Disinformation and lawfare are often linked because disinformation can support or justify legal action, while lawfare can be used to spread disinformation, making it a powerful and destructive force. Disinformation refers to false or misleading information that is spread intentionally to influence public opinion or to achieve a strategic objective. Disinformation can be used to create a false narrative or to discredit opponents, which can then be used to support legal action.

Critics of lawfare argue that it can be used as a form of legal bullying, allowing those with greater resources to use legal processes to overwhelm their opponents, who may not have the same resources. Others argue that lawfare can be a legitimate form of political or legal activism, allowing individuals or groups to use legal processes to challenge powerful actors or to advance their causes. In April 2022, at the UN Human Rights Council, Member States adopted a plan of action to tackle disinformation at the request of Ukraine and with widespread – but not universal – support. officially sponsored by Ukraine, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the UK and the US, the draft resolution presented to the Geneva Forum emphasised the primary role that governments have in countering false narratives. It noted with concern “the increasing and far-reaching negative impact on the enjoyment and realisation of human rights of the deliberate creation and dissemination of false or manipulated information intended to deceive and mislead audiences, either to cause harm or for personal, political or financial gain”.

States use lawfare and disinformation for various strategic purposes, such as influencing foreign policy to shape other countries’ perceptions and their foreign policy decisions. E.g. a state may use disinformation to create a false narrative about a foreign country to justify legal action against them, such as the disinformation campaign against Pakistan for financing terror activities across the globe led to FATF sanctioning Pakistan and ultimately placing Pakistan in the ‘Grey List’ repeatedly.

Lawfare and disinformation are used by states to manipulate their domestic political landscape. This can involve using legal processes to harass political opponents or to create false narratives about political opponents to sway public opinion as well as applying legal pressure on other states or actors to achieve their strategic objectives. This can involve using legal action to disrupt military operations or to create legal obstacles to political or economic initiatives. Lawfare and disinformation are used in conjunction to gain a tactical advantage in a conflict or negotiations. Overall, states can use lawfare and disinformation as tools of statecraft to achieve various strategic objectives, both domestically and internationally. However, using disinformation and lawfare tactics can negatively affect democratic processes, the rule of law, and the integrity of legal systems.

Social media platforms have become a powerful tool for spreading disinformation and shaping public opinion, and they can also be used to support legal actions through lawfare. The creation of fake news articles manipulated images or videos, and the use of bots and fake accounts to amplify disinformation and create false narratives have become a norm. In addition, social media platforms themselves can be the subject of lawfare.

Legal action being taken against individuals or organisations for the content they post or share online is an act of lawfare. In some cases, this legal pressure can be used to force social media platforms to remove content or change their policies, which can significantly impact how information is shared and consumed online. The use of disinformation and lawfare over social media has raised concerns about the impact of these tactics on democratic processes, the rule of law, and the integrity of legal systems. In particular, the use of disinformation and lawfare can create a distorted reality.

Singapore, in 2019, passed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), providing the government with the power to order corrections or the removal of online content that is deemed to be false and harmful to the public interest. Failure to comply with such orders can result in fines and imprisonment. France passed a law in 2018 to combat the spread of fake news during election periods. The law enables a judge to order the removal of false information disseminated systematically and deliberately to disrupt the democratic process. In the United States, while there is no federal law specifically addressing the spread of false information online, laws prohibit certain types of speech, such as defamation and fraud. In addition, social media platforms have taken steps to address the issue by implementing policies around labelling, fact-checking and removing false information.

It’s important to note that there are concerns about the potential impact of such laws on freedom of expression and the potential for abuse by those in power. As with any legislation, it’s crucial to balance addressing harmful speech and protecting the right to free expression. While there is no international convention or treaty that specifically covers the issue of disinformation.

While there is no specific international convention or treaty that addresses the issue of misinformation, several international agreements and conventions provide a framework for regulating speech and protecting the right to free expression while also recognising the need to prevent harm caused by false information as it is crucial in maintaining a healthy and informed society. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) protects freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media. However, this right is subject to certain restrictions, such as those necessary to protect national security or public order or to prevent the spread of hate speech or incitement to violence.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also protects freedom of expression, but again, subject to certain restrictions. Article 20 of the ICCPR prohibits hate speech and incitement to violence. In contrast, Article 19(3) allows for restrictions on speech that are necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others or to maintain public order or morality. In addition, the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime criminalises various offences related to computer systems, including the dissemination of false information or data. However, the Convention focuses more on offences related to cybercrime and less on the spread of false information online.

It is also essential to remember the fundamental value of freedom of speech, which is enshrined in many democratic societies, such as Pakistan, under Article 19 of the Constitution.

For that reason, while combating disinformation, states must strike a balance between protecting the public from harmful content and preserving the right to freedom of expression. This can be achieved through education, media literacy, and fact-checking efforts that help people distinguish between reliable sources of information and those that are not. In addition, regulatory measures can be implemented to ensure that individuals and organisations spreading false or misleading information are held accountable for their actions. These measures should be proportionate to the severity of the harm caused by the disinformation and should not unduly restrict freedom of expression.

Ultimately, the goal should be to foster an informed and engaged public that is able to participate in robust and meaningful discussions while also protecting individuals from the harmful effects of disinformation and misinformation.