfare' has become an important tactic to further national security objectives and influence the international order. Lawfare entails the manipulation of legal norms to achieve strategic objectiues without resorting to military means. This study analyses the emergence of lawfare and its various domains, with an emphasis on how utilization of lawfare is playing a role in global narratiues and diplomatic engagements. For Pakistan, a country with significant geopolitical and geo-economic importance, the use of lawfare by major powers has resulted in legal and diplomatic challenges. Historically, Pakistan's responses to these challenges have been reactiue and limited due to lack of understanding in policy circles. Thus, this paper offers an in - depth analysis of lawfare 's impacts on middle powers such as Pakistan and evaluates its responses to these evolving challenges. By exploring these dynamics, the study aims to highlight the critical role of lawfare in contemporary international relations and its implications for Pakistan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frames such as political warfare, sharp power and weaponized interdependence do not capture the full spectrum of China's "reunification" operations targeting Taiwan, particularly in regard to the fundamental legal domain. Making use of primary materials and elite interviews, Beijing's lawfare against Taiwan is examined as part of a matrix of military threats, covert infiltration and measures aimed at attracting Taiwanese public opinion. This study argues that China's multi-domain Taiwan strategy should be understood as hybrid influencing. A foundational element of this strategy is Chinese lawfare, which can be boiled down to three axiomatic principles – namely, to reframe the relationship between Beijing and Taipei as an internal dispute, to close down Taiwan's international space and to contain any right to self-determination. As distinct from Anglophone conceptions, Chinese lawfare seeks in essence to exploit the uncertainty of Taiwan's status under international law to make strategic gains – maximally, "to win without fighting." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human rights defenders (HRDs) fight for various human rights and address concerns related to corruption, employment, the environment, and other issues. They also challenge powerful state and private stakeholders and seek justice for human rights abuses. Therefore, HRDs are increasingly becoming targets of violent attacks and abuse with the aim of silencing them. This article begins by providing a brief definition of HRDs and then proceeds to outline the risks associated with their work in defending human rights. It also identifies the perpetrators responsible for these violations. The article categorises the types of abuses against HRDs into two main categories, with a particular focus on the widespread tactic of using the legal system to target and silence defenders in Europe, which is also emerging globally. It introduces a taxonomy of various types of violations through the legal system. By categorising the types of violations against HRDs and establishing a taxonomy to aid in identifying these tactics, the article seeks to deepen understanding and awareness of the varied abuses experienced by HRDs, as well as their deviation from human rights standards, providing a valuable resource for academics, practitioners, and defenders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

South Africa initiated a legal proceeding against Israel at the International Court of Justice on December 29, 2023, claiming that Israel violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention. This action should not come as surprising, given the history of South Africa in its relations with Israel and the Palestinians over the years and given South Africa's domestic and foreign policy needs and priorities entering 2024. This article reviews South Africa's history of relations with both the Palestinians and Israel and how it has responded to them since the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023. It also looks at some trends in South African foreign policy and reaches a number of conclusions regarding the benefits and risks for South Africa in submitting the case before the court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

En el presente ensayo se hace un breve recorrido histórico en torno al tema del bipolarismo, la división ideológica entre izquierda y derecha, y problemas como la guerra fría, la guerra sucia o represión, en contra de los grupos de izquierda; analizamos, en lo que nos interesa, el Joint Low-Intensity Conflict Project Final Report, y mostramos la doctrina de seguridad nacional, sus mecanismos y aplicaciones para reprimir al adversario político; caracterizamos el lawfare o guerra jurídica, y, con diversos ejemplos, destacaremos cómo el actual gobierno del Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional –supuestamente de izquierda– acude también a medidas de la doctrina de seguridad nacional que muestra que se usaron en su contra -guerra sucia- para enfrentar a sus adversarios, así como medidas de lawfare, adicionadas con mecanismos como la Guardia Nacional y el narcotráfico para retener el poder político.

