Lawfare can impose political and strategic costs against United States

The term "lawfare"-referring to the strategic use of legal claims to accomplish or oppose a military objective-was coined in 2001 by Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., former Deputy Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Air Force.48 While many legal claims pertaining to the lawfulness ofnaval operations are lodged both formally and informally by governmental actors-for example, through diplomatic channels or the media it is useful to note that "lawfare" practitioners increasingly include non-state actors. Variants of "lawfare" may involve uniformed military or insurgent fighters executing a strategy of claiming illegal treatment while detained in order to undermine the perceived moral legitimacy of a state adversary; a single state or group of states seeking an International Court of Justice ruling confirming illegal aggression on the part of an adversary state; individual or organizations of peace activists suing to enjoin governmental activities relating to nuclear weapons; or environmental activists suing to block use of military sonar. Despite the somewhat ominous overtones of the word "lawfare" and the contentiousness of the claims concerned, it should be noted that the assertion of valid legal claims-as distinct from a strategy of lodging specious claim-is, of course, a legitimate means of furthering individual, organizational, and governmental objectives. Indeed, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires that all military operations, regardless of their nature, be conducted in accordance with applicable international law. 49 While it is self-evident that the legitimacy of legal claims labeled "lawfare" must be determined on a case by case basis, it is likewise clear that the "sting" of an allegation of illegality can immediately and often irreparably diminish the perceived legitimacy of national security related actions in the eyes of governmental officials as well as their constituents. Therefore, regardless of their ultimate resolution, the underlying claims can instantaneously result in varying degrees of national security "cost" to the extent they succeed in increasing skepticism of or opposition to the national security interests of the United States.