IT is important to reflect on the meaning of ‘lawfare’, especially in connection with international law and the politics of international law. Pakistan recently removed the death sentence for various offences in a move to align its domestic laws with its international obligations under the GSP-Plus trade agreement with the European Union. It might be helpful to understand why such a move could be treated as outside interference rather than a genuine internal decision to uphold human rights.

In 2021, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, calling for a review of its trade relations with Pakistan, on the basis of the latter’s eligibility for the GSP-Plus status, which removes duties from developing countries’ products, helping them lessen poverty and create employment.

The resolution linked the review to the country’s blasphemy laws, especially the case of Shagufta Kausar and Shafqat Emmanuel, who had, at that point, been on death row since 2014, and called on the European Commission and the European External Action Service to immediately review Pakistan’s eligibility for GSP-Plus. Pakistan submitted an eight-point National Action Plan for Business and Human Rights with the EU during the review.

The European Parliament’s then vice president, Heidi Hautala, said that by adopting two resolutions to review Pakistan’s duty-free market access, the European Parliament had indicated that there could be no guarantee that the GSP-Plus scheme would continue unless the UN conventions were further implemented. Therefore, the Senate has passed a bill to end the death penalty for certain offences, in a move to align Pakistan’s domestic laws with its commitments under the GSP-Plus. While some welcome this development, others argue that Pakistan is being subjected to ‘lawfare’ and being forced to enact laws because of outside pressure. The Broadsheet, Reko Diq and Kulbhushan Jadhav cases are cited as instances where the authorities claimed that international laws were being weaponised against Pakistan.

The term ‘lawfare’ is often misunderstood.

In 2021, a former Pakistani law minister stated that the country was being subjected to lawfare to achieve political and economic goals “without any military war”, and that both legitimate and illegitimate tools were being deployed to force Pakistan to capitulate. He said that Pakistan had succeeded in implementing 26 of the 27-point FATF Action Plan, yet it had been kept on the grey list, (Pakistan was removed from the grey list of the global anti-money laundering watchdog in 2022). He also said that the decision of the International Court of Justice in Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav was another example of this tactic, and pointed out that the ICJ (Review and Reconsideration) Bill 2020, was passed in view of the ICJ’s verdict.

Another example of lawfare was pointed in the case of a bill moved in the US Senate regarding Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan, before and after Kabul’s fall. According to Pakistani lawmakers, Pakistan was faced with a conundrum after Washington’s hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan under a deal that the US had directly made with the Afghan Taliban, but Washington was putting pressure on Pakistan to take responsibility for the events in Afghanistan.

In 2021, the then US secretary of state, Antony J. Blinken designated Pakistan as a country of particular concern for violating religious freedom. The Trump administration had put Pakistan on this list in December 2018, and retained it in 2020.

The US ad-ded Pakistan to the Child Soldiers Pre­v­ention Act list, which could have resulted in sanctioning military assistance and participation in peacekeeping programmes, but, fortunately, Pakistan was soon removed from it.

Now, after the passage of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill, 2025, it is being asked whether its implementation will enable an effective response to terrorism, or whether domestic laws are being weaponised against the opposition. Such enactments could result in international criticism of Pakistan for curbing civil and political rights.

In Kenya, hundreds were arrested after nationwide protests, which Mwaura Kabata, vice president of the Law Society of Kenya, termed as ‘lawfare’, as the government weaponised domestic laws to curb offline and online dissent.

The term ‘lawfare’ can be misinterpreted, so, Pakistan needs to properly understand this term when formulating and implementing policies, especially pertaining to its obligations under international law and human rights.

The writer is a lawyer and faculty at the Department of International Relations, University of Karachi.

Published in Dawn, September 23rd, 2025