This paper demonstrates how the extension and intensification of penal power across Nicaragua following the 2018 protests has produced particular experiences of carceral citizenship. In order to fully understand these experiences, it is necessary to take into account that states can enforce carceral citizenship (and its restrictions, benefits, and duties) not only legally, but also extralegally. As such, I examine the tenets of carceral citizenship in relation to the country’s hybrid carceral system, conceptualizing how such citizenship may be produced and policed. Following from this, I elicit how political prisoners are acted upon by (para)state actors and excluded from prison’s co-governance arrangements, which pushes some of them to engage in (dis)organizing practices of their own. Following them into their post-release lives, I examine the tight ‘transcarceral grip’ they are subjected to. This produces a state of de facto civil disenfranchisement, understood by excarcelados as “civil death.” In spite of their predicament, however, released political prisoners continue to organize in the face of the Sistema and the violations it has committed (and continues to commit). Resumen: Encarcelamiento político reduz en Nicaragua: Ciudadanía carcelaria conflictiva Este artículo demuestra cómo la extensión e intensificación del poder penal en Nicaragua tras las protestas de 2018 ha producido experiencias particulares de ciudadanía carcelaria. A fin de comprender plenamente estas experiencias, es necesario tener en cuenta que los estados pueden hacer cumplir la ciudadanía carcelaria (y sus restricciones, beneficios y deberes) no sólo legal, sino también extralegalmente. Por ello, examino los principios de la ciudadanía carcelaria en relación con el sistema carcelario híbrido del país, conceptualizando cómo se puede producir y vigilar dicha ciudadanía. A partir de ahí, explico cómo los actores (para)estatales actúan sobre los presos políticos y los excluyen de los acuerdos de cogobierno de las prisiones, lo que empuja a algunos de ellos a participar en sus propias prácticas de (des)organización. Siguiéndoles en su vida posterior a la puesta en libertad, examino el estrecho “control transcarcelario” al que están sometidos. Esto produce un estado de privación de derechos civiles de facto, entendido por los excarcelados como “muerte civil”. Sin embargo, a pesar de su difícil situación, los presos políticos excarcelados siguen organizándose frente al Sistema y las violaciones que ha cometido (y sigue cometiendo).

War and law have intertwined more than ever, as international law is considered a sign of legitimacy in contemporary conflicts. As a corollary, the use or misuse of law as a part of political and military strategy, known as lawfare, has been popularised since the 2000s. International actors increasingly engage in lawfare activities, and it is predicted that this trend will last. Therefore, it is necessary to shed light on the concept. To this end, this article aims to analyse its conceptual framework by asking questions of what, why, how and whether it is a “new generation warfare”. Firstly, a theoretical inquiry into lawfare will be made by analysing its definitions, dimensions, and characteristics as well as the relevant factors affecting its emergence. This will be accompanied by an explanation of selected practices of states, non-state actors, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with references to lawfare typology and method of contestation. Turning to the discussion on the “new generation warfare”, the article evaluates the concept in its relation to the nature of international law and the quest for legitimacy. The article argues that while lawfare enables creating a new asymmetry or countering an existing asymmetry, it does not constitute a form of warfare, since the legal contestation underlying the concept arises from the long-standing peculiarities of international law.

This paper offers a transdisciplinary analysis of the abuse of public international law for geopolitical objectives, providing an analysis of the term lawfare, the only previously accepted term to describe this behavior. It concludes that the definition lawfare is inadequate for professional scholarly or policy-focused discourse and offers the notion of Malign Legal Operations (MALOPs) as a more appropriate term to encapsulate these actions. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes that the debate over the value-neutrality of the notion lawfare is complex, and the term is insufficiently defined to support its supposed neutrality, leading to opportunities for further exploitation by revisionist states and entities. Supporters of valueneutrality argue that distinguishing a “malign” variant of lawfare offers malicious practitioners more opportunities to make false claims against legitimate actors. However, the text counters that classification of malign behavior is based on objective and observable manipulations of legal systems rather than mere disagreement. Furthermore, the paper argues that lawfare is a doctrinally inappropriate term due to its contradictory nature, as it combines “law” and “warfare” despite serving as an alternative to military conflict. Using a single term to describe both legitimate and malicious legal actions is damaging to discourse and detracts from efforts to combat the misuse of legal systems. The research’s primary objectives include establishing the lack of a universally accepted definition for lawfare, demonstrating the unanswered question of value-neutrality, and highlighting the non-doctrinal nature of the term itself. It concludes that lawfare is no longer an appropriate term to describe these phenomena, advocating for the adoption of Malign Legal Operations to better represent the manipulation of legal domains for political ends.

