View source for Jus post bellum

{{Short description|"Justice after war"}}
{{italic title}}
{{war}}
'''''Jus post bellum''''' ({{IPAc-en|j|u:|s}} {{respell|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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Orend|first=Brian|date=2000-01-01|title=Jus Post Bellum|journal=Journal of Social Philosophy|language=en|volume=31|issue=1|pages=117–137|doi=10.1111/0047-2786.00034|issn=1467-9833}}</ref>  In modern times, it has been developed by a number of [[Just war theory|just war]] theorists and international lawyers.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Jus Post BellumMapping the Normative Foundations - Oxford Scholarship|url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685899.001.0001/acprof-9780199685899|language=en|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685899.001.0001|year=2014|isbn=9780199685899|publisher=Oxford University Press|editor1-last=Stahn|editor1-first=Carsten|editor2-last=Easterday|editor2-first=Jennifer S|editor3-last=Iverson|editor3-first=Jens}}</ref>  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.<ref>{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/morality-jus-post-bellum-and-international-law/law-and-thejus-post-bellum/2DC1A66C84460B5F9D9B064467472BDF|title=Law and the Jus Post Bellum: (Chapter 10) - Morality, Jus Post Bellum, and International Law|pages=223–249|website=Cambridge Core|language=en|access-date=2017-08-16|doi=10.1017/CBO9781139161916.011|chapter=Law and the Jus Post Bellum|year=2012|last1=Cryer|first1=Robert|editor2-first=Andrew|editor2-last=Forcehimes|editor1-first=Larry|editor1-last=May|isbn=9781139161916}}</ref> The concept continues to attract scholarly interest in the field of [[international humanitarian law]].<ref>{{Citation|title=The Ethics of Stabilisation and Security: Principles for Jus Post Bellum – United Kingdom Seminar Proceedings|date=2020-03-06|work=Jus Post Bellum|pages=407–445|editor-last=Mileham|editor-first=Patrick|publisher=Brill {{!}} Nijhoff|doi=10.1163/9789004411043_018|isbn=978-90-04-41103-6|s2cid=243090920}}</ref> A famous example of ''Jus post bellum'' is the [[reconstruction of Germany]] by the Allies post World War 2.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-08-24 |title=Marshall Plan {{!}} Summary & Significance {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Marshall-Plan |access-date=2024-09-20 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref>

==Background==
[[Brian Orend]] cites [[Immanuel Kant]] as the first to consider a three-pronged approach to the morality of armed conflict<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Orend|first=Brian|date=2004|title=Kant's Ethics of War and Peace|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BRIKEO|journal=Journal of Military Ethics|volume=3|issue=2|pages=161–177|doi=10.1080/15027570410006507|s2cid=143741953|url-access=subscription}}</ref> and concluded that a third branch of just war theory, the morality of the termination phase of war, had been overlooked.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Orend, Brian.|title=Jus Post Bellum : the Perspective of a Just War Theorist|date=2007|oclc=774926537}}</ref> Part of this morality, according to Michael Walzer, is that we have a moral obligation to not leave the regimes intact that caused the war in the first place.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Ceulemans |first=Carl |date=2014-05-20 |title=After the Dust Settles: Reflections on Postwar Justice |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0305829814528740 |journal=Millennium: Journal of International Studies |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=909 |doi=10.1177/0305829814528740 |issn=0305-8298|url-access=subscription }}</ref> However, the actual duty of the role of ''jus post bellum'' remains unclear. To achieve a lasting peace, the goal is to find a balance between transitional justice and order.<ref name=":2" /> A related concept to the ''jus post bellum'' is the ''[[lex pacificatoria]]'', the law of peacemaking by treaty<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Bell|first1=Christine|url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226832.001.0001/acprof-9780199226832|title=On the Law of PeacePeace Agreements and the Lex Pacificatoria - Oxford Scholarship|year=2008|isbn=9780199226832|language=en|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226832.001.0001}}</ref> to introduce the ''jus post bellum'' phase.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bell|first=Christine|title=Peace settlements and international law: from lex pacificatoria to jus post bellum|journal=Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law|year=2013|pages=499–546|doi=10.4337/9781849808576.00020|isbn=9781849808576|url=https://www.pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/files/14539618/Bell_Peace_Settlements_and_International_Law.pdf}}</ref>

==Purpose==
The purpose of the concept and its usefulness depends on whether it is considered as a moral or a legal concept. As a concept in [[just war theory]], the ''jus post bellum'' debate considers a number of issues:<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Orend|first=Brian|date=2000|title=Jus Post Bellum|journal=Journal of Social Philosophy|language=en|volume=31|issue=1|pages=117–137|doi=10.1111/0047-2786.00034|issn=1467-9833}}</ref>

* Provide terms for the end of war; once the rights of a political community have been vindicated, further continuation of war becomes an act of aggression.
* Provide guidelines for the construction of peace treaties.
* Provide guidelines for the political reconstruction of defeated states.
* Prevent draconian and vengeful peace terms; the rights a just state fights for in a war provide the constraints on what can be demanded from the defeated belligerent.

Thus, the areas within which ''jus post bellum'' applies can include restraining conquest; political reconstruction, especially in the case of [[genocide]] and [[war crime]]s; and economic reconstruction, including restoration and [[Reparations (transitional justice)|reparations]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bass |first=Gary J. |date=2004 |title=Jus Post Bellum |url=https://spia.princeton.edu/system/files/research/documents/juspost.pdf |journal=Philosophy & Public Affairs |language=en |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=384–412 |doi=10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00019.x |issn=1088-4963}}</ref>

== Criticisms ==
When a [[State (polity)|state]] does help reconstruct another state after winning a war, they (as well as other international actors) have their own incentives to create new power structures that favor their state. Additionally, if the population doesn't accept the reconstruction or otherwise feel their grievances have been met, the very act of reconstruction can be seen as violence, and further conflict, just appearing in a different form.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bădescu |first=Gruia |date=2024-03-14 |title=Remaking the Urban: International Actors and the Post-war Reconstruction of Cities |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae054 |journal=International Studies Quarterly |volume=68 |issue=2 |pages=3 |article-number=sqae054 |doi=10.1093/isq/sqae054 |issn=0020-8833|url-access=subscription }}</ref>  

James Pattison<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Pattison |first=James |date=July 2015 |title=Jus Post Bellum and the Responsibility to Rebuild |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/jus-post-bellum-and-the-responsibility-to-rebuild/A3E9BDE1BC9ACFBD1544C5CE145D5674 |journal=British Journal of Political Science |language=en |volume=45 |issue=3 |pages=635–661 |doi=10.1017/S0007123413000331 |issn=0007-1234|url-access=subscription }}</ref> argues that the belligerent shouldn't have a responsibility to rebuild to justify the morality of a war. Jus post bellum should only play a role in determining post war justice. There are many problems with the assumption that ''only'' the belligerent should rebuild:

* The defeated actor may not need rebuilding, but the victor.
* Third parties may be adversely affected by the externalities of the conflict that would not be ordinarily considered during the typical idea of post war rebuilding, and so they are left out of the equation.
* It is unfair to a state that wages a defensive war where they had no other choice but to defend themselves.
* The belligerents aren't always the best choice for helping rebuild, for instance if they are occupying post-war and the population is hostile to them, sparking more conflict, or if the belligerents don't have the money to rebuild the loser of the conflict ''and'' they fought a just war in self defense.<ref name=":3" />

==See also==
* ''[[Jus ad bellum]]''
* [[Jus in Bello|''Jus in bello'']]
* [[Just War Theory]]
* ''[[Lex pacificatoria]]''
* [[Peace treaty]]

==References==
* Allman, Mark J. and Winright, Tobias L. "''Jus Post Bellum'': Extending the Just War Theory" in ''Faith in Public Life'', College Theology Society Annual Volume 53, 2007 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), 241–264.
* Allman, Mark J. and Winright, Tobias L. ''After the Smoke Clears: The Just War Tradition and Post War Justice'' (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010).
* DiMeglio, Richard P. "The Evolution of the Just War Tradition: Defining ''Jus Post Bellum''"  ''Military Law Review'' (2006), Vol. 186, pp.&nbsp;116–163.
* Kwon, David C. ''Justice after War: Jus Post Bellum in the 21st Century'' (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2023).
* Orend, Brian. [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/war/ War] in ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', 2000/2005.
*{{cite journal |last=Österdahl |first=Inger |year=2012 |title=Just War, Just Peace and the ''Jus post Bellum'' |journal=Nordic Journal of International Law |volume=81 |issue=3 |pages=271–294 |doi= 10.1163/15718107-08103003|issn=0902-7351 }}
*

;Specific
{{reflist|30em}}
{{Ethics}}
{{International Criminal Law|state=collapsed}}
{{Portal bar|Law|Politics}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jus Post Bellum}}
[[Category:Just war theory]]
[[Category:Aftermath of war]]
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
[[Category:Latin legal terminology]]