Jus post bellum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]
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
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]
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
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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) - ↑ 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
- ↑ "Marshall Plan | Summary & Significance | Britannica". www.britannica.com. 2024-08-24. Retrieved 2024-09-20.
- ↑ Orend, Brian (2004). "Kant's Ethics of War and Peace". Journal of Military Ethics. 3 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1080/15027570410006507. S2CID 143741953.
- ↑ Orend, Brian. (2007). Jus Post Bellum : the Perspective of a Just War Theorist. OCLC 774926537.
- 1 2 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Orend, Brian (2000). "Jus Post Bellum". Journal of Social Philosophy. 31 (1): 117–137. doi:10.1111/0047-2786.00034. ISSN 1467-9833.
- ↑ 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.
