Lawfare is a term that can have a double meaning, but in both cases relates to using legal systems and institutions to achieve a goal.
The misuse of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g. SLAPP suits), or winning a public relations victory.
A tactic used by repressive regimes to label and discourage civil society or individuals from claiming their legal rights via national or international legal systems. This is especially common in situations when individuals and civil society use non-violent methods to highlight or oppose discrimination, corruption, lack of democracy, limiting freedom of speech, violations of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law.
The term is a portmanteau of the words law and warfare.
As stated by Mercouris, this could become a free-for-all. With this tactic, anybody doing business internationally can be arrested under the fraudulent laws with no recourse. I hope the ruling class is happy with this strategy because it represents everything wrong with them.
between empire and despotism. The lawfare described is characteristic of despots and tyrants. Only an individual with a powerful sovereign backer could even survive this arbitrary “legal” onslaught. It’s more akin to an inquisition than the legal ideal that we all wished existed, as described by Alexander. The Assange case comes to mind. There are multiple whistleblower examples. Then there is Chevron v. Donziger. I doubt if she would have been acquitted in a US court. Not because the case is legitimate or could be proven, but because this isn’t how the US system works.