Lawfare#Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to affect foreign or domestic affairs, as a more peaceful and rational alternative, or as a less benign adjunct, to warfare.

Detractors have alternately begun to define the phrase as, "An attempt to damage or delegitimize an opponent, or to deter an individual's usage of their legal rights". The term may refer to the use of legal systems and principles against an enemy, such as by damaging or delegitimizing them, wasting their time and money (e.g., strategic lawsuits against public participation), or winning a public relations victory. Alternatively, it may describe a tactic used by repressive regimes to label and discourage civil society or individuals from claiming their legal rights via national or international legal systems. This is especially common in situations when individuals and civil society use nonviolent methods to highlight or oppose discrimination, persecution, corruption, lack of democracy, limiting freedom of speech, violations of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law."

Since the early 2000s, the use of legal mechanisms in conflict contexts has drawn significant international attention.{{Cite book |last=Erakat |first=Noura |title=Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine |title-link=Justice for Some: Law and the Question of Palestine |date=2019 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-1-5036-1357-7 |location=Stanford, California}} During this period, particularly in the context of the U.S.-led "War on Terror" both the United States and Israel have characterized legal challenges to their military operations as a form of lawfare—a term used to describe the perceived exploitation of legal systems to achieve political or ideological objectives. Critics argue that this framing delegitimizes the legal efforts of less powerful actors who seek accountability through international institutions.

Early use and definitions

The term is a portmanteau of the words "law" and "warfare". The first documented use of the term "lawfare" was in a 1957 article regarding divorce, which states that "[t]he canton, clearly reduced in status, still is

a state with standing in court to wage some lawfare on behalf of its folk, and with liability for some behavior of its folk."{{Cite journal |last1=Davies |first1=John |last2=Inglis |first2=Brinsley |date=1957 |title=Divorce, The Royal Commission, and the Conflict of Laws |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/837517 |url-status=live |journal=The American Journal of Comparative Law |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=215 |access-date=17 April 2025}}

The term reappeared at the turn of the century, first in a 2001 article by the anthropologist John Comaroff, who employed it to denote “the effort to conquer and control indigenous peoples by the coercive use of legal means.”{{Cite journal |last=Comaroff |first=John |date=2001 |title=Colonialism, Culture, and the Law: A Foreword |url=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Comaroff/publication/229814654_Colonialism_Culture_and_the_Law_A_Foreword/links/5a65a6adaca272a1581fa6f1/Colonialism-Culture-and-the-Law-A-Foreword.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Law & Social Inquiry |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=305 |access-date=17 April 2025}} In his later work with Jean Comaroff, the definition of the concept was broadened to encompass, more generally, “the resort to legal instruments, to the violence inherent in the law, to commit acts of political coercion, even erasure.”{{Cite book |last1=Comaroff |first1=John |last2=Comaroff |first2=Jean |title=Law and Disorder in the Postcolony |date=2006 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0226114095 |pages=1 |language=en}}

A more frequently cited use of the term is found in a 2001 essay authored by Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., in which Dunlap defines lawfare as "the use of law as a weapon of war"; that is, "a method of warfare where law is used as a means of realizing a military objective".{{Cite journal |last1=Scharf |first1=Michael |last2=Andersen |first2=Elizabeth |date=2010-01-01 |title=Is Lawfare Worth Defining - Report of the Cleveland Experts Meeting - September 11, 2010 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol43/iss1/2 |url-status=live |journal=Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=11 |issn=0008-7254 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240301000315/https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol43/iss1/2/ |archive-date=1 March 2024 |access-date=25 May 2024}}{{cite journal |author=Dunlap Jr. |first=Charles J. |author-link=Charles J. Dunlap Jr. |date=29 November 2001 |title=Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts |url=http://people.duke.edu/~pfeaver/dunlap.pdf |journal=Humanitarian Challenges in Military Interventions Conference |page=4 |access-date=17 July 2013 |archive-date=25 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025043133/http://people.duke.edu/~pfeaver/dunlap.pdf |url-status=live }} He later expanded on the definition, describing lawfare as "the exploitation of real, perceived, or even orchestrated incidents of law-of-war violations being employed as an unconventional means of confronting" a superior military power.{{cite news |author=Dunlap Jr. |first=Charles J. |author-link=Charles J. Dunlap Jr. |date=3 August 2007 |title=Lawfare amid warfare |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/3/lawfare-amid-warfare/ |newspaper=The Washington Times |access-date=25 May 2024 |archive-date=29 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230429080538/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/3/lawfare-amid-warfare/ |url-status=live }} In this sense, lawfare may be a more humane substitute for military conflict, although Dunlap considers lawfare a "cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents".

Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney, and Jack Goldsmith employ the word in the name of the Lawfare website, which focuses on national security law and has explored the debate over the definition of lawfare and whether it should be considered exclusively a pejorative.{{cite web |date=14 May 2015 |title=About Lawfare: A Brief History of the Term and the Site |url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/about-lawfare-brief-history-term-and-site |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240525175803/https://www.lawfaremedia.org/about/our-story |archive-date=25 May 2024 |access-date=10 January 2024 |website=Lawfare}}

Adversarial uses of legal systems by non-state actors has also been identified under the similar classification of paper terrorism, based on an analogous comparison to conventional armed terrorism.{{cn|date=July 2024}}

Universal jurisdiction

Lawfare may involve the law of a nation turned against its own officials, but more recently it has been associated with the spread of universal jurisdiction, that is, one nation or an international organization hosted by that nation reaching out to seize and prosecute officials of another.{{cite book |first=Jack |last=Goldsmith |author-link=Jack Goldsmith |title=The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgement Inside the Bush Administration |publisher=W. W. Norton |location=New York City, New York |year=2007 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/terrorpresidency00gold/page/53 53–64] |isbn=978-0-393-06550-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/terrorpresidency00gold/page/53 }}(discussing lawfare and the spread of universal jurisdiction).

Examples

= Hundred Years' War =

French officials deployed a form of lawfare in the lead-up to the Hundred Years' War, according to historians Iskander Rehman and David Green.{{Cite book |last=Rehman |first=Iskander |title=Planning for Protraction: A Historically Informed Approach to Great-power War and Sino-US Competition |date=2023-11-08 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-003-46441-9 |edition=1 |location=London |pages=65–66 |language=en |doi=10.4324/9781003464419}}{{Cite book |last=Green |first=David |title=The Hundred Years War: A People's History |date=2014-01-01 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0-300-13451-3 |pages=53 |language=en |doi=10.12987/9780300209945}} Rehman states:

{{Blockquote|text=In the fraught decades leading up the Hundred Years War, French officials deployed their expertise in the arcane intricacies of feudal law to continuously undermine Plantagenet (English) authority over their continental territories, 'clogging up administrative processes', 'interfering with fiscal activities' and burying English officials under a deluge of legal cases.|author=Iskander Rehman|title=Planning for Protraction}}

= Israeli–Palestinian conflict =

Both pro-Israeli groups and pro-Palestinian groups have been accused of using lawfare against one another.{{cite encyclopedia |last=Viterbo |first=Hedi |chapter=Lawfare |editor-last1=Ben-Naftali |editor-first1=Orna |editor-last2=Sfard |editor-first2=Michael |editor-last3=Viterbo |editor-first3=Hedi |title=The ABC of the OPT: A Legal Lexicon of the Israeli Control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/abc-of-the-opt/lawfare/1DB864A18A4D2ED49385CCC401E6B89B |publisher=Cambridge University Press |publication-date=2018 |pages=243-263 |isbn=9781316661376 }}

Israeli officials have referred to Palestinian legal initiatives at the United Nations Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court, and the United Nations Security Council as examples of political and legal warfare. Organizations such as NGO Monitor have further argued that certain non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the Center for Constitutional Rights and Defense for Children International – Palestine, are at the forefront of promoting legal actions that challenge Israeli policies. NGO Monitor contends that these efforts amount to lawfare and has advocated for the withdrawal of funding from such organizations.

In 2017 Christian Aid, a British charity that does humanitarian work for Palestinians (and others), was taken to court in the US for "providing material aid to Hamas", by David Abrams, director of pro-Israeli organization, the Zionist Advocacy Center. The case was dismissed in US courts, but Christian Aid had spent £700,000 in defending itself, and said it was an act of "lawfare" against organizations that help Palestinians.{{Cite news |last=Davies |first=Lizzy |date=2023-03-02 |title=Christian Aid claims it was subject to act of 'lawfare' by pro-Israel group |url=https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/mar/02/christian-aid-claims-it-was-subject-to-act-of-lawfare-by-pro-israel-group |access-date=2024-05-30 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=25 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240525175756/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/mar/02/christian-aid-claims-it-was-subject-to-act-of-lawfare-by-pro-israel-group |url-status=live }}

