This chapter offers the conceptual basis for understanding jus post bellum as the normative framework for transition from armed conflict to peace. As presented in the Introduction, the origin and development of jus post bellum have taken place under a moral and a legal perspective.1 While within the just war theory the concept is built from the moral perspective of the justness of the cause and the termination of the conflict, under international law its purpose is to address legal obligations aimed at protecting people's rights in transition to peace.2This chapter-and the study in general-focuses its analysis on the legal dimension of jus post bellum. Though the concept is being discussed in legal scholarship for around 15 years,3 there is no agreement on its content and scope as a legal concept.4 The discussion has moved from maximalist to minimalist approaches,5 including authors for whom it seems still premature to consider jus post bellum into law.6 In this context, Easterday, Iverson, and Stahn highlight that "there are almost as many conceptions of jus post bellum as scholars, within and across disciplines."7
Contents vii 5.2 The Colombian Approach 117 5.2.1 Differential Approach for the Attention and Reparation of Victims of Armed Conflict 117 5.2.2 Participation of Victims and Civil Society in the Peace Negotiations 118 5.2.3 Differential Gender and Ethnic Approaches in the Peace Agreement 119 6 Conclusions 121 3 Jus Post Bellum Viewed from the Colombian Transition 124 1 A Definition of Jus Post Bellum from the Colombian Experience 125 2 The Formation and Operation of Jus Post Bellum 129 3 Principles of Jus Post Bellum identified in the Colombian Case 132 3.1 Reconstruction and Transformation 133 3.2 Criminal Accountability 136 3.3 Reparation 138 3.4 Reconciliation 140 3.5 Proportionality 142 3.6 Inclusiveness 144 3.7 Environmental Protection 146 4 The Actors of Jus Post Bellum in Colombia 149 4.1 The Parties in Negotiation 150 4.2
International humanitarian law (IHL) has traditionally been seen as a legal framework regulating armed hostilities, having little to do with peace. However, recent peacemaking and peacebuilding practice has consistently relied on IHL to frame peace efforts, mainly in non-international armed conflicts. This article explores the relationship between IHL and peace, looking at practice in Colombia, where IHL has been used in a creative way as a means to build trust, facilitate peace negotiations and enforce the resulting peace agreement. Looking at this case, the article offers general insights on how IHL can facilitate the end of conflict and reintegration, frame accountability and reparation, and shield peace deals under a framework in which both State and non-State actors can find a common bargaining zone in their search for peace.
This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.chapter 2 7 Julia Zulver, ¿Verá Colombia un acuerdo de paz con el ELN en 2019?, Open Democracy, 7 January 2019, https:// www.opendemocracy.net/ es/ democraciaabierta-es/ ver-colombiaun-acuerdo-de-paz-con-el-eln-/ (accessed on 10 April 2019).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.