| Abstrakt: |
Apart from offering a review on lawfare, this article considers situations where one less-law-abiding actor – namely, a non-state actor – uses the International Humanitarian Law (IHL)'s compliance of its opponent to obtain leverage on the battlefield. Using the United States (US) as an example, it appears that IHL's compliance is yet not to be subjugated by the pursuit of military interests. Broadening the analysis to NATO nations due to the similarity of their IHL's conceptualization and political proximity, it defends that IHL shall remain respected by these states as disregarding it would be a treason of their political regime and the moral grounding binding governments with their populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
