What do you think?
Rate this book
Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War
International military interventions can be extremely costly in terms of monetary resources, logistical challenges, and possible soldier and civilian casualties, as well as the potential for catastrophic results to international relations and agreements. In one such example of these enormous potential costs, the US and UK wished to stop a Russian ship from delivering ammunition to the Assad regime in Syria in 2012. Intercepting or confronting a Russian ship in transit could have erupted into open conflict, so they sought an alternative, non-confrontational maneuver: instead of military intervention, the UK persuaded the ship's insurer, London's Standard Club, to withdraw the ship's insurance. This loss of insurance caused the ship to return to Russia, thus avoiding an international clash as well as the delivery of deadly weapons to Syria. This use of legal maneuvering in lieu of armed force is known as "lawfare" and is becoming a critical strategic platform.
In Lawfare, author Orde Kittrie's draws on his experiences as a lawfare practitioner, US State Department attorney, and international law scholar in analyzing the theory and practice of the strategic leveraging of law as an increasingly powerful and effective weapon in the current global security landscape. Lawfare incorporates case studies of recent offensive and defensive lawfare by the United States, Iran, China, and by both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and includes dozens of examples of how lawfare has thus been waged and defended against. Kittrie notes that since private attorneys can play important and decisive roles in their nations' national security plans through their expertise in areas like financial law, maritime insurance law, cyber law, and telecommunications law, the full scope of lawfare's impact and possibilities are just starting to be understood. With international security becoming an ever complicated minefield of concerns and complications, understanding this alternative to armed force has never been more important.
In Lawfare, author Orde Kittrie's draws on his experiences as a lawfare practitioner, US State Department attorney, and international law scholar in analyzing the theory and practice of the strategic leveraging of law as an increasingly powerful and effective weapon in the current global security landscape. Lawfare incorporates case studies of recent offensive and defensive lawfare by the United States, Iran, China, and by both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and includes dozens of examples of how lawfare has thus been waged and defended against. Kittrie notes that since private attorneys can play important and decisive roles in their nations' national security plans through their expertise in areas like financial law, maritime insurance law, cyber law, and telecommunications law, the full scope of lawfare's impact and possibilities are just starting to be understood. With international security becoming an ever complicated minefield of concerns and complications, understanding this alternative to armed force has never been more important.
640 pages, Hardcover
First published December 30, 2015
17 people are currently reading
287 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 28, 2017
'Lawfare' is a book that I happened to run across while looking for more information on non-kinetic applications of power achieve strategic objectives. The author points out that this is the first of its type produced in English. China, despite its nascent legal skills, has produced numerous books dealing with how law can be used to achieve objectives. I agree with the author that this will be a discipline that gains prevalence in the years to come. It is best that the United States get ahead of the trend.
The author has sought with this book to draw the attention of the U.S. legal and national security community to the missed opportunities and increasing vulnerabilities created by the U.S. government’s failure to engage with lawfare in a systematic and coordinated manner.
As with cyber, lawfare contains both defensive and offensive elements.
The effective application of lawfare requires lawyers to see problems through the lens of targeting. For example, one case study in the book speaks on how the law was used to ensure that a flotilla of ships headed to Gaza never reached their destination. All this was done without deploying a troop or firing a shot. This was done by lawyers who (whether they realized it or not), applied the tenets of center of gravity and critical vulnerabilities:
1. Ships at sea need insurance.
- "Shurat HaDin (a small Israeli law center) learned that ships are generally prohibited from departing Greek harbors without having maritime insurance."
- "Shurat HaDin sent letters to each of the several dozen relevant maritime insurance companies. The letters placed the companies “on notice” concerning the Gaza flotilla. Specifically, the letters warned that if the companies knowingly insured boats being used to breach the Gaza blockade and conduct smuggling into Gaza, the companies would find themselves open to charges of materially supporting terrorism and legally liable for any future terrorist or rocket attacks perpetrated by Hamas, on the grounds that the boats provided material support to Hamas."
2. Ships need means of navigation.
- "It discovered that Inmarsat, which is based in the United States and the U.K., was the sole commercial provider of maritime communications services in the region and was providing satellite communications services to the Mavi Marmara vessel..."
- "...stating that under U.S. law, Inmarsat and its officers would be open to both criminal charges and civil liability if it were to provide satellite communication services to the Gaza flotilla ships."
