scholarly journals Jus Post Bellum and Proportionality

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-96
Author(s):  
Michael A. Newton
Keyword(s):  
Armed Force ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Shadow Cast ◽  
Proportionality Principle

The chapter analyses proportionality aspects of jus ad bellum and jus in bello and their connection to jus post bellum. It argues that proportionality functions are interconnected, although they operate as independent normative frameworks. Nevertheless, each operates beneath the larger shadow cast by jus post bellum considerations. The contribution engages with misapplication of Cicero’s precept of the nexus of war and peace. While jus ad bellum concepts provide a vital safeguard against reckless usages of armed force, jus in bello proportionality delineates the outer boundaries of the commander’s appropriate discretion during hostilities. The author shows that jus post bellum provides an important bridging function that arises from the deep synergies shared by the proportionality principle embodies across respective usages.

Just and Unjust Uses of Limited Force

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Brunstetter
Keyword(s):  
Just War ◽  
Berlin Wall ◽  
Special Forces ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Use Context ◽  
Just War Tradition

Limited force—no-fly zones, limited strikes, Special Forces raids, and drones strikes outside “hot” battlefields—has been at the nexus of the moral and strategic debates about just war since the fall of the Berlin Wall but has remained largely under-theorized. The main premise of the book is that limited force is different than war in scope, strategic purpose, and ethical permissions and restraints. By revisiting the major wars animating contemporary just war scholarship (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the drone “wars,” and Libya) and drawing insights from the just war tradition, this book teases out an ethical account of force-short-of-war. It covers the deliberation about whether to use limited force (jus ad vim), restraints that govern its use (jus in vi), when to stop (jus ex vi), and the after-use context (jus post vim). While these moral categories parallel to some extent their just war counterparts of jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus post bellum, and jus ex bello, the book illustrates how they can be reimagined and recalibrated in a limited force context, while also introducing new specific to the dilemmas associated with escalation and risk. As the argument unfolds, the reader will be presented with a view of limited force as a moral alternative to war, exposed to a series of dilemmas that raise challenges regarding when and how limited force is used, and provided with a more precise and morally enriched vocabulary to talk about limited force and the responsibilities its use entails.

Sequences of Military Necessity for the Jus in Bello

2020 ◽  
pp. 247-284
Author(s):  
Dino Kritsiotis
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
International Court

This chapter considers several discrete snapshots or “sequences” in the life of military necessity—as it has come to be understood within the laws of the jus in bello. Commencing with its relationship with self-preservation under the laws of war and peace, the chapter proceeds to examine the idea of “necessity” of self-defense within the laws of the jus ad bellum; it then turns to “military necessity” as invoked in the Lieber Code, the 1907 Hague Regulations, Additional Protocol I of 1977 and the 1954 Hague Convention, the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law as well as the advisory jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Consideration is given, too, to “necessity” as it features within the law of State responsibility, in order to more fully understand the function, status and standing of “military necessity” more generally within the jus in bello.

scholarly journals Jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus ex bello y jus post bellum

2021 ◽  
pp. 25-48
Author(s):  
Paola Alexandra Sierra-Zamora ◽  
Tania Lucía Fonseca-Ortiz ◽  
Andres Eduardo Fernandez-Osorio
Keyword(s):  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum

scholarly journals Droits humains et conflits armés

2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-333
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer
Keyword(s):  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Droits Humains ◽  
Conflits Armes

À première vue, il s’agit d’une chose et son contraire : la guerre est tellement le lieu par excellence de la violation des droits humains que leur relation semble se résumer à cet antagonisme primaire — l’un serait la négation de l’autre. La guerre viole les droits et les droits ont la paix, donc l’absence de guerre, comme condition de possibilité. Puis l’on se souvient que, contrairement aux apparences, la guerre n’est pas cet état de non-droit où tout est permis, mais un espace normé, codifié. Il est question des droits humains pendant la guerre — pour dénoncer leur violation, certes, mais la violation des règles n’est pas la preuve de leur absence — mais aussi avant la guerre, puisque certains conflits sont justifiés par la protection des droits des populations locales, ou en vertu d’un « droit de l’humanité » qui serait un intérêt à agir. Les relations entre droits humains et conflits armés sont résumées dans cet article en quatre parties : d’un point de vue historique, d’abord, où l’on montre leur réciprocité (le rôle de la guerre dans l’évolution des droits humains, et le rôle des droits humains dans l’évolution de la guerre). En reprenant la trilogie de l’éthique de la guerre ensuite : la guerre au nom des droits humains (jus ad bellum), les droits humains dans la guerre (jus in bello) et, en guise de conclusion, les droits humains après la guerre (jus post bellum).

scholarly journals Ética militar y fundamentación profesional. Evolución, conceptos y principios

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Alberto Ardila-Castro ◽  
Paola Alexandra Sierra-Zamora ◽  
David Whetham
Keyword(s):  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Toma De Decisiones

Esta obra hace una valiosa contribución a la comprensión de la ética militar, como un elemento central de la carrera militar en Colombia, y destaca la necesidad de que fundamente en todo momento el cumplimiento de la misión constitucional que tienen las instituciones castrenses en el país. A través de tres volúmenes, se describen y analizan críticamente los fundamentos teóricos de la ética que orientan las reflexiones y el quehacer cotidiano de los miembros de las Fuerzas Militares, desde su proceso educativo en las escuelas de formación, hasta los distintos niveles y espacios operacionales en los que se desempeñan. Además, se analizan estudios de caso específicos de aplicación de la ética militar relacionados tanto con escenarios tradicionales, como con los nuevos contextos, caracterizados por los avances tecnológicos, las transformaciones de los actores delictivos, los cambios en las relaciones internacionales, las condiciones particulares de Colombia, entre otros aspectos. En este primer volumen se establecen las bases teóricas y conceptuales necesarias para el estudio de la ética militar. Específicamente, se abordan seis temas principales: el jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus ex bello y jus post bellum; reflexiones teóricas en torno a la filosofía moral, la cultura y la educación; la familia; la corrupción; la toma de decisiones y el planeamiento operacional, y la estrategia. De esta forma, el libro enfatiza la importancia de fortalecer constantemente la ética miliar en Colombia para garantizar a largo plazo el correcto desarrollo de la carrera militar y el bienestar para los habitantes del país.

Restraining the fox: Minimalism in the ethics of war and peace

2021 ◽  
pp. 175508822110347
Author(s):  
Lonneke Peperkamp
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
Alternative Concept ◽  
Jus Post Bellum ◽  
Guiding Principle ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Ethics Of War ◽  
As If

Peace plays a central role in the ethics of war and peace, but this proves to be an enormous challenge. In a recent article, Elisabeth Forster and Isaac Taylor grapple with this important topic. They argue that certain concepts in just war theory—aggression, legitimacy, and peace—are essentially contested and susceptible to manipulation. Because the rules are interpreted and applied by the very states that wage war, it is as if the fox is asked to guard the chicken coop—a recipe for disaster. To avoid manipulation of the theory and make the goal of peace attainable, they defend “minimalism” in the ethics of war and peace. This paper responds to and builds on their article. After nuancing the analysis, I will argue (a) that their minimalism does not solve the problem since the proposed alternative concept is equally prone to misuse, and (b) that their minimalism is mistargeted. What I propose is to specify and ground the rules of war without raising the standard too high, to disentangle jus ad bellum and jus post bellum and see peace as guiding principle for jus post bellum, and to interpret that in a minimalist way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document