Kitty Orde's 2016 book on lawfare gives the example of pro-Israeli group Shurat HaDin preventing a Gaza-bound flotilla from leaving Greece, acting on behalf of the Israeli government.{{Rp|pages=311–328}} Many cases have been brought forward against Israeli officials and those associated with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), accusing them of war crimes. These cases have been heard in Israel{{cite web |title=Overview of lawfare cases involving Israel |url=http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_lawfare#overview |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160131220638/http://ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_lawfare#overview |archive-date=31 January 2016 |access-date=2013-05-13 |website=NGO Monitor |publisher=}} and other countries.{{cite news |date=2011-05-04 |title=Netanyahu aide skips UK trip fearing arrest |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gmynj_k6iUwMVCNzjvqmD6MoZhZQ?docId=CNG.c4e5aaec1a6b9ae498dbebf05c7cebdc.13d1 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110825214943/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gmynj_k6iUwMVCNzjvqmD6MoZhZQ?docId=CNG.c4e5aaec1a6b9ae498dbebf05c7cebdc.13d1 |archive-date=25 August 2011 |access-date=2013-05-13 |publisher= |agency=Agence France-Presse}} Attempts to suppress the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement have also been called lawfare. In Israel and some US states, the BDS movement has been met with anti-BDS laws.{{cite book|editor=Asaf Siniver|title=Routledge Companion to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict|date=27 October 2022|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dKyJEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT555|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-429-64861-8|access-date=28 February 2024|archive-date=25 May 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240525175755/https://books.google.com/books?id=dKyJEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT555#v=onepage&q&f=false|url-status=live}}

The NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence has cited the alleged use of human shields by groups like Hamas as an example of lawfare, hinging on exploiting Israeli claims that they minimize civilian casualties, as well as the sensitivity of Western public opinion. This tactic allows Hamas to either accuse Israel of war crimes if civilian casualties occur or to protect its assets and continue operations if the IDF limits its military response.{{Cite journal |title=Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza |url=https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf |journal=NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence |access-date=14 November 2023 |archive-date=24 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231024195136/https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf |url-status=live }}James Pamment, Vladimir Sazonov, Francesca Granelli, Sean Aday, Māris Andžāns, Una Bērziņa-Čerenkova, John-Paul Gravelines, Mils Hills, Irene Martinez-Sanchez, Mariita Mattiisen, Holger Molder, Yeganeh Morakabati, Aurel Sari, Gregory Simons, Jonathan Terra, [https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-hamas-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza/87 Hybrid Threats: Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240108145200/https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-hamas-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza/87 |date=8 January 2024 }} NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, 5 June 2019 pp.147-169, 152 According to Canadian lawmaker and former minister Irwin Cotler, the use of law to delegitimize Israel is present in five areas: United Nations, international law, humanitarian law, the struggle against racism and the struggle against genocide.{{cite news |last=Twersky |first=Mordechai I. |date=2011-05-19 |title=Cotler warns of new strain in delegitimization of Israel |url=http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=221262 |access-date=2013-05-13 |work=The Jerusalem Post |archive-date=15 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130315142547/http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=221262 |url-status=live }}

= People's Republic of China =

The government of the People's Republic of China has explicitly recognized lawfare ("falu zhan" or "legal warfare") as an essential component of its strategic doctrine.{{cite book |last1=Kittrie |first1=Orde |author-link=Orde Kittrie |url=https://archive.org/details/lawfarelawasweap0000kitt |title=Lawfare: Law as a Weapon of War |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780190263577 |location=New York, NY |pages= |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190263577.001.0001}}{{Rp|pages=161–164}} Lawfare is one of three components of the People's Liberation Army (PLA)'s three warfares doctrine, which was approved by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the Central Military Commission in December 2003 to guide PLA political warfare and information influence operations.{{Cite journal |last=Clarke |first=Michael |date=2019 |title=China's Application of the 'Three Warfares' in the South China Sea and Xinjiang |url=https://nsc.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/nsc_crawford_anu_edu_au/2019-05/chinas_app_of_the_3_warfares_in_xj_and_scs.pdf |journal=Orbis |language=en |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=187–208 |doi=10.1016/j.orbis.2019.02.007 |access-date=25 May 2024 |archive-date=21 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200921193644/https://nsc.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/nsc_crawford_anu_edu_au/2019-05/chinas_app_of_the_3_warfares_in_xj_and_scs.pdf |url-status=live }}{{Cite journal |last=Goldenziel |first=Jill I. |date=2020–2021 |title=Law as a Battlefield: The U.S., China, and the Global Escalation of Lawfare |url=https://www.cornelllawreview.org/2021/09/23/law-as-a-battlefield-the-u-s-china-and-the-global-escalation-of-lawfare/ |journal=Cornell Law Review |volume=106 |pages=1085 |quote=The Chinese military prioritizes lawfare as one of the “Three Warfares” that shape its military’s influence operations. |access-date=25 May 2024 |archive-date=4 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240304212900/https://www.cornelllawreview.org/2021/09/23/law-as-a-battlefield-the-u-s-china-and-the-global-escalation-of-lawfare/ |url-status=live }}