3. Lawsuit to seize the vessels.
- "Shurat HaDin also filed a lawsuit in federal court to seize the ships in the flotilla on behalf of Dr. Alan Bauer, an American who had been seriously injured in a March 2002 suicide bombing by Palestinian terrorists."
- "The suit sought to confiscate the ships on the grounds that they were outfitted with funds unlawfully raised in the United States by anti-Israel groups including the Free Gaza Movement."
Results of efforts to stop the flotilla/ability of a few attorneys:
- "Through Shurat HaDin, the Israeli military objective of stopping the flotilla from breaching the Gaza blockade was accomplished without bloodshed, at relatively little cost, and largely without putting the government of Israel’s own assets and reputation at risk."
- "Shurat HaDin, which has a staff of ten attorneys and an annual budget of $2.5 million, has reportedly won more than one billion dollars in judgments. It has also reportedly frozen more than $600 million in terrorist assets and collected $150 million on behalf of its clients."
Below are some key points that I took away from the rest of the book:
- "Both the U.S. government and the broader American legal community contain tremendous legal expertise. Their failure to engage with lawfare systematically, while our adversaries and potential adversaries are doing so, is a missed opportunity and is increasingly dangerous." - Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey (in book's foreword)
Origin of term 'lawfare':
- "In recognition of law’s increasing utility as a weapon of war, Dunlap, then a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps, in November 2001 introduced the term “lawfare” into the mainstream legal and international relations literature. He ultimately defined “lawfare” as the strategy of “using—or misusing—law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.”
Advantages of lawfare:
- "lawfare, deployed systematically and adeptly, could in various circumstances save U.S. and foreign lives by enabling U.S. national security objectives to be advanced with less or no kinetic warfare."
- "We have every reason to embrace lawfare,” says Phillip Carter, an attorney and former U.S. Army officer, “for it is vastly preferable to the bloody, expensive, and destructive forms of warfare..."
- "Lawfare can sometimes also be more effective than kinetic warfare."
- "...lawfare is both a weapon that can be consistent with the United States’ national interests and one that the United States could deploy more effectively than can its adversaries" (due to the quantity and quality of lawyers in the US)
- "Most lawfare can be considered a subset of asymmetric warfare."
Law often seen as a restriction rather than an opportunity/tool:
- "Policymakers less frequently turn to their lawyers at the start of the policymaking process and ask how law could be used to achieve the policy objective."
- "Advisers profiled had succeeded in persuading policymakers to comply with the constraints of international law, rather than on if and when they had succeeded in creatively harnessing international or domestic law to more effectively achieve U.S. policy objectives."
Historic examples of lawfare:
- Hugo Grotius ("father of international law") wrote his classic book, Mare Liberum, first published in 1609, in which he made the case that under the “Law of Nations,” “the sea is common to all” and all nations are free to use it for seafaring trade. By the 1700s, “most states” had adopted Grotius’s “idea of mare liberum—the freedom of the seas.” Thus, “Grotius used law to accomplish an objective that Dutch military power could not and thereby solidified the concept of freedom of the seas in modern international law.”
- "...during the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, “the Iraqi Air Force found itself hobbled by a legal device—sanctions—as effectively as by any outcome from traditional aerial combat.”
- "By using this new kind of trade sanction, the United States and its allies managed to drastically reduce Iran’s gasoline supplies without intercepting a single tanker or firing a single shot."
- (Regarding economic lawfare against Iran) "According to Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, Treasury “opened up a new battlefield for the United States.”
Additional lawfare case studies:
- "While the Boim case (victim's family took terrorism donors to court) had established that donors to a terrorist group could be held liable for the group’s terrorist acts, Linde v. Arab Bank took the principle a step further, by establishing that providers of financial services to a terrorist group could be held liable for the group’s terrorist acts." (The cases cost terrorist groups hundreds of millions of dollars in the ruling)
Lawfare is part of a whole of government approach:
- "But there has been no systematic effort to either develop a whole-of-government U.S. strategy for the broad range of types of lawfare..."
- "The U.S. government has no overarching strategy for waging lawfare and there is no person or office in the U.S. government that plays a coordinating role..."
