Wikipedia

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] A famous example of Jus post bellum is the reconstruction of Germany by the Allies post World War 2.[5]

Background

edit

Brian Orend cites Immanuel Kant as the first to consider a three-pronged approach to the morality of armed conflict[6] and concluded that a third branch of just war theory, the morality of the termination phase of war, had been overlooked.[7] Part of this morality, according to Michael Walzer, is that we have a moral obligation to not leave the regimes intact that caused the war in the first place.[8] However, the actual duty of the role of jus post bellum remains unclear. To achieve a lasting peace, the goal is to find a balance between transitional justice and order.[8] A related concept to the jus post bellum is the lex pacificatoria, the law of peacemaking by treaty[9] to introduce the jus post bellum phase.[10]

Purpose

edit

The purpose of the concept 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:[11]

  • 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.[12]

Criticisms

edit

When a state does help reconstruct another state after winning a war, they (as well as other international actors) have their own incentives to create new power structures that favor their state. Additionally, if the population doesn't accept the reconstruction or otherwise feel their grievances have been met, the very act of reconstruction can be seen as violence, and further conflict, just appearing in a different form.[13]

James Pattison[14] argues that the idea that the belligerent shouldn't have a responsibility to rebuild to justify the morality of a war. Jus post bellum should only play a role in determining post war justice. There are many problems with the assumption that only the belligerent should rebuild:

  • The defeated actor may not need rebuilding, but the victor.
  • Third parties may be adversely affected by the externalities of the conflict that would not be ordinarily considered during the typical idea of post war rebuilding, and so they are left out of the equation.
  • It is unfair to a state that wages a defensive war where they had no other choice but to defend themselves.
  • The belligerents aren't always the best choice for helping rebuild, for instance if they are occupying post-war and the population is hostile to them, sparking more conflict, or if the belligerents don't have the money to rebuild the loser of the conflict and they fought a just war in self defense.[14]

See also

edit

References

edit
  • 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 the Jus Post Bellum". In May, Larry; Forcehimes, Andrew (eds.). Law and the Jus Post Bellum: (Chapter 10) - Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law. pp. 223–249. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139161916.011. ISBN 9781139161916. Retrieved 2017-08-16. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  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. ^ "Marshall Plan | Summary & Significance | Britannica". www.britannica.com. 2024-08-24. Retrieved 2024-09-20.
  6. ^ Orend, Brian (2004). "Kant's Ethics of War and Peace". Journal of Military Ethics. 3 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1080/15027570410006507. S2CID 143741953.
  7. ^ Orend, Brian. (2007). Jus Post Bellum : the Perspective of a Just War Theorist. OCLC 774926537.
  8. ^ a b Ceulemans, Carl (2014-05-20). "After the Dust Settles: Reflections on Postwar Justice". Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 42 (3): 909. doi:10.1177/0305829814528740. ISSN 0305-8298.
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ Orend, Brian (2000). "Jus Post Bellum". Journal of Social Philosophy. 31 (1): 117–137. doi:10.1111/0047-2786.00034. ISSN 1467-9833.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ Bădescu, Gruia (2024-03-14). "Remaking the Urban: International Actors and the Post-war Reconstruction of Cities". International Studies Quarterly. 68 (2): 3. doi:10.1093/isq/sqae054. ISSN 0020-8833.
  14. ^ a b Pattison, James (July 2015). "Jus Post Bellum and the Responsibility to Rebuild". British Journal of Political Science. 45 (3): 635–661. doi:10.1017/S0007123413000331. ISSN 0007-1234.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jus_post_bellum&oldid=1253386484"