'Jus ad bellum', 'jus in bello' . . . 'jus post bellum'? -Rethinking the Conception of the Law of Armed Force

Abstract

The law of armed force is traditionally conceptualized in the categories of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This dualist conception of armed force has its origin in the legal tradition of the inter-war period. This essay revisits this approach. It argues that the increasing interweaving of the concepts of intervention, armed conflict and peace-making in contemporary practice make it necessary to complement the classical rules of jus ad bellum and in jus in bello with a third branch of the law, namely rules and principles governing peace-making after conflict. The idea of a tripartite conception of armed force, including the concept of justice after war ('jus post bellum') has a long-established tradition in moral philosophy and legal theory. This article argues that this historical concept deserves fresh attention from a legal perspective at a time when the contemporary rules of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are increasingly shaped by a normative conception of law and justice and a broadening notion of human security. Moreover, it identifies some of the legal rules and principles underlying a modern conception of 'just post bellum'.

Should humanitarian interveners promote democracy after genocide?

“…Nevertheless, he is drawn toward the conclusion that interveners should 'aim at a democratically elected government' because modern democracy enables self-determination and 'offers greater protection [of ethnic minority rights and other human rights] than a regime of oligarchs, patriarchal chiefs, or clerics' (44). Doyle (2015, 148-49, 166-70) similarly supports postbellum 'transformational peacebuilding' aimed at establishing electoral democracy -not in all circumstances, but clearly when domestic groups in divided societies appear unable to negotiate a peace agreement by themselves, and a fortiori to facilitate peaceful self-determination and respect for minority rights after genocide (for similar arguments, see also Stahn 2006;Jacob 2014;Pattison 2015).…”

“…This is required to punish those complicit in the crime of genocide and to enable a new political beginning based on peaceful collective self-determination (see esp. Orend 2002;Bass 2004; but also Stahn 2006;Jacob 2014;Doyle 2015;Pattison 2015). 1 I argue that an unqualified injunction to promote democracy after humanitarian interventions to stop genocide is problematic.…”

Attaining Post-Conflict Peace Using the jus post bellum Concept

“…. that some of the dilemmas of contemporary interventions may be attenuated by a fresh look at the past, namely a (re)turn to a tripartite conception of armed force based upon three categories: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum" (Stahn 2006).…”

“…Modern international practice, particularly in the context of United Nations peace-building appear to move towards a model of targeted accountability in peace processes, which allow amnesties for less serious crimes and combines criminal justice with the establishment of truth and reconciliation mechanisms. (Stahn 2006) Reconciliation for many of these scholars is wrapped into the criminal justice aspects of the post-conflict phase of war. Other scholars take a wide aperture approach, viewing the element of reconciliation broadly as to the entirety of society.…”

El desminado humanitario en los escenarios coyunturales del posconflicto en Colombia: una mirada jurídico-política

“…Concepción dualista del período de entreguerras, que provocó la interconexión conceptual entre intervención, conflicto armado y construcción de paz; concepción tripartita de la fuerza armada, incluido el concepto de justicia después de la guerra ( jus post bellum), que tiene larga tradición en la filosofía moral y la teoría jurídica. Sin embargo, desde una perspectiva legal, las reglas contemporáneas de jus ad bellum y jus in bello, cada vez más, tienden hacia la seguridad humana, identificando reglas y principios legales que subyacen a una concepción moderna de just post bellum (Stahn, 2006).…”