Jus post bellum

Jus post bellum (/juːs/ YOOS; Latin for "justice after war") is a concept that deals with the morality of the termination phase of war, including the responsibility to rebuild. The idea has some historical pedigree as a concept in just war theory.[1] In modern times, it has been developed by a number of just war theorists and international lawyers.[2] The concept means different things to the contributors in each field. For international lawyers, the concept is much less clearly defined, and some have counselled caution in the use of the jus post bellum concept.[3] The concept continues to attract scholarly interest in the fields of transitional justice, post-conflict law, and international humanitarian law.[4][5][6]

There are many case studies of jus post bellum. A famous example of is the reconstruction of Germany by the Allies post World War 2.[7] A more modern example is the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia.[8]

Background

Brian Orend cites Immanuel Kant as the first to consider a three-pronged approach to the morality of armed conflict[9] and concluded that a third branch of just war theory, the morality of the termination phase of war, had been overlooked.[10] It is true, though, that it is possible to see traces of the jus post bellum in the writings of other classic authors, such as St. Augustine, Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco Suárez, Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius.

Just war theorists and other moral and political theorists may find it useful to draw upon the writings of these scholars to think about post-war issues, such as rehabilitation, reconstruction, and reparations. For international lawyers, these writings should be handled with care.[11] It must be remembered that these classical scholars were writing in a radically different context. As Professor Robert Cryer argued:

'Although we may like what is said (or we may not), methodological issues need to be thought through with respect to direct reliance on such writers in terms of our understanding of the law [...] any similarities may turn out to be what translators call "false friends", terms that although they look similar mean very different things' (p. 226)[12]

The modern jus post bellum came to prominence around the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Some jus post bellum scholarship was aimed at fixing perceived problems with the legal framework that applied in post-intervention situations, e.g., in the law of occupation. These suggestions drew from Kantian ideas of democratic peace to call for a new legal regime which would deal in toto with post-conflict legal issues. Other lawyers, such as Eric de Brabandere argued: ‘the very reason the laws of occupation are inadequate to deal with comprehensive post-conflict reconstruction missions […] is precisely the reason for their existence, namely to limit the occupier’s powers in a territory for which the occupier has no title.’ (p. 119)[13]

A related concept to the jus post bellum is the lex pacificatoria, as developed by Professor Christine Bell. This may be defined as the law of the peacemakers which emerges from peace agreement practice[14] and it may be said to introduce the jus post bellum phase.[15]

Purpose

The purpose of the jus post bellum and its usefulness depends on whether it is considered as a moral or a legal concept.

As a concept in just war theory, the jus post bellum debate considers a number of issues:[16]

  • terms for the end of war; once the rights of a political community have been vindicated, further continuation of war becomes an act of aggression.
  • guidelines for the construction of peace treaties.
  • guidelines for the political reconstruction of defeated states.
  • prevention of draconian and vengeful peace terms; the rights a just state fights for in a war provide the constraints on what can be demanded from the defeated belligerent.
  • rules for occupation

Thus, the areas within which jus post bellum applies can include restraining conquest; political reconstruction, especially in the case of genocide and war crimes; and economic reconstruction, including restoration and reparations.[17]

As a legal concept, the jus post bellum may be understood as:[18]

(i) an umbrella term that denotes all the applicable law in a post-conflict situation (descriptive);[19]

(ii) a new form of law that includes new rules for dealing with certain post-conflict situations (normative);[20]

(iii) an interpretive concept that identifies principles which may be used to interpret the already existing law (normative).[21]

See also

References

  • Allman, Mark J. and Winright, Tobias L. "Jus Post Bellum: Extending the Just War Theory" in Faith in Public Life, College Theology Society Annual Volume 53, 2007 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), 241–264.
  • Allman, Mark J. and Winright, Tobias L. After the Smoke Clears: The Just War Tradition and Post War Justice (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010).
  • DiMeglio, Richard P. "The Evolution of the Just War Tradition: Defining Jus Post Bellum" Military Law Review (2006), Vol. 186, pp. 116–163.
  • Kwon, David C. Justice after War: Jus Post Bellum in the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2023).
  • Orend, Brian. War in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000/2005.
  • Österdahl, Inger (2012). "Just War, Just Peace and the Jus post Bellum". Nordic Journal of International Law. 81 (3): 271–294. doi:10.1163/15718107-08103003. ISSN 0902-7351.
Specific
  1. ↑ Orend, Brian (2000-01-01). "Jus Post Bellum". Journal of Social Philosophy. 31 (1): 117–137. doi:10.1111/0047-2786.00034. ISSN 1467-9833.
  2. ↑ Stahn, Carsten; Easterday, Jennifer S; Iverson, Jens, eds. (2014). Jus Post BellumMapping the Normative Foundations - Oxford Scholarship. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685899.001.0001. ISBN 9780199685899.
  3. ↑ Cryer, Robert (2012), "Law and theJus Post Bellum:: Counseling Caution", in Forcehimes, Andrew; May, Larry (eds.), Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law, ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–249, ISBN 978-1-139-16191-6, retrieved 2026-07-30
  4. ↑ Mileham, Patrick, ed. (2020-03-06), "The Ethics of Stabilisation and Security: Principles for Jus Post Bellum – United Kingdom Seminar Proceedings", Jus Post Bellum, Brill | Nijhoff, pp. 407–445, doi:10.1163/9789004411043_018, ISBN 978-90-04-41103-6, S2CID 243090920
  5. ↑ Sayapin, Sergey; Tsybulenko, Evhen, eds. (2018). "The Use of Force against Ukraine and International Law". SpringerLink. doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-222-4.
  6. ↑ Eskauriatza, Javier Sebastián (March 2020). "The jus post bellum as 'integrity' – Transitional criminal justice, the ICC, and the Colombian amnesty law". Leiden Journal of International Law. 33 (1): 189–205. doi:10.1017/S0922156519000530. ISSN 0922-1565.
  7. ↑ "Marshall Plan | Summary & Significance | Britannica". www.britannica.com. 2024-08-24. Retrieved 2024-09-20.
  8. ↑ Ambos, Prof Dr Dr h c Kai; Peters, Prof Dr Stefan (2022-05-25). Transitional Justice in Colombia: The Special Jurisdiction for Peace. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. ISBN 978-3-8487-7969-7.
  9. ↑ Orend, Brian (2004). "Kant's Ethics of War and Peace". Journal of Military Ethics. 3 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1080/15027570410006507. S2CID 143741953.
  10. ↑ Orend, Brian. (2007). Jus Post Bellum : the Perspective of a Just War Theorist. OCLC 774926537.
  11. ↑ Brabandere, Dr. Eric (2010-01-01). "The Responsibility for Post-Conflict Reforms". Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 43 (1): 119.
  12. ↑ Cryer, Robert (2012), "Law and theJus Post Bellum:: Counseling Caution", in Forcehimes, Andrew; May, Larry (eds.), Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law, ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–249, ISBN 978-1-139-16191-6, retrieved 2026-07-30
  13. ↑ Brabandere, Dr. Eric (2010-01-01). "The Responsibility for Post-Conflict Reforms". Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 43 (1): 119.
  14. ↑ Bell, Christine (2008). On the Law of PeacePeace Agreements and the Lex Pacificatoria - Oxford Scholarship. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226832.001.0001. ISBN 9780199226832.
  15. ↑ Bell, Christine (2013). "Peace settlements and international law: from lex pacificatoria to jus post bellum" (PDF). Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law: 499–546. doi:10.4337/9781849808576.00020. ISBN 9781849808576.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: periodical has ISBN (link)
  16. ↑ Orend, Brian (2000). "Jus Post Bellum". Journal of Social Philosophy. 31 (1): 117–137. doi:10.1111/0047-2786.00034. ISSN 1467-9833.
  17. ↑ Bass, Gary J. (2004). "Jus Post Bellum" (PDF). Philosophy & Public Affairs. 32 (4): 384–412. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00019.x. ISSN 1088-4963.
  18. ↑ Brabandere, Dr. Eric (2010-01-01). "The Responsibility for Post-Conflict Reforms". Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. 43 (1): 119.
  19. ↑ Cryer, Robert (2012), "Law and theJus Post Bellum:: Counseling Caution", in Forcehimes, Andrew; May, Larry (eds.), Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law, ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–249, ISBN 978-1-139-16191-6, retrieved 2026-07-30
  20. ↑ Orend, Brian (September 2007). "Jus Post Bellum: The Perspective of a Just-War Theorist". Leiden Journal of International Law. 20 (3): 571–591. doi:10.1017/S0922156507004268. ISSN 1478-9698.
  21. ↑ "Jus Post Bellum Symposium: Jus Post Bellum–The Value of an Interpretive Conception". Opinio Juris. 2014-05-05. Retrieved 2026-07-30.
This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.