The Growing Role of the International Court of Justice as a Field of Lawfare: Perils and Prospects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2724-6299/21521Keywords:
lawfare, International Court of Justice, international dispute resolution, CERD, Genocide ConventionAbstract
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has seen a sharp rise in cases, reflecting both increased reliance on judicial mechanisms and a strategic shift in how states use the Court. While some cases solely aim to resolve legal disputes, particularly in territorial and immunity matters, others—especially those involving politically charged conflicts—suggest a broader function. In such cases, litigation serves as a tool for shaping international narratives, exerting diplomatic pressure, and reinforcing legal norms rather than achieving a definitive legal resolution. This article examines the ICJ’s evolving role as a forum for lawfare, where legal proceedings utilized to advance political, moral, or diplomatic goals. It assesses whether this instrumentalization aligns with the ICJ’s foundational purpose or necessitates a reassessment of its role in international dispute settlement framework. The article, after analysing the definitional discussion on lawfare and tracing its evolution from military strategy to broader international law applications, explores how the ICJ has become a battleground for lawfare, particularly in disputes under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Next, it weighs benefits and risks of such a utilization, contrasting views on norm reinforcement with concerns over politicization. The article concludes by examining how differing conceptions of the ICJ’s function may shape perspectives on lawfare’s impact on the ICJ’s legitimacy and role in global governance.
Downloads
References
Alexianu M. (2023), Provisional, but Not (Always) Pointless: Compliance with ICJ Provisional Measures, EJIL:Talk !, https://www.ejiltalk.org/provisional-but-not-always-pointless-compliance-with-icj-provisional-measures/.
Amann D.M. (2002). Group Mentality, Expressivism, and Genocide, in International Criminal Law Review, vol. 2(2), 93-143.
Argüello. A. C. (2024). The International Court of Justice’s intrinsic powers to decide all cases brought before it, CIL Dialouges , https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/the-international-court-of-justices-intrinsic-powers-to-decide-all-cases-brought-before-it/.
Baetens F. (2019). ‘Abuse of Process and Abuse of Rights Before the ICJ: Ever More Popular, Ever Less Successful?’, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/abuse-of-process-and-abuse-of-rights-before-the-icj-ever-more-popular-ever-less-successful/.
Bartman C. S. (2010). Lawfare and the Definition of Aggression: What the Soviet Union and Russian Federation Can Teach Us, in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 43, 423-447.
Bernardino A. L. (2024). The politics of facts before the International Court of Justice, CIL Dialogues, https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/the-politics-of-facts-before-the-international-court-of-justice/#:~:text=Highly%20political%20cases%20before%20the,%2C%20relevance%2C%20or%20legal%20classification.
Botticelli V. (2024), Greening CERD? The ICJ’s (Over)Cautious Stance on Environmental Harm as Racial Discrimination in Azerbaijan v. Armenia, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/greening-cerd-the-icjs-overcautious-stance-on-environmental-harm-as-racial-discrimination-in-azerbaijan-v-armenia/.
Cannizzaro E. and Bonafé B. (2005). Fragmenting international law through compromissory clauses? Some remarks on the decision of the ICJ in the Oil Platforms case, in European Journal of International Law, vol. 16(3), 481-497.
Cassese A. (2012). The International Court of Justice: it is high time to restyle the respected old Lady, in A. Cassese (ed.), Realizing Utopia – the future of international law (Oxford University Press), 239-249.
Carli E. (2024), Obligations Erga Omnes, Norms of Jus Cogens and Legal Consequences for “Other States” in the ICJ Palestine Advisory Opinion, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/obligations-erga-omnes-norms-of-jus-cogens-and-legal-consequences-for-other-states-in-the-icj-palestine-advisory-opinion/.
Carruthers S.L. (2019), Lawfare and the Debasement of Genocide, in Diplomatic History, Vol. 44(1), 175–177.
Chang E. (2022). Lawfare in Ukraine: Weaponizing International Investment Law and the Law of Armed Conflict Against Russia’s Invasion, in Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 39, https://inss.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/inss/strategic-perspectives-39.pdf.
Coleman A. (2003). The International Court of Justice and highly political matters, in Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 4(1), 29-75.
Dos Reis F. and Grzybowski J. (2024). Moving ‘red lines’: The Russian–Ukrainian war and the pragmatic (mis-)use of international law, in Global Constitutionalism, vol. 13(2), 317-339.
Dunlap Jr C. J. (2009). Lawfare: A Decisive Element of 21s Century Conflicts, in Joint Force Quarterly, vol. 35, 34-39.
Dunlap Jr C. J. (2008). Lawfare Today: A Perspective, in Yale Journal of International Affairs, vol. 3, 146-154.
Dunlap Jr C. J. (2001). Law and military interventions: preserving humanitarian values in 21st conflicts, presented at Humanitarian Challenges in Military Interventions Conference, (November 29, 2001), https://people.duke.edu/~pfeaver/dunlap.pdf.
