Law and War are opposites. War is the application of force when diplomacy breaks down. Law is within an existing polity where there is a contract between ruled and rulers what the rules of the road are and the penalties for breaking them. That is why I do not believe you can try for “war crimes” (and No, I do NOT believe that the Nuremburg trials were good precedents)….

Yes, holding your enemy to its own code of conduct is a strategy of conflict. Nonetheless, it’s still a good idea to adhere to our own code of conduct. Unless you’re in an existential war, you can’t assume this is zero sum: it can be good for our current enemy AND good for us in the long run to be forced to adhere to our standards.

I’m not saying there’s no lawfare problem, but instances of it have to be described in deeper detail. If a lawsuit deterred people from pursuing careers in intelligence/law enforcement/military institutions, that would be bad.

Lawfare is a propaganda term used by the lawless to justify violence against those who seek to solve differences by peaceful means. Face it, it boils down to the notion that a lawsuit is a justification for a military attack and access to the courts should be denied to your political opponents.

I’d say that law can be a component of overall strategy, not a component of military strategy. Generally speaking, I think military metaphors tend to dominate many other frames of reference so probably best to err against using them when they aren’t necessary.

Also, contra DLoerke, treaties are laws between polities. Law isn’t just an intranational thing. That said, while I do believe in war crimes prosecutions, I also think that trying for ‘crimes of aggression’ or the like is a farce. We did that more in Tokyo than Nuremburg though.