El lawfare, entre sus (no)límites y la transdisciplinariedad

Cristina Elena Popa Tache; Cătălin-Silviu Săraru

doi:10.18046/prec.v23.5889

Authors

Cristina Elena Popa Tache Centre International de Recherches et Études Transdisciplinaires (Paris, France) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1508-7658
Cătălin-Silviu Săraru Bucharest University of Economic Studies (Bucharest, Romania) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6261-5893

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18046/prec.v23.5889

Keywords:

Lawfare, Transdisciplinarity, Legal System, Strategy, Integrity, Collaboration, Transparency, Democratic Society, International Law

Abstract

This research explores the chameleon concept of lawfare and its impact on legal systems and society in general, focusing on the interplay between its (im)boundaries and transdisciplinarity. The analysis focuses on a kaleidoscope of fundamental aspects of justice, including the tactics and strategies used in judicial proceedings, in civil or military conflicts, in the abuse of legal procedures, and in the manipulation of the legal system to achieve illegal ends, in the regulation of law at the global level and nationally, highlighting the different forms this phenomenon can take and its impact on the rule of law and democracy. An important aspect of the research is the analysis of the limits of the law, in the sense that there are certain ethical, legal, and moral restrictions on the abusive use of the legal system, regardless of the circumstances. The conclusions are based on the finding that clearer regulations are needed to protect the integrity of the legal system and to prevent legal abuses, a fact that requires a series of future research, establishing the conditions that mark the transition from legal to illegal. This article has been developed using the method of transdisciplinary introspection, based on primary and secondary data from scientific journals, books, documents, and other publications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Cristina Elena Popa Tache, Centre International de Recherches et Études Transdisciplinaires (Paris, France)

Associate Professor of International Law and an Active Researcher at CIRET- Centre International de Recherches et Études Transdisciplinaires. Author of over 80 studies, articles and books in the field of international law, she is an associate editor at Taylor & Francis, Routledge and a member of prestigious editorial committees. Corresponding author, solely responsible for writing and research. Competing interests: no competing interests. Disclaimer: the author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations. Translation: the content of this article was written in English by the author.
Cătălin-Silviu Săraru, Bucharest University of Economic Studies (Bucharest, Romania)

Associate Professor, PhD. Habil., Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Bucharest University of Economic Studies. Author of numerous studies, articles and books in the field of administrative law and chief editor at Tribuna Juridica/Juridical Tribune. Corresponding author, solely responsible for writing and research (Use CRediT taxonomy). Competing interests: any competing interests was included. Disclaimer: the author declares that his opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations. Translation: the content of this article was translated with the participation of third parties under the authors’ responsibility.

References

Aalberts, T., Rajkovic, N. M., & Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. (2016). Introduction: Legality, Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Practices. The Power of Legality (pp. 1-26). Cambridge University Press.

Allard, J., & Garapon, A. (2005). Les Juges dans la mondialisation : La nouvelle révolution du droit. Editions du Seuil and La République des idées.

Buga, I. (2018). Modification of Treaties by Subsequent Practice. Oxford.

Butt, S. & Lindsey, T. (2013). Judicial Mafia: The Courts and State Illegality in Indonesia. In E. Aspinall & G. van Klinken (Eds.), The State and Illegality in Indonesia (pp. 189-213). KITLV Press.

Carvalho, A. (2005). Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(1), 1-29.

Charter of Transdisciplinarity. (1994, November 2-6). Adopted at the First World Congress on Transdisciplinarity, Convento da Arrábida, Portugal.

Cheng, D. (2012). Winning Without Fighting: Chinese Legal Warfare. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/winning-without-fighting-chinese-legal-warfare

Ciutacu, C., Chivu, L., & Jean, V. A. (2017). Land grabbing: A review of extent and possible consequences in Romania. Land Use Policy, 62, 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.001

Collins English Dictionary. (n.d.). Lawfare. Retrieved November 23, 2022, from https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lawfare

Cribb, R. (Ed.). (1990). The Indonesian Killings: Studies from Java and Bali. Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University.

Davis, D., & Le Roux, M. (2019). Lawfare: Judging Politics in South Africa. Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Didea, I., & Ilie, D. M. (2019). (R)evolution of the insolvency law in a globalized economy. Juridical Tribune - Tribuna Juridica, 9(1), 94-95.

Duczynski, G., Bachmann, S., & Smith, M. (2021). Operational Design, Taming Wicked Problems, and Lawfare. Journal of Information Warfare, 20(3), 73-89.

Dunlap, C. J. (2001). Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts (Paper presented at the Humanitarian Challenges in Military Intervention Conference). http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6193&context=faculty_scholarship

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press.

Goldenziel, J. (2022, February 20). Ukraine Is Weaponizing Corporations Against Russia-Using Lawfare. Forbes.

Graham, R. (2016). How Terrorists Use Encryption. CTC Sentinel, 9(6), 20-26.

Hadorn, G. H., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer.

Hasian, M. (2014). Biopolitics and Thanatopolitics at Guantánamo, and the Weapons of the Weak in the Lawfare over Force-Feeding. Law & Literature, 26(3), 343-364.