In this article, the authors coin the phrase medical lawfare to describe how Israel has been justifying its systematic attacks on healthcare facilities in the Gaza Strip during its five military assaults on the besieged enclave between 2008 and 2023. They show how Israel mobilizes the laws of armed conflict dealing with human shields and "hospital shields" to securitize lifesaving and sustaining infrastructures and legitimize their destruction. They describe how medical lawfare works as a racialized form of necropolitical governance that intensifies the Nakba's settler-colonial logic of elimination while casting Palestinians as guilty of bringing disaster upon themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Domestic lawfare, using legal measures or their potential utilisation as strategic tools in political or ideological disputes within a nation, is a prevalent phenomenon in South America. Such measures may include lawsuits, investigations, and other legal mechanisms aimed at eradicating, intimidating, penalising, or undermining rivals to achieve specific political or policy objectives. This practice can be identified as domestic lawfare by prioritising legal technicalities over substantive matters. Its impact is of particular concern, as it is employed to suppress dissenting voices and curtail essential liberties, such as freedom of speech. This article sheds light on the significant challenge that constitutional democracies in South America currently face due to the rise of lawfare. This does not mean that it is an exclusively South American phenomenon. Influential individuals or entities around the world equipped with ample resources, financial means, influence, or political clout could deploy these assets to target individuals or organisations they perceive as threats to their interests. By examining the potential legal ramifications that may arise from rigid adherence to legal requirements, this study aims to underscore the crucial importance of legal protection as a topic requiring meticulous deliberation. Lawfare presents formidable challenges in theory and practice, making it essential to comprehend its implications fully. Understanding and addressing this issue can safeguard democratic values and protect fundamental rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lawfare is a strategy of misusing law as a tool to achieve national and security interests which pursues the goals of an armed conflict without resorting to force. The lawfare actor misuses the existing gaps in international law to inflict the most damage to the targeted party, while there is no specific legal system to confront these actions. In lawfare, the rule of law is distorted. The complexities of lawfare have given the initiative to strong states that have appropriate legal infrastructures. In this way, the United States has been able to misuse this tool to put pressure on Iran and reach its hostile goals. The study of the US approach and practice towards the lawfare against Iran is the subject of this article. Recognizing the US practice in this regard shows that Iran has been the target of the most difficult lawfare that has been pursued through international institutions and also using domestic various strategies and initiatives [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper pursues a case study of the global dialectics of homophobia and homonationalism in Trinidad and Tobago to show that understanding Global Southern homophobias as responses to Western neoimperialism may be helpful, but also incomplete. On the one hand, patterns and politics of homophobia in postcolonial TT may be seen as a sort of state-sponsored oppositional response to Western cultural imperialism, in particular the development of heteronationalist imperatives in TT's postcolonial legal code and political discourse that simultaneously increased the scope of heterosexuality while intensifying the criminalization of homosexuality. However, early postcolonial heteronationalist developments represent more an attempt to emulate Global Northern nationalisms than a reaction to them. Yet over time, with dissolution of the postcolonial nationalist project in the era of neoliberal globalization, Trinbagonian homophobia was upregulated in response to Western imperialism, but this unfolded beyond the immediate jurisdiction of the state within transnationally-entangled religious communities—Hindu, Muslim, and Christian—adopting "conservative" positions enabling them to establish superficial solidarity. Meanwhile, the state is increasingly fractured between a Judiciary that condemns homophobia as unconstitutional and a "homophobic" Parliament. Employing the concept of lawfare, the case study examined here concerns the trajectory of a pioneering 2018 decriminalization case against the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and the politics it represents and activated at international and national levels, as well as the debate and dissension it ironically catalyzed within the local queer community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

War and law have intertwined more than ever, as international law is considered a sign of legitimacy in contemporary conflicts. As a corollary, the use or misuse of law as a part of political and military strategy, known as lawfare, has been popularised since the 2000s. International actors increasingly engage in lawfare activities, and it is predicted that this trend will last. Therefore, it is necessary to shed light on the concept. To this end, this article aims to analyse its conceptual framework by asking questions of what, why, how and whether it is a “new generation warfare”. Firstly, a theoretical inquiry into lawfare will be made by analysing its definitions, dimensions, and characteristics as well as the relevant factors affecting its emergence. This will be accompanied by an explanation of selected practices of states, non-state actors, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with references to lawfare typology and method of contestation. Turning to the discussion on the “new generation warfare”, the article evaluates the concept in its relation to the nature of international law and the quest for legitimacy. The article argues that while lawfare enables creating a new asymmetry or countering an existing asymmetry, it does not constitute a form of warfare, since the legal contestation underlying the concept arises from the long-standing peculiarities of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article opens a discussion about how temporalities in spatial and legal spheres are interlinked and shape both policymaking and governance mechanisms and resistance practices. Taking a case study from Eskişehir, Turkey, the research examines several urban renewal attempts of a municipality on the same urban lands over two decades that used different laws and policy tools in each case while all of which were annulled by court suits. From a perspective of legal anthropology, the analysis shows the limits of lawfare discussions that remain incapable of explaining cases that cannot be categorized with domination and resistance. Instead of focusing on detecting who wins or loses, the article claims that such complex cases could be understood better by scrutinizing temporal dynamics: how do legal, spatial, and social temporalities intertwine and impact policymaking? More specifically, how does the law's temporality (re)shape urbanization? Even further, what political work do temporalities generate? The article offers Russian‐doll urbanization as an analogy and ethnographic metaphor to examine several layers and endlessness of renewal initiatives within the broader process of urbanization. Studying the revelation of each layer unravels entangled temporalities of law and socio‐spatial dynamics and their consequences in policymaking and resistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research explores the chameleon concept of lawfare and its impact on legal systems and society in general, focusing on the interplay between its (im)boundaries and transdisciplinarity. The analysis focuses on a kaleidoscope of fundamental aspects of justice, including the tactics and strategies used in judicial proceedings, in civil or military conflicts, in the abuse of legal procedures, and in the manipulation of the legal system to achieve illegal ends, in the regulation of law at the global level and nationally, highlighting the different forms this phenomenon can take and its impact on the rule of law and democracy. An important aspect of the research is the analysis of the limits of the law, in the sense that there are certain ethical, legal, and moral restrictions on the abusive use of the legal system, regardless of the circumstances. The conclusions are based on the finding that clearer regulations are needed to protect the integrity of the legal system and to prevent legal abuses, a fact that requires a series of future research, establishing the conditions that mark the transition from legal to illegal. This article has been developed using the method of transdisciplinary introspection, based on primary and secondary data from scientific journals, books, documents, and other publications.