The activities of the People's Republic of China in relation to the territorial disputes in the South China Sea is frequently cited example of lawfare by the Chinese government.{{Cite journal |last=Lorteau |first=Steve |date=October 2018 |title=China's South China Sea Claims as "Unprecedented": Sceptical Remarks |journal=Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire Canadien de Droit International |language=en |volume=55 |pages=72–112 |doi=10.1017/cyl.2018.6 |issn=0069-0058}}{{cite journal |last1=Hsiao |first1=Anne Hsiu-An |date=16 December 2016 |title=China and the South China Sea "Lawfare" |journal=Issues & Studies |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=1650008 |doi=10.1142/S1013251116500089}}{{Cite journal |last=Guilfoyle |first=Douglas |date=2019-09-01 |title=The rule of law and maritime security: understanding lawfare in the South China Sea |journal=International Affairs |language=en |volume=95 |issue=5 |pages=999–1017 |doi=10.1093/ia/iiz141 |issn=0020-5850}} In particular, China has asserted sovereign control over several areas in the South China Sea, and has restricted access to areas within its alleged sovereign territory or exclusive economic zone.{{Rp|pages=165–168}} In support of its claims, China has issued official state declarations (e.g., notes verbal) and enacted domestic laws that assert its sovereignty or effective control of portions of the sea.{{cite journal |last1=Dupuy |first1=Florian |last2=Dupuy |first2=Pierre-Marie |author-link2=Pierre-Marie Dupuy |date=2013 |title=A Legal Analysis of China's Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea |journal=American Journal of International Law |volume=107 |issue=1 |pages=124–141 |doi=10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0124 |s2cid=55162381}} China's attempts at framing cross-strait relations with Taiwan as an internal dispute is also cited as an example of lawfare.{{Cite journal |last1=West |first1=Michael J. |last2=Insisa |first2=Aurelio |date=March 2024 |title=Reunifying Taiwan with China through Cross-Strait Lawfare |journal=The China Quarterly |language=en |volume=257 |pages=186–201 |doi=10.1017/S0305741023000735 |issn=0305-7410|doi-access=free }} Its attempts to apply domestic law, such as its 2005 Anti-Secession Law, to Taiwan or attempts to make its One China principle a matter of international law (for example, via its interpretation of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758) have been cited as instances of lawfare.{{Cite web |last=Hsiao |first=Russell |last2=Sando |first2=Benjamin |date=April 2025 |title=Chinese Communist Party Lawfare and Economic Coercion Against Taiwan |url=https://globaltaiwan.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/OR_PRC-Lawfare-and-Economic-Coercion-Against-Taiwan.pdf |access-date=April 18, 2025 |website=Global Taiwan Institute}} Academic Hung Chin-fu of National Cheng Kung University has described Chinese legislation to prevent Taiwan from culturally asserting its own identity as a form of lawfare.{{Cite news |last1=Yu-fu |first1=Chen |last2=Yeh |first2=Esme |date=2024-10-04 |title=Beijing attempting to erode Taiwanese cultural sovereignty with law: academic |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2024/10/04/2003824771 |access-date=2024-10-04 |website=Taipei Times}} China's 2013 creation of its Air Defense Identification Zone that cover the disputed Senkaku Islands has also been cited as lawfare.{{Cite journal |last1=Vanhullebusch |first1=Matthias |last2=Shen |first2=Wei |date=2016 |title=China's Air Defence Identification Zone: Building Security through Lawfare |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/250/article/609589 |journal=China Review |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=121–150 |issn=1015-6607}}

The government of China has also used lawsuits in foreign courts to repress Chinese dissidents abroad,{{Cite news |last1=Rotella |first1=Sebastian |author-link=Sebastian Rotella |last2=Berg |first2=Kirsten |date=22 July 2021 |title=Operation Fox Hunt: How China Exports Repression Using a Network of Spies Hidden in Plain Sight |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/operation-fox-hunt-how-china-exports-repression-using-a-network-of-spies-hidden-in-plain-sight |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210725052245/https://www.propublica.org/article/operation-fox-hunt-how-china-exports-repression-using-a-network-of-spies-hidden-in-plain-sight |archive-date=25 July 2021 |access-date=25 July 2021 |work=ProPublica}}{{Cite news |last1=O’Keeffe |first1=Kate |last2=Viswanatha |first2=Aruna |date=2020-07-29 |title=China's New Tool to Chase Down Fugitives: American Courts |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-corruption-president-xi-communist-party-fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220817110504/https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-corruption-president-xi-communist-party-fugitives-california-lawsuits-us-courts-11596032112 |archive-date=17 August 2022 |access-date=2022-08-17 |work=The Wall Street Journal |language=en-US |issn=0099-9660}} which has also been labeled as lawfare by academic Diego A. Zambrano of Stanford Law School.{{Cite journal |last=Zambrano |first=Diego A. |date=2022 |title=Foreign Dictators in U.S. Court |url=https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/foreign-dictators-us-court |url-status=live |journal=The University of Chicago Law Review |volume=89 |issue=1 |pages=157–252 |issn=0041-9494 |jstor=27093694 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230611001750/https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/foreign-dictators-us-court |archive-date=11 June 2023 |access-date=25 May 2024}} Defamation lawsuits against academics and researchers for their publications brought by Chinese companies in foreign courts have also been described as lawfare.{{Cite news |last1=McCabe |first1=David |last2=Mickle |first2=Tripp |date=2025-02-11 |title=Chinese Companies' New Tactic to Stop Damaging Research: Legal Threats |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/technology/chinese-company-legal-threats-researchers.html |access-date=2025-02-18 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}

Commentary

Harvard School of Law professor Jack Goldsmith, an opponent to the expansion of international human rights and universal jurisdiction, states in his book The Terror Presidency that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was concerned with the possibility of lawfare waged against Bush administration officials, and that Rumsfeld "could expect to be on top of the list".{{cite book |first=Jack |last=Goldsmith |author-link=Jack Goldsmith |title=The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgement Inside the Bush Administration |publisher=W. W. Norton |location=New York City, New York |year=2007 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/terrorpresidency00gold/page/53 53–64] |isbn=978-0-393-06550-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/terrorpresidency00gold/page/53 }}(discussing Kissinger and Rumsfeld) Rumsfeld addresses the effects of lawfare in his memoir Known and Unknown.{{cite book |last=Rumsfeld |first=Donald |author-link=Donald Rumsfeld |url=https://archive.org/details/knownunknownmemo00rums_0 |title=Known and Unknown. A Memoir |date=18 February 2011 |publisher=Sentinel |isbn=9781595230676 |chapter=40}}

During a panel discussion on lawfare at the 2024 Vancouver International Security Summit Panelist Cynthia Alkon, law professor and director of the Texas A&M University Criminal Law, Justice & Policy Program, and instructor of the first university class on lawfare in the United States at Texas A&M Law School said, "A lot of lawyers don’t know they are in a case of lawfare." Alkon went on to described the primary form of lawfare as "a state acting through corporations and lawyers to file injunctions and lawsuits against investigative reporters, researchers, and security consultants warning against various forms of contentious action covertly taken by that state against others."{{Cite web |date=2024-11-29 |title=Foreign interference networks in Canada using 'lawfare,' security summit hears |url=https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/foreign-interference-networks-in-canada-using-lawfare-security-summit-hears-9880666 |access-date=2024-12-04 |website=Vancouver Is Awesome |language=en}}

At the same 2024 Vancouver International Security Summit, Panelist Scott McGregor, a former military and RCMP intelligence official, cited his work as an author resulted in a defamation claim against him and his co-author, Ina Mitchell, by a group associated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). "In lawfare, there is an intention to suppress what you’re saying, to deter," said McGregor, noting that the authors became a target of the CCP despite British Columbia's new law to prevent strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP).