In contemporary studies, the strategic use of language for the interpretation of texts and documents in international law has attracted considerable attention among interdisciplinary scholars. Within this context, the applicability of cognitive-pragmatic frames plays a significant role in the production and interpretation of international legal texts. Regarding cognitive frames, a critical question arises: to what extent can a relationship be established between strategic language and international legal texts? This study addresses this question and posits that mental frames and strategic language are instrumental in the interpretation process of international legal documents. For instance, substituting the term “security wall” for “protective barrier” or using “liberation” instead of “military intervention” demonstrates how states can convey positive or negative frames to their audiences, thereby influencing the interpretation of international legal texts and documents in accordance with their strategic intentions.