Part of a series on |
War |
---|
Jus post bellum ( /juːs/ YOOS; Latin for "Justice after war") is a concept that deals with the morality of the termination phase of war, including the responsibility to rebuild. 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] The concept continues to attract scholarly interest in the field of international humanitarian law. [4]
Brian Orend cites Immanuel Kant as the first to consider a three-pronged approach to the morality of armed conflict [5] and concluded that a third branch of just war theory, the morality of the termination phase of war, had been overlooked. [6] A related concept to the jus post bellum is the lex pacificatoria, the law of peacemaking by treaty [7] to introduce the jus post bellum phase. [8]
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: [9]
Thus, the areas within which jus post bellum applies can include restraining conquest; political reconstruction, especially in the case of genocide and war crimes; and economic reconstruction, including restoration and reparations. [10]
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help)
Part of a series on |
War |
---|
Jus post bellum ( /juːs/ YOOS; Latin for "Justice after war") is a concept that deals with the morality of the termination phase of war, including the responsibility to rebuild. 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] The concept continues to attract scholarly interest in the field of international humanitarian law. [4]
Brian Orend cites Immanuel Kant as the first to consider a three-pronged approach to the morality of armed conflict [5] and concluded that a third branch of just war theory, the morality of the termination phase of war, had been overlooked. [6] A related concept to the jus post bellum is the lex pacificatoria, the law of peacemaking by treaty [7] to introduce the jus post bellum phase. [8]
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: [9]
Thus, the areas within which jus post bellum applies can include restraining conquest; political reconstruction, especially in the case of genocide and war crimes; and economic reconstruction, including restoration and reparations. [10]
{{
cite book}}
: |website=
ignored (
help)