Este trabalho se propõe a delinear os contornos do conceito de justiça política em Otto Kirchheimer. Ele se insere no cenário de intensa problematização da relação entre direito e política, ao passo em que busca enfrentar a escassez na produção da literatura brasileira sobre o tema sob o prisma da justiça política. Para tanto, primeiramente se investigará o pensamento do autor e os fundamentos teóricos de sua produção. Em seguida, explorar-se-á o conceito de justiça política e suas subclassificações conforme apresentado por Otto Kirchheimer. Finalmente, confrontar-se-á o conceito de justiça política com o de lawfare - conceito mais amplamente difundido na literatura especializada e no debate público nacional e do qual se aproxima sem com ele se confundir - identificando as semelhanças e diferenças que com ele mantém. Ao fim deste trabalho, apresenta-se uma tipologia de justiça política e constata-se o desafio que ela impõe às democracias constitucionais contemporâneas na garantia da convivência dos dissensos políticos.

O trabalho tem como objetivo analisar a Operação Lava-Jato como possível manifestação de Lawfare no Brasil a partir do exame da abusividade das práticas utilizadas na condução da operação e como objeto de ofensa ao devido processo legal. Lawfare, nesse contexto, será admitido como guerra política instrumentalizada pelo uso abusivo de institutos legais para atingir resultados políticos. Para tanto, utilizou-se do método dedutivo para elaboração de pesquisa qualitativa realizada através da revisão bibliográfica. O artigo questionou a relativização dos princípios processuais com vistas a atingir adversários políticos, justificada através do discurso de combate à corrupção. Diante disso, pretendeu-se evidenciar as práticas adotadas na condução da Operação Lava-Jato, reconhecer o Lawfare como instrumento de risco ao Direito Processual Penal e, enfim, analisar o padrão lavajatista à luz do devido processo legal.

