TRADITIONALLY, warfare was fought on morally and economically unbearable grounds, evolving from trenches to treaties and from weapons to writs.
Lawfare—the strategic use of legal systems to achieve military or geopolitical objectives—has emerged as a new frontier in global conflict.
It is a form of warfare that conceals aggression behind legality, exploiting le-gal mechanisms to damage, delegitimize or constrain an adversary without resorting to open violence.
A prime example is the Israel-Palestine conflict and its regional implications.
Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms the inherent right of self-defence for member states in case of armed attacks, pending Security Council action.
Following Hamas’s deceptive rocket fire, Israel invokes self-defence while conducting military operations in Gaza and Lebanon, aiming to comply with international humanitarian law and the Law of Armed Conflict.
A landmark case illustrating lawfare is Loizidou vs Turkey (1996, European Court of Human Rights).
It set an important precedent by holding Turkey responsible for human rights violations committed by its forces in Northern Cyprus, despite lacking formal control over the area.
The case expanded the concept of jurisdiction beyond a state’s formal territory and established state accountability for actions under effective control.
Similarly, the United States employs financial sanctions against Iran, restricting its access to the international banking system through SWIFT, aimed at limiting Iran’s foreign trade and financial transactions.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) supports these measures, cit-ing concerns over terrorism financing and restricting Iran’s use of the US dollar and US companies.
The Indus Waters Treaty (1960), facilitated by the World Bank, provides a legal framework for Pakistan-India water disputes.
Pakistan can resolve concerns by appointing a Neutral Ex-pert or referring matters to a Court of Arbitration, reaffirming its commitment to the rule of law and protecting its water rights.
Moreover, India’s religious intolerance—evident in discriminatory citizenship laws, mob lynchings and blasphemy incidents—allows Pakistan to raise human rights concerns internationally.
These actions potentially violate treaties like the ICCPR and ICERD, both signed by India.
By documenting these violations, Pakistan strengthens its legal and moral case, potentially prompting diplomatic and legal pressures through bodies like the UN Human Rights Council and the International Court of Justice.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Sanghar, Sindh. (advaddero@gmail.com)
