Building the Notion of Jus Post-Bellum

 

The idea of developing a body of law that regulates post-conflict situations and the notion of Jus – post bellum are not new. The first has been proposed in recent years by many scholars, motivated by the challenges faced by the International Community in major humanitarian crisis such as the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, or the US led occupation of Iraq in 2003 and when managing civil wars or post-conflict societies.

 

The notion of Jus Post-Bellum, can be traced to the traditional Just War Doctrine[1]. For Michael Walzer, “the object of a war is a better state of peace. And better, within the confines of the argument for justice, means more security than the status quo ante bellum, less vulnerability to territorial expansion, greater safety for ordinary men and women and for their domestic self determination”[2]. Gerry Bass explains the such justice after war with an example: if a State, he said, “wages a war to remove a Genocidal Regime but then leaves the conquered country awash with weapons and grievances, and without a security apparatus, then it may relinquish by its post – war actions the justice it might otherwise have claimed”[3].

 

The jus war doctrine proposes that in the event of International Armed Conflicts, the compliance with the justice of the war means that the leaders have a duty to consider the long term effects of war[4] and that duty will complete the justice of the war. The Jus Ad Bellum connects with the Jus Post-Bellum in that the declared ends of that justified war impose obligations on belligerent States to try, after the conclusion of the war, to bring about the desired outcome[5].

 

That connection applies in today’s current affairs on war and peace, where the justice of the war is manifested in the political rhetoric. There, a public declaration of “the ends of war” is made by the commander in chief of the armed forces of a state. Those declared ends of war are intended to play a role in legitimating the use of force around the world and to form coalitions.[6] Consequently, in the aftermath of a conflict “an assessment of the post – bellum record of an entity may further help distinguish political rhetoric from legitimate motivation in cases of intervention for humanitarian purposes”[7] or other ends.

 

Jus Post-Bellum as a concept has not been fully constructed[8] but the starting point of its notion must be to recognise that a conflict is a dynamic phenomenon that moves through different stages[9] such as the conflict escalation phase and the post–cease fire phase[10]. Then, it will be possible to say that the post–conflict phase of Armed Conflict commences at the termination of an armed conflict and concludes when long term peace objectives are achieved in the post- conflict country[11]. In other words, it supposes two key points: - the termination of an armed conflict -, and - the ends or objectives of a war -.