Violence against humanitarians is a commonplace phenomenon in contemporary armed conflict. This paper examines how the manipulation of international legal principles for political or military purposes, a practice known as 'lawfare', impacts humanitarian security in conflict‐affected areas. Drawing on a case study of the Syrian conflict (2011–), it finds that lawfare has been used to legitimate systematic civilian targeting by pro‐government forces and to delegitimise the delivery of aid to opposition‐held areas of the country. Efforts to use legal measures to promote civilian welfare—by way of sanctions or demands for cross‐border humanitarian access—have been taken as evidence of Western attempts to politicise humanitarian considerations and international law. In practice, this has meant increased security risks for aid workers and impunity for those implicated in the violence. The paper concludes by calling for more critical research on lawfare and politicisation of international law as part and parcel of civilian protection in conflict‐affected areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the origins of the term lawfare, as well as different definitions developed in the Global North and the Global South while proposing a conceptualization linked to the particularities of this socio-legal phenomenon in Latin America. Focusing on the cases of Brazil and Argentina the article deploys the notions of phycological, judicial and media warfare to analyze the different dimensions that an analysis of lawfare opens in relation to democracy, the penal system, and mainstream media. The article also explores different dimensions of lawfare and a notion in Spanish with the potential to replace the anglicism: dripping coup (golpe por goteo). Finally, the article proposes different measures to counteract lawfare in the judicial, educational, media, and social spheres. In particular, the conclusions refer to the relevance of social movements in what can be conceptualized as a "cautionary popular criminology". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jammu and Kashmir, a region nestled in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, has been a long-standing source of political and territorial dispute between India, Pakistan, and China. This comprehensive analysis delves into the intricate web of historical, geopolitical, and legal aspects surrounding the Jammu and Kashmir issue. It explores how diplomacy has been employed as a tool to address the dispute and how the matter has evolved into "lawfare," where international legal claims and arguments play a central role. This paper examines the various legal perspectives and claims put forth by the involved parties, including India, Pakistan, and the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and assesses the impact of these claims on the ongoing conflict. Through this analysis, we aim to shed light on the complex interplay between diplomacy and international law in the context of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ever-changing character of conflicts has blurred the line between peace and war and added hybrid dimensions to the conflicts. Hybrid threats have become a concept that deeply affects conflict and security studies, as well as pointing to the character of today’s conflicts. When the term “lawfare” is used within the scope of hybrid threats, it refers to much more than just legal claims. However, it continues to exist as a subject that is not fully conceptualized and understood as there is not enough work on this subject. This study, first, discusses the theoretical background of hybrid threats and lawfare and then introduces the typological features of lawfare, which will contribute to a better understanding and conceptualization of the subject. In this regard, 20 independent cases in which law has been used as a tool of conflict are analysed in terms of actor, law type and hybridity, and then based on the similarities and differences between hybrid threats and non-hybrid threats cases, a typology has been worked out with a view to the better conceptualization of the subject.

