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] However, the concept means different things to the contributors in each field. For lawyers, the concept is much less clearly defined, and many have rejected the usefulness of the concept altogether.[3] The concept continues to attract scholarly interest in the field of international humanitarian law.[4]

Part of a series on
War
History
Battlespace
Weapons
Tactics
List of military tactics
Operational
Strategy
List of military strategies and concepts
Grand strategy
Administrative
Organization
Personnel
Logistics
Science
Law
Theory
Related
Lists

Background

The Canadian philosopher Brian Orend is usually considered the initiator of the debate.[5][6] He argued that just war theory was incomplete in dealing only with the morality of using force (jus ad bellum) and the morality of conduct during war (jus in bello). He cited Immanuel Kant as the first to consider a three-pronged approach to the morality of armed conflict[7] and concluded that a third branch of just war theory, the morality of the termination phase of war, had been overlooked.[5] A related concept to the jus post bellum is the lex pacificatoria, the law of peacemaking by treaty[8] to introduce the jus post bellum phase.[9]

Purpose

The purpose of the concept and its usefulness depends on whether it is considered as a moral or a legal concept. Its usefulness as a matter of law is very unclear. As a concept in just war theory, the jus post bellum debate considers a number of issues:[6]

  • Provide 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.
  • Provide guidelines for the construction of peace treaties.
  • Provide guidelines for the political reconstruction of defeated states.
  • Prevent 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.

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.[10]

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.
  • 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 the Jus Post Bellum". In May, Larry; Forcehimes, Andrew (eds.). Law and theJus Post Bellum: (Chapter 10) - Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law. Cambridge Core. pp. 223–249. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139161916.011. ISBN 9781139161916. Retrieved 2017-08-16.
  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
  5. Orend, Brian. (2007). Jus Post Bellum : the Perspective of a Just War Theorist. OCLC 774926537.
  6. Orend, Brian (2000). "Jus Post Bellum". Journal of Social Philosophy. 31 (1): 117–137. doi:10.1111/0047-2786.00034. ISSN 1467-9833.
  7. Orend, Brian (2004). "Kant's Ethics of War and Peace". Journal of Military Ethics. 3 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1080/15027570410006507. S2CID 143741953.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Bass, Gary J. (2004). "Jus Post Bellum". Philosophy & Public Affairs. 32 (4): 384–412. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00019.x. ISSN 1088-4963.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.