Hendricks, V. F., & Vestergaard, M. (2019). Reality Lost: Markets of Attention, Misinformation and Manipulation. Springer. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-00813-0

Hornby, A. S. (1995). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press.

Joyner, C. C. (2005). International Law in the 21st Century: Rules for Global Governance. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Kittrie, O. F. (2016). Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War. Oxford Academic.

Konkes, C. (2018). Green Lawfare: Environmental Public Interest Litigation and Mediatized Environmental Conflict. Environmental Communication, 12(2), 191-203.

Lakomy, M. (2022). Why Do Online Countering Violent Extremism Strategies Not Work? The Case of Digital Jihad. Terrorism and Political Violence. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2022.2038575

Lazarus, R. (2009). Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Review, 94, 1153-1234.

Lobel, O. (2007). The Paradox of Extralegal Activism: Critical Legal Consciousness and Transformative Politics. Harvard Law Review, 120(4), 937-988.

Lochak, D. (2018). Les migrations transdisciplinaires du droit des étrangers. Quelles causes ? Quels enjeux ? In S. Barbou des Places and F. Audren, Qu’est-ce qu’une discipline juridique ? (pp. 279-294). LGDJ.

Maclean, K. (2012). Lawfare and Impunity in Burma since the 2000 Ban on Forced Labour. Asian Studies Review, 36(2), 189-206.

Matthews, T. (2023). Interrogating the Debates Around Lawfare and Legal Mobilization: A Literature Review. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 15(1), 24-45. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huac044

McCann, M. W. (1994). Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. University of Chicago Press.

McGrath, C. (2008). Flying foxes, dams and whales: Using federal environmental laws in the public interest. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 25(5), 324-359.

Mietzner, M. (2010). Electoral Contestations and Economic Resilience. Asian Survey, 50(1), 185-194.

Morss, J. R. (2013). International Law as the Law of Collectives: Toward a Law of People. Routledge.

Muñoz Mosquera, A., & Muñoz Bravo, A. (2017). The Legal Domain: A Need for Hybrid Warfare Environments. NATO Legal Matters. The Operational Law Quarterly, 2.

Nance, M., & Sampson, C. (2017). Hacking ISIS: How to Destroy the Cyber Jihad. Skyhorse Publishing.

Nicolescu, B. (2002). La transdisciplinarité manifeste (K. C. Voss, Trans.) Rocher. (Original work published in 1996).

Nicolescu, B. (2006). Transdisciplinarity-Past, present and future. In B. Haverkort & C. Reijntjes (Eds.), Moving world-views-Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable development. COMPAS Editions.

Nicolescu, B. (2014). Methodology of Transdisciplinarity. World Futures, 70(3-4), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934631

Nordau, M. (1921). The Conventional Lies of Our Civilization (M. Cantianu, Trans.). Ed. Socec & Co Bookstore.

Peretz, I. (1915). Course on the History of Romanian Law. Curierul Judiciar.

Piaget, J. (1972). L’épistémologie des relations interdisciplinaires. In G. Berger, A. Briggs, & G. Michaud (Eds.), L’interdisciplinarité-Problèmes d’enseignement et de recherche (pp. 155-171). Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Ponta, A. (2021). Legal instability in cyberspace and OSCE’s mitigation role. Juridical Tribune – Tribuna Juridica, 11(3), 411-429.

Popa, N. (2014). General Theory of Law (5th ed.). C.H. Beck.

Popa, C. (2017). Principles of international law of investments, recognition and trajectory. Juridical Tribune – Tribuna Juridica, 7(1), 153-163.

Priyatno, D., Kamilah, A., & Mulyana, A. (2023). Corporate crime in expropriating land rights through intimidation and criminalization. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2187739

Qiao, L., & Wang, X. (2002). Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America. Newsmax.Com.

Ranganathan, S. (2016). Legality and lawfare in regime implementation. In N. Rajkovic, T. Aalberts, & T. Gammeltoft-Hansen (Eds.), The Power of Legality: Practices of International Law and their Politics (pp. 287-308). Cambridge University Press.

Roux, T. (2020). The Constitutional Court’s 2018 term: lawfare or window on the struggle for democratic social transformation? Constitutional Court Review, 10, 1-42.

Sembiring, R. (2019). Formulate anti strategic lawsuit against public participation in Indonesia. Bina Hukum Lingkunan, 3(2), 186-203.

Shaw, M. (1983). The international status of national liberation movements. Liverpool Law Review, 5, 19-34.

Sieber, A. (2021). Digital Barbarism: The New Colonization of the Mind. Critical Arts, 35(5-6), 252-260.

Sornarajah, M. (2010). The International Law on foreign investment (3rd ed.). Cambridge University.

Telle, K. (2018). Faith on Trial: Blasphemy and ‘Lawfare’, in Indonesia. Ethnos, 83(2), 371-391.

Ukrainian government. (n.d.). Law Confrontation with Russian Federation. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://lawfare.gov.ua/

Veen, J., & Boeke, S. (2020). No Backdoors: Investigating the Dutch Standpoint on Encryption. Policy and Internet, 12(4), 503-524.

Werbner, P. (2021). Legal mobilisation, legal scepticism and the limits of ‘lawfare’: between law and politics in union activism in Botswana. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 53(3), 593-608. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2021.1949898