Fontanelli F. (2021). The Disputes Between Armenia and Azerbaijan: The CERD Compromissory Clause as a One-way Ticket to Hague, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-disputes-between-armenia-and-azerbaijan-the-cerd-compromissory-clause-as-a-one-way-ticket-to-hague/.
Fontanelli F. (2021b). Once burned, twice shy. The use of compromissory clauses before the International Court of Justice and their declining popularity in new treaties, in Rivista di diritto internazionale, vol. 104(1), 7-39.
Forlati S. (2014). The International Court of Justice: an arbitral tribunal or a judicial body? (Springer).
Gapsa M. (2024). On the Importance of Provisional Measures in Ukraine’s Cases against Russia, in Baltic Yearbook of International Law Online, vol. 22(1), 113-146.
Giacco L. L. (2024). When a Dispute Exists: the Emerging Evidentiary Practice of the ICJ in Common Interests Proceedings, in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 23(3), 353-384.
Goldenziel J. (2022). An alternative to zombieing: Lawfare between Russia and Ukraine and the future of international law, in Cornell Law Review Online, Vol. 108, 1-15.
Goldstein B. (2010). Speech Delivered by Brooke Goldstein at Fordham Law School on Lawfare & Combating the Goldstone Report, in the Lawfare Project, April, 27, https://www.thelawfareproject.org/analysis/2010/4/27/ispeech-delivered-by-brooke-goldstein-at-fordham-law-school-on-lawfare-combating-the-goldstone-reportibrthe-lawfare-project.
Gloppen S. (2018). Conceptualizing lawfare: A typology & theoretical framework, in Center of Law and Social Transformation Paper, Bergen, 6-7.
Guilfoyle D. (2023). Small States, Legal Argument, and International Disputes, CIL Dialouges,
https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/small-states-legal-argument-and-international-disputes/.
Fisher B. (2023). The origins of “lawfare” and the exploitation of public international law, in Наукові записки НаУКМА. Юридичні науки, vol. 11, 100-117.
Hathaway O. A., Hachem A., and Cole J. (2023). A New Tool for Enforcing Human Rights: Erga Omnes Partes Standing, in Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 61(2), 259-330.
Harris C. (2020). Claims with an Ulterior Purpose: Characterising Disputes Concerning the “Interpretation or Application” of a Treaty, in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol. 18(3), 279-299.
Hernández G. (2024). High Politics and the International Court of Justice, CIL Dialogues, https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/high-politics-and-the-international-court-of-justice/.
Hernández G. (2014). The International Court of Justice and the judicial function (Oxford University Press).
Hill-Cawthorne L. (2019). International litigation and the disaggregation of disputes: Ukraine/Russia as a case study, in International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 68(4), 779-815.
Irani F. (2018). ‘Lawfare’, US military discourse, and the colonial constitution of law and war, in European Journal of International Security, vol. 3(1), 113.
Kelsen H. (2003). Principles of International Law [1952] (Rinehart and Co.).
Kittrie O. F. (2015). Lawfare: Law as a weapon of war (Oxford University Press).
Kittrie O. F. (2010). Lawfare and U.S. National Security, in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 43(1), 393.
Krieger H. (2024). Mega-Political Cases before the ICJ: Transforming a Hegemonic into a Negotiated Order?, CIL Dialogues, https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/mega-political-cases-before-the-icj-transforming-a-hegemonic-into-a-negotiated-order/.
Khubchandani M. (2022). The Pandora’s Box of Article 63 Interventions in the Ukraine v. Russia Dispute at the ICJ: The Need for Joint Interventions to Strike a Balance, Opinio Juris, http://opiniojuris.org/2022/10/17/the-pandoras-box-of-article-63-interventions-in-the-ukraine-v-russia-dispute-at-the-icj-the-need-for-joint-interventions-to-strike-a-balance/.
Knoll-Tudor B. and Mueller B. (2020). At Daggers Drawn: International Legal Issues Surrounding the Conflict in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/at-daggers-drawn-international-legal-issues-surrounding-the-conflict-in-and-around-nagorno-karabakh/.
Kolb R. (2013). The International Court of Justice. Hart Publishing
Kolb R. (2014). The Elgar Companion to the International Court of Justice (Edward Elgar Publishing).
Lauterpacht H. (2011 [1933]), The Function of Law in the International Law (Oxford University Press).
McGarry B. (2022). Mass Intervention? The Joint Statement of 41 States on Ukraine v. Russia, EJIL:Talk, https://www.ejiltalk.org/mass-intervention-the-joint-statement-of-41-states-on-ukraine-v-russia/.
Mälksoo L. (2024). Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), in American Journal of International Law, vol. 118(3), 519.
Marchuk, I. (2024a). Unfulfilled Promises of the ICJ Litigation for Ukraine: Analysis of the ICJ Judgment in Ukraine v Russia (CERD and ICSFT), EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/unfulfilled-promises-of-the-icj-litigation-for-ukraine-analysis-of-the-icj-judgment-in-ukraine-v-russia-cerd-and-icsft/.
