The term "lawfare" is increasingly used to characterize the pervasive role of law in the conduct of war, but there is nothing new about the concept. Law has always played a role in war, requiring that a pragmatic balance be struck between the necessities of war and the need to protect the innocent. The significance of this balance between military necessity and humane treatment under the law has never been more central to the credibility of U.S. military operations than it is today. The real question raised today is whether "lawfare" will come to define a fundamental distortion of this historic balance.
During the initial phase of what President Bush designated the Global War on Terror, many experts condemned what was perceived as the distortion of this balance in favor of necessity over humane treatment. Like others who had spent their careers studying the role of law in war, I understood that such an approach would undermine the credibility of the United States as an icon of respect for the law. I also knew it would ultimately weaken the authority of the legal principles that have so effectively enabled military professionals in past conflicts to negotiate the moral landmines that permeate the battlefield. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $9 monthly or $59/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- U.S. Delay on Anti-Nuclear Terror Measures Hinders Global Efforts
- The Realist Prism: China the Likely Winner if U.S. Intervenes in Syria
- Global Insights: Sharif’s Victory Offers U.S. Opportunity to Reset Pakistan Ties
- Diplomatic Fallout: A More Hawkish Europe Gives U.S. Second Thoughts
- The Realist Prism: Narrowed Focus in U.S.-Russia Relations Proves Productive