How do small powers choose the version of an international order to subscribe to? What factors are at play when a state subscribes to the rules-based order or decides to abandon those commitments and shift to an alternative version of order? The argument put forth in this article is that this choice is a function of domestic dynamics and the expected foreign policy gains of the sitting leader. In questioning the automaticity of a small power's choice, the article makes two important contributions. At the conceptual level, it supports the idea that orders persist because of the mutually constitutive actions of great and small powers. It lends credence to the claim of intersubjectivity in international relations and emphasizes that agency is anchored in relations between states. At the policy level, the article finds that while the Philippines seems to automatically subscribe to the United States-led order, pockets of resistance are a function of a colonial past that lingers to this day, which became fertile ground for the country's pivot to China during the Duterte administration. The article closes by highlighting that alliances risk their cohesion and effectiveness without coordinated maintenance, so policy lessons on alliance management are necessary to improve collective security arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Precedente is the property of Universidad ICESI and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Hybrid warfare is an age-old concept of struggle. The tool-kit in vogue includes narratives, lawfare, viruses, gradual expansion, proxies, surveillance, drones, 5G technologies, economic blackmailing, assassinations, sabotage, subversion, secrecy, surprise, ethnic nationalism, sectarianism, manipulation of intolerance, coercive diplomacy, artificial intelligence, big-data, algorithms and the digital blitzkriegs in the cyber-space. The present context is a post-truth era where emotions prevail creating alternative facts, as opposed to inductive facts. The cognitive process of reasoning revolves around one's beliefs and not truths. A narcissist control of truthnarrative is central to a crisis of legitimacy. This makes fact-free the contemporary post-truth strategic environment of hybrid warfare, a mixture of conventional and unconventional, plus an analytical construct too. The technological innovations have revolutionized this in an unfamiliar way. The integration of technologies remains. The concept of hybrid warfare resides in a greyzone between black and white i.e., neither war nor peace. The distinction is blurred. The greyzone is layered with disinformation, deception, false-narratives and fake-news. The success depends on a cold and logical mind-set in a low-intensity fifth-generation conflict to keep the other off-balance. Operational aims are harmonized with political goals and escalation is avoided. Hybrid warfare is sub-conventional geo-politics that is ambiguous and keeps the targeted perplexed. No response results in tactical defeats, while overplaying a hand ends-up as an irresponsible escalation. Also, information wars have structures that are part of hybrid warfare. Influence operations are directed to influence opinions in a post-truth era. The quality of these is on the rise. Holding one or the other responsible is difficult, not to mention deterring an opponent from playing a hard-ball. For one can escalate or deescalate without being part of it. Hybrid war does not take place in a given time-frame, yet long-term objectives are reached by keeping the pot boiling. Winning it is like winning a marathon that requires grit and resilience. It has emerged as an operational foreign policy instrument among nuclear powers in Eurasia. And an extended South Asia is no exception. Besides, creative imagination acts like a key in the conduct and countering of a hybrid war in a post-truth era. Likewise, a conductor has to be highly imaginative and impersonal to be a winner. Lastly, there is quite an unexplored academic space for the scarcity of literature on the theme. No inductive research has been carried out on the subject as to why Pakistan is not winning and how to win it. Hopefully, this study will be of an academic value for Pakistan which is the target of a hybrid war by India in a post-truth era. The non-experts can take whatever makes them happy, as opposed to a disinterested specialist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ever-changing character of conflicts has blurred the line between peace and war and added hybrid dimensions to the conflicts. Hybrid threats have become a concept that deeply affects conflict and security studies, as well as pointing to the character of today's conflicts. When the term "lawfare" is used within the scope of hybrid threats, it refers to much more than just legal claims. However, it continues to exist as a subject that is not fully conceptualized and understood as there is not enough work on this subject. This study, first, discusses the theoretical background of hybrid threats and lawfare and then introduces the typological features of lawfare, which will contribute to a better understanding and conceptualization of the subject. In this regard, 20 independent cases in which law has been used as a tool of conflict are analysed in terms of actor, law type and hybridity, and then based on the similarities and differences between hybrid threats and non-hybrid threats cases, a typology has been worked out with a view to the better conceptualization of the subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the 'hybrid form' of Russian aggression in Ukraine that emerged in 2014, the period after February 24th, 2022 is referred to as the 'new reality'. Hence, the question that needs to be addressed is how to deter and prevent Russian aggression of this kind. The national legal framework against the aggressor is a part of the deterrence policy and can be construed as defensive lawfare. Focusing on Latvia, the aim of the paper is to analyse defensive lawfare and deterrence in the context of hybrid warfare. The following research question has been identified: What is Latvia's approach to establishing defensive lawfare in terms of hybrid warfare? For the empirical analysis, the chronological framework has been set from 2014 to 2022. To complete the empirical analysis of the present paper, both qualitative and quantitative research has been implemented comprising document analysis and semi-structured interviews, as well as content analysis, respectively. The improvement of a regulatory base and the development of deterrence, whilst using regulatory acts, is an element of deterrence and a way to act legally. The law can be used as a weapon. Lawfare, a concept with three definitions, has two forms: defensive and offensive. Latvia's legal base includes a regulation to overcome hybrid threats and to implement a broad-spectrum of defence measures. Latvia's regulatory framework is designed for defence purposes, whilst also being a way of promoting deterrence. Decision makers must be able to manoeuvre with the powers assigned to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Realidad Economica is the property of Realidad Economica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Motivated by the conundrum "when does the law make it illegal to reveal illegal activity?", this article explores the relationship between legal structures and the free flow of information by adding a Legal Filter to the Propaganda Model. The Legal Filter represents how elite powers use legal constructions to block information from mainstream media through three layers: Undisclosed Information, Lawfare, and Legal Standing. The addition of a Legal Filter compliments and strengthens current discussions about informational and surveillance capitalism, mis/dis/malinformation proliferation and understanding the growing number of internet information leaks and "hack and dumps." (Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. 1988. