Pour une approche descriptive du lawfare dans le conflit israélo-palestinien

What is the analytical value of lawfare, if any? Does it provide a relevant scientific framework to analyse armed conflicts? Its growing politicisation raises doubts on its ability to fulfill such an ambition. Normatively understood as an illegitimate use of law, lawfare faces three analytical weaknesses, pointing out its non-specificity, its bias, and the difficulty of assessing intention. (I) Descriptively understood as a strategic use of law, lawfare has heuristic value in that it highlights institutional arrangements aimed at perpetuating or challenging a balance of power. Its application to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provides a framework for identifying legal strategies at play. While Israeli leaders have exclusively used the term pejoratively to delegitimise Palestinian use of law, a neutral definition of lawfare reveals the presence of an effective Israeli legal strategy. (II) To conclude, despite its liabilities, lawfare as a concept emphasises the diversity of ways in which the law can be used in armed conflicts.