Jus post bellum
 | This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (August 2013) |
 |
| Part of a series on |
| War (outline) |
|---|
.jpg) |
Jus post bellum (Latin for "Justice after war") is a concept that deals with the morality of the termination phase of war. 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]
Brian Orend is usually considered the initiator of the debate. 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 said that a third branch of just war theory had been overlooked. He cited Immanuel Kant as the first to consider a three-pronged approach to the morality of armed conflict.[4]
Those interested in the jus post bellum must also consider the lex pacificatoria.[5]
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.
- 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.
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. "Justice after War" in Ethics & International Affairs, Volume 16.1 (Spring 2002)
- 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.
- ^ "Jus Post BellumMapping the Normative Foundations - Oxford Scholarship". doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685899.001.0001/acprof-9780199685899.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ "Law and theJus Post Bellum: (Chapter 10) - Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law". Cambridge Core. Retrieved 2017-08-16.
- ^ Orend, Brian (2004). "Kant's Ethics of War and Peace". Journal of Military Ethics. 3 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1080/15027570410006507.
- ^ "On the Law of PeacePeace Agreements and the Lex Pacificatoria - Oxford Scholarship". doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226832.001.0001/acprof-9780199226832.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