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schadenfreude is a term linked to the malicious pleasure derived from observing another person's misfortune, bringing into its meaning an unhappy feeling. Lawfare is a term that has no fixed definition. It is generally understood to be the misuse of the law as a means to achieve military objectives. He would be concerned with the instrumentalization of the law to achieve strategic political ends. The idea is to eliminate, delegitimize or incapacitate opponents. It is the aim of this study to review such phenomena to highlight how law is situated within a broader political terrain, as well as moral and social decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many of us who study, or practice legal mobilization, the image of a duck-rabbit can be regarded as a metaphor of the very different world views and vocabularies that legal scholars and legal practitioners as well as social scientists and social activists use in explaining and practising law-based advocacy. Conventional, siloed approaches by academics and practitioners alike are common, though hardly desirable. We feel that rather than ask which vocabulary is more important, it is imperative to focus on the process of how people can understand each other, irrespective of the language and terms they are using. Moreover, we are curious why it is important to make such distinctions in conceptualizing and analysing the context of law-based advocacy and the many forms that legal mobilization adopts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal mobilization is a contested topic. There is little consensus among scholars regarding what legal mobilization is, let alone how it functions, particularly in relation to the separation or balance of powers doctrine, the latter which concerns the formal mandates of public actors and their interactions in relation to rule of law as a form of governance. We argue that the use of law by civic actors to advance social change should be distinguished from the use of law by states and other powerful actors to subvert the rule of law or to suppress critical voices. Thus, in distinguishing legal mobilization from lawfare, we argue that legal mobilization as a legitimate form of counterpower to lawfare has emerged as a viable and important component of governance. Pragmatically speaking, the illegitimate use of law by authoritarian regimes and corporations, the existence of corruption and both substantive and procedural limitations of formal rule of law mechanisms to deliver impartial justice have forced legal advocates to think creatively. In this paper, after conceptualizing legal mobilization and lawfare as opposing uses of law, we analyse the potential of legal mobilization as counterpower in relation to the trias politica doctrine, drawing on a case study of mobilizing Sinti, Roma and Traveller rights in The Netherlands to analyse how law is used to resist lawfare and pursue social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Liberal democracies throughout the world have been confronted with the instrumentalization of the rule of law by private and public actors to achieve undemocratic aims, thereby challenging the widely held idea that the law is concrete, normative and objective in a manner that political ideologies are not. At the same time, law-based advocacy remains an effective mechanism to counter the rise of state and non-state actors who seek to impede the advancement of progressive structural transformation toward the realization of human rights. In attempting to explain these contradictions, the terms 'lawfare' and 'legal mobilization' have gained prominence in scholarly discussions, largely in reference to the social and political ramifications of a particular application of the rule of law and whose interests it seeks to advance. This paper explores the implications of the rule of law as an institution of power that has the potential to both positively and negatively impact progressive social change in the pursuit of expanding human rights. The literature broadly unpacks the functional use of legal mechanisms, strategies associated therewith and the conditions under which these combined factors achieve or undermine the intended objectives of various state and non-state actors. The paper presents three specific strands in the literature that explore: (1) how social movements use law-based advocacy to counter (il)legitimate forms of legal instrumentalism that sustain hegemony and subsequent marginalization; (2) the judicialization of politics at the domestic and international levels; and (3) the legal culture and practices that govern litigation strategies. The paper addresses the debate across a number of themes, including economic and social rights protection, international criminal justice and environmental protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to discuss the most recent practice of institutional sanctions in light of contested fundamentals of the law of International Organizations (IOs). The analysis delves, in particular, into sanctions adopted by IOs having technical mandates in situations of wider political disputes among members, concerning international peace and security issues, amidst the United Nations (UN) Security Council's failure to take coercive measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Of special interest is the suspension of membership rights and privileges which some technical IOs have deliberated following the conflict in Syria and the undergoing war in Ukraine (para. 2). These instances offer a test bed to challenge the fundamental theoretical paradigm of the law of IOs, that is functionalism, and to extract some ambiguities underlying the essence of IOs, revealing the continuous oscillation between policy and technocracy, which is endemic to the institutional life of every IO and is well reflected in the different attitudes of the members and the Secretariats. The article highlights, in particular, the tension between politics and law that emerges from the adoption of sanctions by IOs endowed with highly technical tasks (para. 3), the invocation of the 'politicisation' mantra by the targeted member to oppose the application of the privative measures (para. 4), and the ambivalent use of functionalist 'language' within the reacting IO (para. 5). The article concludes with some final remarks on the 'strategic' use of IOs (para. 6). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista ID EST: Investigación, Desarrollo, Educación, Servicio, Trabajo is the property of Fundacion de Estudios Superiores Monsenor Abraham Escudero Montoya FUNDES and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Via Inveniendi et Iudicandi is the property of Universidad Santo Tomas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In 2020 the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland held that the legislation that permitted abortion in cases of 'fatal foetal anomaly' was an unconstitutional interference with the right to life of the foetus. This article examines the recent decision, which prohibits abortion on the grounds of foetal anomaly, arguing that this decision is part of a broader scheme of Polish and transnational anti-abortion lawfare. This lawfare seeks both to (re)shape Polish law in an anti-abortion mould, and to take advantage of 'gaps' in European and international human rights law standards on abortion in order to claim rights compliance for law and policy that, in reality, restricts access to abortion in a manner that is incompatible with international human rights law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista SAAP is the property of Sociedad Argentina de Analisis Politico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In July 2021, Russia submitted its first inter-state complaint against Ukraine to the European Court of Human Rights. It was an unexpected and intriguing step of the Russian government, especially since many of the presented allegations are linked to the events that initiated the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Referring to the hostilities that began in 2014, the international community was, in principle, unanimous in assessing who the aggressor was. The focus of this research is the strategy of the Russian Federation in its recently initiated legal battle before the Strasbourg Court. This paper presents an attempt to outline the possible motives for taking such a step. Moscow's position on this case is particularly puzzling, as some of the allegations concern the Crimean Peninsula, widely recognized under international law as territory occupied by Russia. In spite of that, doubt arises about the strategic objectives of the Russian authorities in the conflict with Ukraine; the question is whether the actions taken by Russia fall within the scope of its previous strategy or if there has been a new turn in the matter. The first part of this paper outlines the background of the given conflict, the second details Russian policy after the annexation of Crimea, and the third, which is crucial for the formulating of conclusions, presents considerations on Russia's possible motivation and goals in filing a complaint to the European Court Human Rights. The research was conducted mainly based on the merits of the complaint, the statements of the representatives of Russia and Ukraine in the matter, the author's observations, and practitioners' considerations.