China begins to invest in lawfare:
- "Defeating the enemy without fighting is the pinnacle of excellence.” —Sun Tzu
- "...in 1996, PRC President Jiang Zemin advised a group of Chinese international law experts that China “must be adept at using international law as a weapon.”
- "In contrast with the U.S. government, the PRC has explicitly adopted lawfare (the synonymous term in Chinese is falu zhan or “legal warfare”) as a major component of its strategic doctrine."
- In 2003, the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee and the Chinese Central Military Commission approved the concept of “Three Warfares,”:
1. Psychological Warfare
2. Media Warfare
3. Legal Warfare
- "...the PLA Academy of Military Science text, The Science of Military Strategy, notes that “war is not only a military struggle, but also a comprehensive contest on fronts of politics, economy, diplomacy, and law.”
- "Following the Communist revolution of 1949, China adopted the Marxist view that law serves as an instrument of politics..."
- "In the conception of PRC strategists, legal warfare should begin, and can be exceptionally valuable, “before the outbreak of physical hostilities.”
- China wants to leverage international law to give the advantage in various domains:
1. "For example, there are an “increasing number of scholarly articles published by Chinese authors claiming that China’s terrestrial borders extend indefinitely upward through outer space and that all the space within those perimeters is China’s sovereign territory.”
2. PRC is disinclined to have cyberspace activities governed by international law (including LOAC).
3. (Regarding an incident in which China unofficially told its companies not to trade with Japan following an incident): "...the PRC’s quiet blocking of such exports, combined with a public denial that it was taking such a step, sent a message to Japan without incurring legal consequences."
- "The United States and its allies should also strongly consider closely integrating their lawfare operations with their kinetic military activities, as the PRC has done."
Lawfare in Israel and Palestine:
- (A majority of the book dealt with lawfare use in Israel and Palestine, as depicted in the Gaza-bound flotilla example above)
- "Much as the Spanish Civil War served as a testing ground for weapons and tactics subsequently used in World War II, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is foreshadowing lawfare strategies and tactics that will soon be replicated in other conflicts."
- "...establishment in 2009, by decision of Israel’s Security Cabinet, of a special office within Israel’s Ministry of Justice for “handling all international legal proceedings against Israel, Israeli soldiers or officials.”
- "...establishment of the office is “evidence that the Israeli Government has come to terms with the new state of ‘law fare’ in which it finds itself.”
- "Remarkably, practically all of these alleged war crimes involved Israeli attempts to target Hamas fighters, command centers, and weapons that Hamas had deployed among civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict."
- "...on July 16, 2014, that “the Israeli military delivered text messages to virtually all the residents of Ash Shuja’iyya and Az Zaitun neighborhoods in eastern Gaza city, approximately 100,000 people, warning them to leave their homes by 8 am today (16 July), ahead of attacks to be launched in the area.”
- "The Washington Post reported that in attacking the house of a Hamas operative on a different occasion, “Israel telephoned the man, dropped two non-lethal warning rockets on the roof, and then leveled the whole building five minutes later,” with “no injuries.”
- "...the Israeli government responded to the battlefield lawfare engaged in by Hamas (and also Hezbollah) by expanding the role of military lawyers in Israel’s targeting decisions."
- "It seems to us that it is appropriate that fighting forces, certainly at field ranks, concentrate on fighting and not consulting with legal advisers."
- "...allowing Hamas to “attack with impunity” from schools or mosques or hospitals “would validate and legitimize Hamas’s use of human shields, and it would hand an enormous victory to terrorists everywhere..."
- Netanyahu said: "If this were to happen, more and more civilians will die around the world, because this is a testing period now."
Way ahead:
- "Newsweek asserted that, for the United States at least, “the first salvo in modern warfare is likely to be financial—and the result is increasingly effective.”
- "...the initial identification, development, and delineation of the lawfare idea is likely to require deep expertise in the subspecialty...many new lawfare ideas have yet to be discovered, and leading private sector experts can play a particularly important role in adding their expertise."
The author has sought with this book to draw the attention of the U.S. legal and national security community to the missed opportunities and increasing vulnerabilities created by the U.S. government’s failure to engage with lawfare in a systematic and coordinated manner.
As with cyber, lawfare contains both defensive and offensive elements.
