Over the last two decades, the international community has taken on the task of rebuilding societies in the aftermath of mass-atrocities. Through a combination of trial and error and vigorous academic research, a relatively clear (and semi-malleable) blueprint of post-atrocity peacebuilding has developed. This includes setting up a temporary international transitional authority, establishing democracy, facilitating economic development, and holding war crime trials. Though there are volumes of studies which address the pragmatic strengths and weaknesses of these key elements of peacebuilding, to date political theorists have not critically analyzed the moral legitimacy of these policies. My thesis aims to fill this gap. The overarching question of this thesis is this: What moral duties does the international community have to post-atrocity societies? To answer this question, I critically examine the normative issues involved in the four key aspects of peacebuilding (identified above). Using the framework of just war theory and a cosmopolitan theory of fundamental human rights, I argue that, in most post-atrocity cases, the international community has duties to remove atrocity-committing regimes from power, occupy the target-state and act as a transitional authority, help facilitate the creation of democracy and economic development, and hold war crimes trials. These duties, of course, are extremely complicated and limited and these qualifications are examined and developed throughout. Running through the construction of my theory of post-atrocity duties is a clear message: we – the international community – have obligations to the victims and survivors of atrocities. In other words, providing assistance in the wake of mass-atrocities is not a supererogatory act of charity, rather, it is a duty which we owe to the victims of these horrible crimes.

Nommer les conflits internes est difficile pour ceux qui vivent de tels événements. Il faut compter avec la censure, la difficulté d’exprimer ce qu’est un conflit de ce type et, surtout, la vision personnelle de chacun. Cette étude a pour objet d’appréhender les dénominations utilisées dans la prose historique (discours / historiographie) par des témoins et / ou des protagonistes à travers l’étude de pages célèbres de conflits internes en Grèce et à Rome (fin de la République). Bien que les époques et les contextes soient différents, la comparaison entre les lexiques utilisés par Thucydide, Xénophon, Polybe, César, Cicéron et Salluste révèle des constantes tant au niveau des notions employées que des techniques de dénominations adoptées. L’étude comparée permet d’approfondir la particularité de chaque langue. Les Grecs recourent à une évocation ancienne, στάσις dont le champ d’emplois, très vaste, demande des étais. A l’époque classique, les dénominations métaphoriques en précisent l’emploi. Mais ces apports s’avèreront par la suite insuffisants et conduiront Polybe à employer d’autres approches de dénominations préfigurant les choix latins futurs. A Rome, autour d’une dénomination nouvelle, bellum ciuile et de son pendant, ciuile bellum, historiens et orateurs multiplient les désignations et exploitent des techniques de dénominations diverses, pour tenter d’imposer leurs conceptions des conflits civils. Plusieurs des évocations exploitées sous l’Empire en seront issues. / Giving a name to civil conflicts is difficult for those who are part of them. One must deal with censorship, the difficulty of talking about a conflict of that kind and, overall, the personal view of each person. The aim of this study is to analyze how witnesses and participants use words in historical literature (speeches, historiography) through the study of famous writings of civil conflicts during Greek and Roman Antiquity (in the late Republic). Though periods and historical situations were different, comparing lexical terms used by Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Caesar, Cicero and Sallust highlights some continuous similarities about exposed concepts and technical naming methods. The comparative study allows us to study particularities of each language. Greeks writers usually use the old word στάσις, whose very large field needs several stays. In classical times, metaphorical wordings clarify its meanings. But these benefits becoming inadequate, Polybius had to use different approaches of designating conflicts, foreshadowing later choices of words by Roman authors. In Roman times, around the new name bellum ciuile, and its equivalent, ciuile bellum, historians and writers multiply words and various ways of naming situations of civil wars, for trying to force upon their understanding of these wars. Several of those words will be exploited under the Empire to follow up this way of imposing one’s conceptions.

