The article examines the possibility of viewing law as an instrument in the context of russo-Ukrainian war, particularly within the framework of the concept of cognitive warfare. It analyzes the instrumental understanding of law, according to which legal norms, institutions, and processes may be deliberately used by actors to achieve specific goals. The advantages and risks of this approach are identified, including the threat of undermining the rule of law principle. Particular attention is paid to the phenomenon of “lawfare” as a manifestation of the instrumental approach to law in wartime. The paper proposes a definition of this concept and outlines its key features, actors, and classifications. It also considers practical examples of the use of legal mechanisms in both international and national legal systems as a means of achieving political, economic, and military objectives. The study systematizes the actors involved in legal confrontation (states, international organizations, non-governmental entities, businesses, and individuals) and identifies the main groups of legal instruments, including international, national, and regional tools. Additionally, it formulates recommendations for public authorities and local self-government bodies regarding effective participation in lawfare, particularly through defining strategic objectives, building networks of actors, and coordinating their activities. The article concludes that lawfare is an important element of modern conflicts and requires a systematic approach by the state, especially in the context of the russo-Ukrainian war.

Authored books

1. Cong Wen Sheng, 100 cases of legal battle: the classic case analysis (PLA Publishing House 2004).

2. Kittrie O F, Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War (Oxford University Press 2016) 416 https:// doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190263577.001.0001.

3. Tamanaha B Z, Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2006) 6 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511511073.

Edited and translated books

4. Diui Dzh, Demokratiia i osvita (per. z anhl. M Oliinyk, I Bosak, H Pekhnyk, Litopys 2003) (in Ukrainian).

5. Koziubra M (red), Zahalna teoriia prava: pidruchnyk (Vaite 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

6. Borschberg P, ‘Hugo Grotius’ Theory of Trans-Oceanic Trade Regulation: Revisiting Mare Liberum (1609)’ [2005] 14 IILJ Working Paper.

7. Dunlap C, ‘Lawfare 101: A Primer’ [2017] 97 Military Review 8–17.

8. Fisher B, ‘The origins of “lawfare” and the exploitation of public international law’ Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Yurydychni nauky [2023] 11 100–107 https://doi.org/10.18523/2617- 2607.2023.11.100-107.

9. Popova M, ‘Putin-Style “Rule of Law” & the Prospects for Change’ [Spring 2017] Dædalus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences 64–75.

10. Sari A, ‘Legal resilience in an era of grey zone conflicts and hybrid threats’ [2020] 33(6) Cambridge Review of International Affairs 846–867 https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2020.

11. Smith C, ‘Chinese Lawfare in Conflict: The Threat to U.S. Operations’ [2025] 16(1) Harvard National Security Journal 146–194.

12. Rabinovych P, Potrebovyi pidkhid – bezalternatyvnyi instrument vyiavlennia sotsialnoi sutnosti prava i derzhavy [2009] 8 Naukovi pratsi Odeskoi natsionalnoi yurydychnoi akademii 45–53 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

13. Fisher B, ‘Malign Legal Operations (MALOPs) in International Law in the Context of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine’ (PhD thesis, 2023).

Newspaper articles

14. Barrows-Friedman N, ‘Portland halts investment in Caterpillar’ (The Electronic Intifada, 5 January 2017) (accessed 23.04.2026).

15. Feeley Jef, Baker Stephanie, ‘Intel, AMD Accused of Allowing Chips in Russian Missiles’ (Bloomberg, December 10, 2025) (accessed 23.04.2026).

16. Jean-Bouchard É, ‘Droits et Démocratie – L’inquiétante pratique du lawfare au Canada’ (Le Devoir, 4 février 2010) (accessed 23.04.2026).

17. Rosenblatt L, ‘Five years into Amazon’s Climate Pledge, workers challenge its progress’ (TechXplore, July 17, 2024) (accessed 23.04.2026).

18. Selyukh A, ‘Amazon Makes “Climate Pledge” As Workers Plan Walkout’ (NPR September 19, 2019) (accessed 23.04.2026).

19. V Kyievi vidbulosia obhovorennia kontseptu pravoborstva yak mekhanizmu protydii ahresii (Iurydychna praktyka, 22.04.2026) (accessed 27.04.2026) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

20. Cheng D, ‘Winning without fighting: Chinese legal warfare’ (The Heritage Foundation, May 21, 2012) (accessed 23.04.2026).

21. Devidal P, ‘“Cognitive warfare”: why the human brain should not become a battlefield’ (Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog, February 5, 2026) (accessed 23.04.2026).

22. From Antwerp to Ashkelon: No Harbour for Genocide (BDS Freedom Justice Equality 03.07.2025) (accessed 23.04.2026).

23. Valenzuela-Bock C, ‘Russia and China Issue Joint Declaration on Promotion and Principles of International Law’ (American Society of International Law, July 20, 2016) (accessed 23.04.2026).

24. Wray B, ‘Glasgow City Council ditch defence industry in new ethical events policy’ (BDS Freedom Justice Equality, 28.05.2019) (accessed 23.04.2026).

25. Mizhnarodna naukovo-praktychna konferentsiia “Pravoborstvo – vykorystannia prava yak zbroi u viini. Pravovi mekhanizmy…” (Instytut derzhavy i prava imeni V. M. Koretskoho NAN Ukrainy) (accessed 23.04.2026) (in Ukrainian).

26. Rosiisko-ukrainske pravove protystoiannia (Wikipedia) (accessed 23.04.2026) (in Ukrainian).