Marchuk I. (2024b). Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russia) (Merits) (ICJ), in International Legal Materials, vol. 63(5), 677.
Milanović M. (2020). ICJ Indicates Provisional Measures in the Myanmar Genocide Case, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/icj-indicates-provisional-measures-in-the-myanmar-genocide-case/.
Nabeel R. (2023). CERD as a Means of Lawfare at the ICJ, RSIL, available at. , https://rsilpak.org/2023/cerd-as-a-means-of-lawfare-at-the-icj/
Nakajima K. (2025). The Azerbaijan–Armenia Lawfare Goes Ahead: Contrasting the Twin Judgements on Preliminary Objections within the Constellation of Inter-State Legal Proceedings, CIL Dialouges, https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/the-azerbaijan-armenia-lawfare-goes-ahead-contrasting-the-twin-judgements-on-preliminary-objections-within-the-constellation-of-inter-state-legal-proceedings/.
Nakajima K. (2023). And the Azerbaijan-Armenia Lawfare Expanded: The Arbitration brought by Azerbaijan under the Bern Convention, Volkerrechtsblog, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/and-the-azerbaijan-armenia-lawfare-expanded/.
Newton M. A. (2011). Illustrating Illegitimate Lawfare, in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 43, 10.
Nissel A. (2013). The duality of state responsibility, in Columbia Human Rights Law Review, vol. 44(3), 793.
Odermatt J. (2018). Patterns of avoidance: political questions before international courts, in International Journal of Law in Context, vol. 14(2), 221.
Odermatt J. and Petkova B. (2024). A Political Question Doctrine at the International Court of Justice?, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-political-question-doctrine-at-the-international-court-of-justice/.
Papadaki M. (2022). Complex Disputes and Narrow Compromissory Clauses: Ukraine’s Institution of Proceedings against Russia, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/complex-disputes-and-narrow-compromissory-clauses-ukraines-institution-of-proceedings-against-russia/.
Ramsden M. (2022). Strategic Litigation before the International Court of Justice: Evaluating Impact in the Campaign for Rohingya Rights, in European Journal of International Law, vol. 33(2), 441.
Rosenne S. (2006). The Compulsory Jurisdiction (Optional Clause), in S. Rosenne, Y. Ronen (eds.), The law and practice of the International Court, 1920-2005 (M. Nijhoff Publishers), vol. 4), 701.
Rossi C.R. (2019). Game of thrones: The Qatar crisis, forced expulsions on the Arabian peninsula, in Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs, Vol. 7(1), 1.
Salkiewicz-Munnerlyn E. and Zylka B. (2022). Interim Measures of Protection, Order of the ICJ from 07 December 2021, in Ukrainian Journal of International Law, n. 3, 52.
Sander B. (2019). The Expressive Turn of International Criminal Justice: A Field in Search of Meaning, in Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 32(4), 851.
Scharf M. and Andersen E. (2010). Is Lawfare Worth Defining-Report of the Cleveland Experts Meeting-September 11, 2010, in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 43, 11.
Schondorf R. (2024). Implausible Confusion: The Meaning of “Plausibility” in the ICJ’s Provisional Measures, EJIL:Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/implausible-confusion-the-meaning-of-plausibility-in-the-icjs-provisional-measures/.
Shahabuddeen M. (1996), Precedent in the World Court (Cambridge University Press).
Sloan J. and Tams C. J. (2013). The development of international law by the International Court of Justice, in Hague Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire de La Haye de Droit International, Vol. 26, 216.
Stahn C. (2020). Justice as message: Expressivist foundations of international criminal justice (Oxford University Press).
Steinberger H. (1974). The International Court of Justice, in Hermann Mosler and Rudolf Bernhardt (eds.), Judicial Settlement of International Disputes (Springer), 193.
Steininger S. and Deitelhoff N. (2021). Against the masters of war: the overlooked functions of conflict litigation by international courts, in Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 84, 95.
Sugihara T. (1996). The Judicial Function of the International Court of Justice with Respect to Disputes Involving Highly Political Issues, in David Raic Muller and J.M. Thuránszky (eds.), The International Court of Justice (Brill Nijhoff), 117.
Tams, C. J. (2021). International Courts and Tribunals and Violent Conflict, in Robin Geiß, and Nils Melzer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the International Law of Global Security (Oxford University Press), 735.
Waseem, A. Q. (2019). Lawfare: the weaponization of international law, in Houston Journal of International Law, vol. 42(1), 39.
Wang, Y. (2021), Warfare to Lawfare under CERD: Armenia v. Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan v. Armenia, Opinio Juris, https://opiniojuris.org/2021/11/09/warfare-to-lawfare-under-cerd-armenia-v-azerbaijan-and-azerbaijan-v-armenia/.
Yasuaki, O. (2022). The ICJ: An Emperor Without Clothes? International Conflict Resolution, Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and the Sources of International Law, in Ando, N. et. Al (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda (Brill), 191.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Onur Uraz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
