This chapter will seek to study the relationship between the domain of geoeconomics and the processes that constitute ‘corporate lawfare’. Blurring the lines between legality, criminality and morality, corporate lawfare is explored as an exercise of geopolitical and geoeconomic power. The aim is to therefore establish connecting lines between geoeconomics, Global South realities, and the power of multinational corporations. These are explored in the context of cases of environmental harm, with a specific focus on the long running legal battle between the global energy and oil corporation Chevron and the environmental lawyer Steven Donziger. Drawing from critical writing on lawfare, the paper will look at how legal processes and structures can be weaponized by corporations to evade and shield themselves from liability and accountability. Central to the analysis is the development of Chevron successfully avoiding the $9.5 billion compensation for environmental destruction imposed by Ecuador’s highest court, and the extra-legal processes around it. Notably, Chevron utilized legislation like the RICO Act (originally enacted to combat the problem of organized crime in America) – to frame environmental activists as “criminals”, setting a dangerous precedent for future environmental litigation. The paper also looks at extra-legal pressures on the judicial system that create vulnerabilities especially in scenarios of great power asymmetry between the corporations and the victims of environmental harms. Judges and juries may become especially vulnerable to these pressures. Specific legal formulations that allow corporations to shield themselves from penalties, such as subsidiaries and shell companies, are also discussed. Some other cases are briefly touched upon in this context, which include Shell in Nigeria, TotalEnergies in Mozambique and Vedanta in UK. The chapter will also look at the question of effectively securing justice for victims of corporate activities, as well as possibilities for reform. These include systems such as stakeholder capitalism as well as legal reforms targeting corporate structure, burden of proof, power and informational asymmetries and developing standards of lawfare. Ideas such as that of reframing vocabularies of environmental rights explore the possibility of reclaiming lawfare to develop a richer and fairer vision of geoeconomics that does not privilege corporate interests over others. Accordingly, transnational labor, gender and environmental justice movements can serve as constituents of a more inclusive vision of geoeconomics.