The effective application of lawfare requires lawyers to see problems through the lens of targeting. For example, one case study in the book speaks on how the law was used to ensure that a flotilla of ships headed to Gaza never reached their destination. All this was done without deploying a troop or firing a shot. This was done by lawyers who (whether they realized it or not), applied the tenets of center of gravity and critical vulnerabilities:
1. Ships at sea need insurance.
- "Shurat HaDin (a small Israeli law center) learned that ships are generally prohibited from departing Greek harbors without having maritime insurance."
- "Shurat HaDin sent letters to each of the several dozen relevant maritime insurance companies. The letters placed the companies “on notice” concerning the Gaza flotilla. Specifically, the letters warned that if the companies knowingly insured boats being used to breach the Gaza blockade and conduct smuggling into Gaza, the companies would find themselves open to charges of materially supporting terrorism and legally liable for any future terrorist or rocket attacks perpetrated by Hamas, on the grounds that the boats provided material support to Hamas."
2. Ships need means of navigation.
- "It discovered that Inmarsat, which is based in the United States and the U.K., was the sole commercial provider of maritime communications services in the region and was providing satellite communications services to the Mavi Marmara vessel..."
- "...stating that under U.S. law, Inmarsat and its officers would be open to both criminal charges and civil liability if it were to provide satellite communication services to the Gaza flotilla ships."
3. Lawsuit to seize the vessels.
- "Shurat HaDin also filed a lawsuit in federal court to seize the ships in the flotilla on behalf of Dr. Alan Bauer, an American who had been seriously injured in a March 2002 suicide bombing by Palestinian terrorists."
- "The suit sought to confiscate the ships on the grounds that they were outfitted with funds unlawfully raised in the United States by anti-Israel groups including the Free Gaza Movement."
Results of efforts to stop the flotilla/ability of a few attorneys:
- "Through Shurat HaDin, the Israeli military objective of stopping the flotilla from breaching the Gaza blockade was accomplished without bloodshed, at relatively little cost, and largely without putting the government of Israel’s own assets and reputation at risk."
- "Shurat HaDin, which has a staff of ten attorneys and an annual budget of $2.5 million, has reportedly won more than one billion dollars in judgments. It has also reportedly frozen more than $600 million in terrorist assets and collected $150 million on behalf of its clients."
Below are some key points that I took away from the rest of the book:
- "Both the U.S. government and the broader American legal community contain tremendous legal expertise. Their failure to engage with lawfare systematically, while our adversaries and potential adversaries are doing so, is a missed opportunity and is increasingly dangerous." - Former CIA Director Jim Woolsey (in book's foreword)
Origin of term 'lawfare':
- "In recognition of law’s increasing utility as a weapon of war, Dunlap, then a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps, in November 2001 introduced the term “lawfare” into the mainstream legal and international relations literature. He ultimately defined “lawfare” as the strategy of “using—or misusing—law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an operational objective.”
Advantages of lawfare:
- "lawfare, deployed systematically and adeptly, could in various circumstances save U.S. and foreign lives by enabling U.S. national security objectives to be advanced with less or no kinetic warfare."
- "We have every reason to embrace lawfare,” says Phillip Carter, an attorney and former U.S. Army officer, “for it is vastly preferable to the bloody, expensive, and destructive forms of warfare..."
- "Lawfare can sometimes also be more effective than kinetic warfare."
- "...lawfare is both a weapon that can be consistent with the United States’ national interests and one that the United States could deploy more effectively than can its adversaries" (due to the quantity and quality of lawyers in the US)
- "Most lawfare can be considered a subset of asymmetric warfare."
Law often seen as a restriction rather than an opportunity/tool:
- "Policymakers less frequently turn to their lawyers at the start of the policymaking process and ask how law could be used to achieve the policy objective."
- "Advisers profiled had succeeded in persuading policymakers to comply with the constraints of international law, rather than on if and when they had succeeded in creatively harnessing international or domestic law to more effectively achieve U.S. policy objectives."
Historic examples of lawfare:
- Hugo Grotius ("father of international law") wrote his classic book, Mare Liberum, first published in 1609, in which he made the case that under the “Law of Nations,” “the sea is common to all” and all nations are free to use it for seafaring trade. By the 1700s, “most states” had adopted Grotius’s “idea of mare liberum—the freedom of the seas.” Thus, “Grotius used law to accomplish an objective that Dutch military power could not and thereby solidified the concept of freedom of the seas in modern international law.”
