To analyse the current Jus Post-Bellum is not an easy task due to the fact that it does not exist as an independent body of law. However in order to do so, here is proposed a methodology which consists of a legal test based on two questions. A question related to the scenario of an occupation after the end of an armed conflict and a question related to the scenario of deployment of a peace operation by the United Nations in the territory of the post-conflict State.[1]

 

The Jus Post-Bellum test serves to ascertain the current scope that the law permits to treat the three objects of Jus Post-Bellum and achieve its purpose. The fundamental point of the test is that the treatment of the objects requires a great deal of legislative reform in the post conflict state. As a consequence, what needs to be ascertained is if the current law permits such legal reform[2].

 

The analysis that follows is imperfect and all are invited to undertake the test and improve the scope of the current Jus Post-Bellum. Further developments on this normative body may depend on the proper analysis of the current applicable law. 

 

This exercise also facilitates the identification of subjects of Jus Post-Bellum and the legislations that may conflict[3] after the conclusion of a war.[4] As a result of the test, here  it is proposed that four are the subjects of Jus Post-Bellum:

 

Subject one:     The United Nations– (UN Charter and Resolutions)         

 

Subject two:     The Post – Conflict State – (its domestic law)

 

Subject three:  Post – Conflict Intervening States or Coalitions – Humanitarian Law - Human Rights Law – their domestics laws. 

 

Subject four:     Supportive Subjects – Financial institutions, World Bank. Donors, International Monetary Fund.

 

It is desirable that a reformed United Nations - one where the Security Council is more representative of today’s world and where the veto power is reduced significantly in scope and use[5]  - plays the leading role in the task of reconstruction and rehabilitation of post – conflict states. The future enhanced and comprehensive post-conflict law should express and formalise such role bearing in mind the international legal personality of the United Nations. The International Court of Justice, for instance, has recognised, in advisory opinion dated 11^th April 1949, the said ‘personality’ in the following terms:

 

 “The subjects of law in any legal system are not necessarily identical in their nature or in the extent of their rights, and their nature depends upon the needs of the community.

 

Throughout its history, the development of international law has been influenced by the requirements of international life, and the progressive increase in the collective activities of States has already given rise to instances of action upon the international plane by certain entities which are not States. This development culminated in the establishment in June 1945 of an international organization whose purposes and principles are specified in the Charter of the United Nations. But to achieve these ends the attribution of international personality is indispensable”[6].

 

4.2. Test one, the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Convention IV

 

4.2.1. Starting point: Conservation Vs Transformation

 

The first question that we must answer is if the provisions contained in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, apply in post-conflict situations. In other words, if that body of law regulates occupations which take place after the conflict ended. If the answer is affirmative, then the analysis on the scope for treatment of the Jus Post-Bellum objects can be carried out.