El principal propósito de la presente investigación consiste en contribuir al debate, cada vez más creciente, del fenómeno jurídico-político denominado lawfare, con elementos teóricos significativos que faculten tanto el reconocerlo como el distinguirlo de otros fenómenos que guarden similitud. En particular, el interés radica en analizar a profundidad el término, desde su relación con la esfera bélica en su inicio, su desarrollo histórico, la transformación que sufrió el término para albergar los productos del vínculo entre el poder político y el poder judicial, hasta sus elementos constitutivos y su naturaleza, empleando instrumentos metodológicos que permitan determinar, a partir del debate con la literatura, si existe o no un fenómeno que pueda ser llamado lawfare.

Multiscalarity is a central feature of the neoliberal governance of extractivist models that are constructed by interweaving multiple levels and jurisdictions of public and private law. In this article, we expose the complex relationships between the multiscale landscape of global legal pluralism that structures socioenvironmental conflicts over mining, the processes of juridification and the varied forms of violence that motivate quests for justice. We briefly outline the legal dimensions of industrial mining and conceptually explore the specificities of multiscale juridification in relation to this activity. Based on ethnography and document analysis among different legal defense and grassroots organizations, we examine three cases of socioenvironmental conflicts in Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico. This allows us to show how fragmented multiscalarity means that rights recognized in one jurisdiction can become invisible in another and be accompanied by a repressive use of law or lawfare. We conclude that even in fields of power marked by abysmal inequalities and ecologies of multiple forms of violence, juridified struggles open up new possibilities for social and political mobilization. We also argue that such struggles facilitate connections between jurisdictions, subjects and places, and generate new political grammars.

Ante el avance de la judicialización de la política —y la politización de la justicia—, este artículo se propuso recrear una escena controversial. Controversia, debate, litigio y polémica fueron categorías utilizadas en este texto para caracterizar el intercambio —tanto político como periodístico— producido en torno al Proyecto de Democratización de la Justicia presentado por la expresidenta de Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, en el año 2013. Para ello, hemos analizado las noticias referidas al proyecto de tres diarios de circulación nacional (Clarín, La Nación y Página/12) y las pusimos en tensión con el discurso propiamente político. Lo importante en este punto no consiste tanto en la verificación de si lo estudiado se corresponde efectivamente con un proceso de lawfare o, a la inversa, con un intento de un determinado Gobierno de interceder —con fines político partidarios— en el correcto funcionamiento de la justicia sino, más bien, cómo esos procesos político-judiciales que estudiamos aparecen así tematizados en la escena pública argentina. Los materiales fueron analizados considerando, como hipótesis, que la discusión se estructura en torno a tres ejes: i) el momento en el que es planteada la reforma, ii) la discusión sobre su constitucionalidad, y iii) el debate sobre la división de poderes.

The rule of law is the central milestone of modern democratic states. There is a gap, however, between what is on the constitutional texts and the lived-in world. The scholars use to concentrate their focus on the Executive Branch’s role (and, sometimes, of Legislative Power) in situations of disregard of the Constitution. However, we chose to target the Judicial Branch and its decisions as contributions to the erosion of the rule of law and the production of democratic decay. We claim that the Judiciary started to play a crucial role in this process by assuming a populist bias and carrying out common lawfare practices – which can be well exemplified by judicial electoral decisions and the judicial decisions about Operation Car Wash. For researching the problem and discussing the hypothesis, we used the theoretical-deductive method. We carried out a literature review. We also use informative documentaries extracted from the media on the behavior of public authorities and the critical description of judicial decisions. The bibliography is interdisciplinary. We conclude that when the Judicial Branch becomes a political actor, it fosters a situation of instability and becomes an institution whose legitimacy depends on variations in the mood of society – which goes against the assumptions of democracy and the rule of law. This new judicial behavior causes an imbalance between the powers and the absence of an institution that moderates social conflicts. This situation contributed to the resurgence of the authoritarian identity of Brazilian civil society and the ideological polarization that culminated in the election of a far-right administration in 2018.