- "...during the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, “the Iraqi Air Force found itself hobbled by a legal device—sanctions—as effectively as by any outcome from traditional aerial combat.”
- "By using this new kind of trade sanction, the United States and its allies managed to drastically reduce Iran’s gasoline supplies without intercepting a single tanker or firing a single shot."
- (Regarding economic lawfare against Iran) "According to Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, Treasury “opened up a new battlefield for the United States.”
Additional lawfare case studies:
- "While the Boim case (victim's family took terrorism donors to court) had established that donors to a terrorist group could be held liable for the group’s terrorist acts, Linde v. Arab Bank took the principle a step further, by establishing that providers of financial services to a terrorist group could be held liable for the group’s terrorist acts." (The cases cost terrorist groups hundreds of millions of dollars in the ruling)
Lawfare is part of a whole of government approach:
- "But there has been no systematic effort to either develop a whole-of-government U.S. strategy for the broad range of types of lawfare..."
- "The U.S. government has no overarching strategy for waging lawfare and there is no person or office in the U.S. government that plays a coordinating role..."
China begins to invest in lawfare:
- "Defeating the enemy without fighting is the pinnacle of excellence.” —Sun Tzu
- "...in 1996, PRC President Jiang Zemin advised a group of Chinese international law experts that China “must be adept at using international law as a weapon.”
- "In contrast with the U.S. government, the PRC has explicitly adopted lawfare (the synonymous term in Chinese is falu zhan or “legal warfare”) as a major component of its strategic doctrine."
- In 2003, the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee and the Chinese Central Military Commission approved the concept of “Three Warfares,”:
1. Psychological Warfare
2. Media Warfare
3. Legal Warfare
- "...the PLA Academy of Military Science text, The Science of Military Strategy, notes that “war is not only a military struggle, but also a comprehensive contest on fronts of politics, economy, diplomacy, and law.”
- "Following the Communist revolution of 1949, China adopted the Marxist view that law serves as an instrument of politics..."
- "In the conception of PRC strategists, legal warfare should begin, and can be exceptionally valuable, “before the outbreak of physical hostilities.”
- China wants to leverage international law to give the advantage in various domains:
1. "For example, there are an “increasing number of scholarly articles published by Chinese authors claiming that China’s terrestrial borders extend indefinitely upward through outer space and that all the space within those perimeters is China’s sovereign territory.”
2. PRC is disinclined to have cyberspace activities governed by international law (including LOAC).
3. (Regarding an incident in which China unofficially told its companies not to trade with Japan following an incident): "...the PRC’s quiet blocking of such exports, combined with a public denial that it was taking such a step, sent a message to Japan without incurring legal consequences."
- "The United States and its allies should also strongly consider closely integrating their lawfare operations with their kinetic military activities, as the PRC has done."
Lawfare in Israel and Palestine:
- (A majority of the book dealt with lawfare use in Israel and Palestine, as depicted in the Gaza-bound flotilla example above)
- "Much as the Spanish Civil War served as a testing ground for weapons and tactics subsequently used in World War II, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is foreshadowing lawfare strategies and tactics that will soon be replicated in other conflicts."
- "...establishment in 2009, by decision of Israel’s Security Cabinet, of a special office within Israel’s Ministry of Justice for “handling all international legal proceedings against Israel, Israeli soldiers or officials.”
- "...establishment of the office is “evidence that the Israeli Government has come to terms with the new state of ‘law fare’ in which it finds itself.”
- "Remarkably, practically all of these alleged war crimes involved Israeli attempts to target Hamas fighters, command centers, and weapons that Hamas had deployed among civilians in violation of the law of armed conflict."
- "...on July 16, 2014, that “the Israeli military delivered text messages to virtually all the residents of Ash Shuja’iyya and Az Zaitun neighborhoods in eastern Gaza city, approximately 100,000 people, warning them to leave their homes by 8 am today (16 July), ahead of attacks to be launched in the area.”
- "The Washington Post reported that in attacking the house of a Hamas operative on a different occasion, “Israel telephoned the man, dropped two non-lethal warning rockets on the roof, and then leveled the whole building five minutes later,” with “no injuries.”
