Towards a War of Norms ? From Lawfare to Legal Operations
Defined as the use of law to establish, perpetuate, or change power relations in order to counter an adversary, lawfare practices reflect a reality that is inherent in international law.
Resulting from compromises between states, international law expresses political-strategic power relations that lawfare seeks to manipulate in four main ways:
- adjusting legal constraints by reinterpreting existing norms
- establishing new norms through legal lobbying as a power strategy
- mobilizing legal effects to coerce an actor through strategic litigation
- using law as a reputational weapon
Although lawfare is controversial when understood as a misuse of the rule of law, it is now being institutionalized. While states do not claim direct responsibility for acts of lawfare, the increasing use of legal vectors to achieve political-strategic ends is a notable feature of the disruptions at work in the international system. States have always used the law for strategic purposes, but recent developments—the proliferation of courts of justice, the increasing media coverage of conflicts, and the growing confusion between legality and legitimacy—tend to favor a greater instrumentalization of the law.
This content is available in French: Vers une guerre des normes ? Du lawfare aux opérations juridiques.
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Towards a War of Norms ? From Lawfare to Legal Operations
Amélie FÉREY
Former Research Fellow, Former Head of the Defense Research Unit, Security Studies Center, Ifri
Security Studies Center
Heir to a tradition dating back to the founding of Ifri, the Security Studies Center provides public and private decision-makers as well as the general public with the keys to understanding power relations and contemporary modes of conflict as well as those to come. Through its positioning at the juncture of politics and operations, the credibility of its civil-military team and the wide distribution of its publications in French and English, the Center for Security Studies constitutes in the French landscape of think tanks a unique center of research and influence on the national and international defense debate.
From Corsairs to Private Military Contractors. Nonmilitary Maritime Actors and the Historical Continuities of Naval Warfare
Since late 2023, several Houthi attacks on commercial shipping have involved privately contracted armed teams conducting defensive engagements and coordinating immediate response efforts, often in the relative absence of regular naval forces during the immediate hostilities at sea. These cases highlight a strategic tension that increasingly confronts modern navies. On the one hand, they are expected to conduct persistent, low-intensity maritime security tasks such as counterpiracy, maritime policing, and the protection of commercial shipping. On the other hand, they face renewed pressure to prepare for high-intensity conflict against peer and near-peer adversaries amid the return of great power competition.
Framework Nation: A European Challenge and French Ambition
First appearing in the early 2000s, the framework nation concept follows several distinct rationales, whether it refers to a country assuming the leadership of a military operation, directing a multinational capability project, or commanding a permanent force structure. In every case, the country that takes on this role fully intends to derive from it additional politico-military influence.
The Nuanced Relationship Between Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
Public sentiment is something decision-makers must contend with, especially in democratic states. However, the extent to which public opinion shapes foreign policy varies. Three Council of Councils experts in France, India, and Nigeria reflect on how public opinion does—and sometimes does not—affect foreign policy decisions.
Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?