Power Shift

This chapter examines the relationship between the proliferation of mediation as a tool of conflict resolution and the emergence of the jus post bellum, as observed in the law of peace (lex pacificatoria). It seeks to understand whether the presence and/or identity of a mediator is likely to influence the degree to which the resulting peace agreement complies with crucial aspects of the law of peace, such as self-determination, accountability, demobilization or reconciliation. It identifies correlation between independent mediation and observance of the law of peace and offers some tentative thoughts on the implications for jus post bellum.

Jus Post Bellum as Definition and Practice

This chapter traces the materialization of the rule of law in post-conflict Kosovo to argue that jus post bellum involves contestation and enactment. It suggests that just peace requires negotiations over what is ‘just’ in any specific context and advocates a more general argument for a sociologically informed approach to international law. This includes due attention to the effects of indeterminacy. Drawing on field research on UNMIK and EULEX in Kosovo, the chapter takes a practice- and process-oriented approach in tracing how international policy concerns entered international legal and policy documents, institutions, and practices. It concludes that just peace, and legal form more generally, are political and never objective.

Jus Post Bellum and the Evolution of Reparations

This chapter argues that reparations should be seen as instrumental for peacebuilding. In contemporary practices, they are no longer solely mediated through the state or confined to claims by individuals against states. Experiences of UN claims mechanisms and international criminal tribunals show that duties may also arise in the relationship between individuals. The chapter examines reparation practices, especially from the ICC, critically engaging with the source of compensation funds, as well as with the ultimate goal of reparations: building a just and sustainable peace. With this assessment, including lessons learned from the UN Compensation Commission, the chapter aims to reframe reparations as a critical element for peacebuilding.

The Jus Post Bellum of Illegally Transferred Settler Populations

This chapter studies the jus post bellum regime for dealing with settlers in occupied territories. This chapter proceeds by examining several major conflicts that involve the migration of civilians from the territory of an occupying power into an occupied territory, since the adoption of the Fourth Geneva Convention. After describing the nature of possible violations in each case, the chapter examines the post bellum treatment of the settlers. Several of these conflicts (Indonesia/East Timor; Vietnam/Cambodia; Russia/the Baltics) have actually gone through the post bellum phase. These provide the most robust evidence for how workable conflict resolution deals with settlers. Regarding the ongoing conflicts, this chapter examines the proposed international models for the post bellum situation, none of which contemplates a removal of settlers.

Norm Persistence in Distributive Justice

A guiding principle of assisting recovery from conflict is that normative transformations in political economy are essential to establishing peace through law and regulation. Significant and reflexive policy shifts have occurred since the 1990s so as to sustain ‘peace from below’. The chapter submits an interpretation of post bellum economic justice that emphasizes the persistence of norms about capital accumulation and the rights of labour. Particular norms and values have been categorical for interventionists, continually reproduced and almost ideologically unimpeachable, even though such presumptions about economic progress are in jeopardy in policy centres that promote post bellum transformations. However the global growth in economic service sectors will require new forms of sustenance and new enforceable regimes to establish and maintain peace that will be recognized as ‘just’.

Inclusion, Justice, and Peace in Colombia

This chapter discusses the interplay between inclusion and accountability, using the Colombian peace process as an example. The chapter examines how inclusive input into the peace process, including a referendum, can shape the nature of accountability in post-conflict situations. Drawing on the ‘peace before justice’ debate, the chapter asks whether extensive inclusion can be an impediment to peace, or a guarantor of just peace. It discusses the role of women in the negotiations and the Special Jurisdiction for Peace It concludes that peace processes should be inclusive and promote gender equality to support sustainable peace.

A Just and Lasting Peace After War

While a ‘just and lasting peace’ is the axiomatic goal of a just war, it is not clear what that means exactly. The central question of this chapter is: How should a just war theorist understand peace, insofar that peace is the goal of just war theory, taking into account the theory’s middle position between political realism and moral idealism? In the first part of this chapter, the contemporary debate is mapped and various positions on peace are made explicit. This reveals a shift towards a more positive concept of peace. How far should this shift go? The second part of this chapter places the peace continuum in a lively debate in political philosophy on the role of feasibility constraints in normative theory. This chapter argues that a ‘just and lasting peace’ must be understood as a decent peace that is ‘just enough’.

The Long Tail of World War II

The shadow of World War II still looms over East Asia. Unlike the West, issues of state accountability, corporate liability, and individual reparation roil the victims, governments, and civil society organizations. It stills form a critical, often controversial, backdrop for international relations among China, Japan, Korea, and other Asian nations. This chapter fills an important gap by focusing on jus post bellum outside of the West. The chapter examines the results, motivations, and achievements of civil litigation, namely approximately one hundred World War II reparations lawsuits filed in Japan. In so doing, it answers three related questions. Why does World War II still generate controversy in the contemporary geopolitical triangle of China, Japan, and Korea? How has litigation contributed to the reconciliation process? What are the broader prospects in the future?

Mapping a Norm of Inclusion in the Jus Post Bellum

This chapter maps the existence of provisions requiring the inclusion of traditionally excluded groups in peace negotiations. It argues that international law now require inclusion not only as an aspiration or an optional political gesture, but as a fundamental general principle of the jus post bellum. It shows that inclusion as a norm emerges from within existing shared principles embodied in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and existing international human rights treaty law. It proposes inclusion as an underpinning norm of jus post bellum, ensuring sustainable peace by engaging with those most affected by peace agreements and post-conflict constitutions.

Roots and Branches

Jus post bellum is commonly considered a new and novel concept. But it does have a deeper historical pedigree; and this past is of relevance for its future, both as concept and as practice. This chapter argues that the most plausible contender for ‘inventor of jus post bellum’ in its unique, substantive, recognizable, and forward-looking form, is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). The main aim of this chapter is not to defend such a purely historical claim. It is, rather, to show in detail all that Kant had to offer regarding the jus post bellum: how he develops it in both a short-term (procedural) sense and a long-term (substantive) sense, ranging from immediate ceasefires and public peace treaties all the way to the worldwide spread of a cosmopolitan federation devoted to peace and the realization of everyone’s human rights.