- "...the Israeli government responded to the battlefield lawfare engaged in by Hamas (and also Hezbollah) by expanding the role of military lawyers in Israel’s targeting decisions."
- "It seems to us that it is appropriate that fighting forces, certainly at field ranks, concentrate on fighting and not consulting with legal advisers."
- "...allowing Hamas to “attack with impunity” from schools or mosques or hospitals “would validate and legitimize Hamas’s use of human shields, and it would hand an enormous victory to terrorists everywhere..."
- Netanyahu said: "If this were to happen, more and more civilians will die around the world, because this is a testing period now."
Way ahead:
- "Newsweek asserted that, for the United States at least, “the first salvo in modern warfare is likely to be financial—and the result is increasingly effective.”
- "...the initial identification, development, and delineation of the lawfare idea is likely to require deep expertise in the subspecialty...many new lawfare ideas have yet to be discovered, and leading private sector experts can play a particularly important role in adding their expertise."
October 9, 2025
Legal means are often more efficient, cheaper and in general better tools for achieving military objectives. Sometimes they are the only solution.
Legal warfare (or lawfare) was (and is) used in all major modern conflicts, but, as the author persuasively shows, democratic countries do not use this powerful tool in such a systematic and efficient way as their totalitarian adversaries.
The concepts, the ideas and the case studies on lawfare use described in the book are extremely valuable, they can and should be used against the aggressor in the context of war waged by Russia against Ukraine.
Legal warfare (or lawfare) was (and is) used in all major modern conflicts, but, as the author persuasively shows, democratic countries do not use this powerful tool in such a systematic and efficient way as their totalitarian adversaries.
The concepts, the ideas and the case studies on lawfare use described in the book are extremely valuable, they can and should be used against the aggressor in the context of war waged by Russia against Ukraine.
May 11, 2025
Well written, and while seemingly intended more as textbook than for the lay reader, it excelled at laying out the importance of the subject, its contours, its latest developments, and how we should be thinking about it. Its only difficulty is the difficulty with all international law, which the book acknowledges at the outset, which is the lack of any truly neutral arbiter, democratic accountability, or enforcement power. But that said, the normative value of international law and the way it is exploited, often by bad actors, is well-described and addressed here.
October 15, 2024
Way over my head, but I still learned some things and found parts of it very interesting.
September 11, 2025
Super interesting! A milestone opening new possibilities! I found super interesting and surprising the part about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
February 12, 2017
Required reading for lawyers, politically scientists, historians, and global citizens with an interest in a very new weapons of war. Very well written and researched with lots of footnotes. Easily browseable since the main ideas are in the intro chapters and first and last paragraphs. That said, it reads like a long law review article...wish it was more imaginative and accessible for lay people.
February 17, 2016
Lawfare is “the strategy of using—or misusing—law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve a warfighting objective” Maj Gen Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF (Ret)
The development of an international rule of law is traceable from the first explorers leaving their homeland to today where the “rule of law” plays out in every aspect of society and has risen to a point where nations, international organizations and individuals can use the law as part of their strategy.
In Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, Orde F. Kittrie, a tenured Professor of Law at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, director of its Washington DC Semester Program, and a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues that for the United States the lack of a “systematic engagement with lawfare is a tremendous missed opportunity.”(3) Phillip Carter, a lawyer and former U.S. Army Officer agrees: “We have every reason to embrace lawfare, for it is vastly preferable to the bloody, expensive and destructive forms of warfare that ravaged the world in the 20th century.”(3) Read full review at http://www.thestrategybridge.com/the-...
The development of an international rule of law is traceable from the first explorers leaving their homeland to today where the “rule of law” plays out in every aspect of society and has risen to a point where nations, international organizations and individuals can use the law as part of their strategy.
In Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War, Orde F. Kittrie, a tenured Professor of Law at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, director of its Washington DC Semester Program, and a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues that for the United States the lack of a “systematic engagement with lawfare is a tremendous missed opportunity.”(3) Phillip Carter, a lawyer and former U.S. Army Officer agrees: “We have every reason to embrace lawfare, for it is vastly preferable to the bloody, expensive and destructive forms of warfare that ravaged the world in the 20th century.”(3) Read full review at http://www.thestrategybridge.com/the-...
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews