The International Human Rights System and the Subject of Lawfare

The legalization of global affairs has been considered positive, in contrast to the conditions preceding the Second World War. No longer could individual interests be imposed against the common interest, no longer was there coercion and repression, no longer was decision making dominated by power politics. It would be expected that the recognition of a Human Rights legal system would serve as a guarantee for the fulfillment of the rights within States. The main objective of this legal system in its generality, which is to improve the well-being of the population, has not been reached in its entirety, nor has it reached all countries and all people as it is posed. Hence, this article examines two factors that could confirm this assertion. The first is the system's possible ambiguity through the weakness of the instruments and their institutions. The second is the concept of legitimacy associated with lawfare, which would allow the use of International Human Rights Law as a power strategy. In this order of ideas, this article is organized as follows: first, we carry out a categorical division that begins with a general review of the international human rights system and the relationships of transnational actors, and we then present various examples of the primary instruments and their associated institutions. The second category discusses the concept of legitimacy associated with the idea of lawfare, in light of International Law and the main theories of International Cooperation. Based on these theoretical ideas, we conducted an analysis of the cases of torture in the United States since the year 2000. Finally, we present various conclusions and recommendations regarding the system's structure and application in the international context.