International Legal Aspects of Rebuilding State Structures in Post-Conflict Areas Abstract The dissertation thesis International Legal Aspects of Rebuilding State Structures in Post-Conflict Areas deals with creation, acceptance and implementation of peace agreements. The emphasis is on nature, functions and status of the peace agreements within international law. The second major area of research is a legislation of the implementation of peace agreements in the period between the termination of armed conflict and rebuilding a just and sustainable peace in the country when the armed conflict was undergoing. The implementation process is extremely complex and fragmented, which requires major efforts to ensure an effective and efficient outcome of the process. In a specific section we are focusing on case studies of implementation processes (i.e. solution of legal relations between Sudan and South Sudan). The concept of jus post bellum, which seeks to build on the law of armed conflict, is used for the legislation of the implementation in the doctrine of international law. In addition to jus post bellum we will mention also new approaches to international mediation, Responsibility to Protect, Transitional Justice and lex pacificatoria. As results of the work are findings that the peace agreement, excluding...

International Legal Aspects of Rebuilding State Structures in Post-Conflict Areas Abstract The dissertation thesis International Legal Aspects of Rebuilding State Structures in Post-Conflict Areas deals with creation, acceptance and implementation of peace agreements. The emphasis is on nature, functions and status of the peace agreements within international law. The second major area of research is a legislation of the implementation of peace agreements in the period between the termination of armed conflict and rebuilding a just and sustainable peace in the country when the armed conflict was undergoing. The implementation process is extremely complex and fragmented, which requires major efforts to ensure an effective and efficient outcome of the process. In a specific section we are focusing on case studies of implementation processes (i.e. solution of legal relations between Sudan and South Sudan). The concept of jus post bellum, which seeks to build on the law of armed conflict, is used for the legislation of the implementation in the doctrine of international law. In addition to jus post bellum we will mention also new approaches to international mediation, Responsibility to Protect, Transitional Justice and lex pacificatoria. As results of the work are findings that the peace agreement, excluding...

<p>I Estland 2007 utbröt vad som kommit att kallas ”Cyberwar I”, vari ett stort antal centrala myndigheters, tillika finansiella institutioners servrar attackerades av massiva så kallade Computer Network Attacks (CNA), utfört av framförallt ryska aktörer. Estland protesterade högljutt, men frågan huruvida CNA är att beteckna som olovligt är allt annat än klar. Prövningen sker mot den folkrättsliga regimen <em>Jus ad Bellum, </em>och huruvida metoden uppfyller vissa centrala begrepp. Men hur skall denna regim<em> </em>appliceras CNA?</p><p>De frågeställningar som avses besvaras är: hur kan CNA utgöra <em>våld </em>eller <em>hot om våld</em> i enlighet med FN-stadgans artikel 2(4) samt hur kan CNA utgöra <em>väpnat angrepp</em> i enlighet med FN-stadgans artikel 51? Detta avses göras genom en studie inbegripande flertalet folkrättsliga experters teorier på området CNA och våldsanvändning, samt applicering av desamma på en fallstudie av händelserna i Estland 2007.</p><p>Sammanfattningsvis konstateras att flertalet variabler har bärighet i hur CNA kan uppfylla artiklarnas centrala begrepp, vari frågan om <em>association, effekt, aktör </em>och <em>mål</em> tydligast faller ut. I en efterföljande diskussion påvisas dock hur variablerna endast är att betrakta som indicier på hur CNA kan klassas så som olovligt, varvid endast statspraxis kan ge den slutgiltiga bedömningen.</p>

I Estland 2007 utbröt vad som kommit att kallas ”Cyberwar I”, vari ett stort antal centrala myndigheters, tillika finansiella institutioners servrar attackerades av massiva så kallade Computer Network Attacks (CNA), utfört av framförallt ryska aktörer. Estland protesterade högljutt, men frågan huruvida CNA är att beteckna som olovligt är allt annat än klar. Prövningen sker mot den folkrättsliga regimen Jus ad Bellum, och huruvida metoden uppfyller vissa centrala begrepp. Men hur skall denna regim appliceras CNA? De frågeställningar som avses besvaras är: hur kan CNA utgöra våld eller hot om våld i enlighet med FN-stadgans artikel 2(4) samt hur kan CNA utgöra väpnat angrepp i enlighet med FN-stadgans artikel 51? Detta avses göras genom en studie inbegripande flertalet folkrättsliga experters teorier på området CNA och våldsanvändning, samt applicering av desamma på en fallstudie av händelserna i Estland 2007. Sammanfattningsvis konstateras att flertalet variabler har bärighet i hur CNA kan uppfylla artiklarnas centrala begrepp, vari frågan om association, effekt, aktör och mål tydligast faller ut. I en efterföljande diskussion påvisas dock hur variablerna endast är att betrakta som indicier på hur CNA kan klassas så som olovligt, varvid endast statspraxis kan ge den slutgiltiga bedömningen.

The permissible use of defensive force is a central tenet of the traditional legal and philosophical justification for war and its practice. Just War Theory holds a nation’s right to resist aggressive attack with defensive force as the clearest example of a just cause for war. Just War Theory also stipulates norms for warfare derived from a conception of defensive force asserted to be consistent with the moral reality of war. Recently, these aspects of Just War Theory have been criticized. David Rodin has challenged the status of national defense as an uncontroversial just cause. Jeff McMahan has charged that Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare are inconsistent with the norms of permissive defensive force. In this thesis I defend the status of national defense as a clear case of a just cause. However, my defense may require revision of Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare.

The world has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of depending greatly upon the services of satellites, all while the risk of satellites becoming targets during conflict looms ever greater. This paper assesses the lex lata of the law of self-defence as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, focusing on the rationae materiae aspect of the armed attack concept. It thereafter applies general conclusions in this regard to the specific context of hostile acts against satellite systems, with an aim to clarify under what conditions such hostile acts justify the exercise force in self-defence.

La recrudescence des conflits internes dans le contexte post-guerre froide a permis de propulser à l’avant-plan la préoccupation pour les individus. Alors que la paix et la sécurité internationales ont historiquement constitué les piliers du système institutionnel international, une porte s’ouvrait pour rendre effectif un régime de protection des droits de l’homme par-delà les frontières. Pour les humanistes, l’intervention humanitaire représentait un mal nécessaire pour pallier aux souffrances humaines souvent causées par des divergences ethniques et religieuses. Pourtant, cette pratique est encore souvent perçue comme une forme de néo-colonialisme et entre en contradiction avec les plus hautes normes régissant les relations internationales, soit les principes de souveraineté des États et de non-intervention. La problématique du présent mémoire s’inscrit précisément dans cette polémique entre la préséance des droits de l’État et la prédilection pour les droits humains universels, deux fins antinomiques que la Commission internationales pour l’intervention et la souveraineté des États (CIISE) a tenté de concilier en élaborant son concept de responsabilité de protéger. Notre mémoire s’inscrit dans le champ de la science politique en études internationales mais s’articule surtout autour des notions et enjeux propres à la philosophie politique, plus précisément à l’éthique des relations internationales. Le travail se veut une réflexion critique et théorique des conclusions du rapport La responsabilité de protéger, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le critère de la juste cause et, dans une moindre mesure, celui d’autorité appropriée. Notre lecture des conditions de la CIISE à la justification morale du déclenchement d’une intervention humanitaire – critères issues de la doctrine de la guerre juste relativement au jus ad bellum – révèle une position mitoyenne entre une conception progressiste cosmopolitique et une vision conservatrice d’un ordre international composé d’États souverains. D’une part, la commission se dissocie du droit international en faisant valoir un devoir éthique d’outrepasser les frontières dans le but de mettre un terme aux violations massives des droits de l’homme et, d’autre part, elle craint les ingérences à outrance, comme en font foi l’établissement d’un seuil de la juste cause relativement élevé et la désignation d’une autorité multilatérale à titre de légitimateur de l’intervention. Ce travail dialectique vise premièrement à présenter et situer les recommandations de la CIISE dans la tradition de la guerre juste. Ensuite, il s’agit de relever les prémisses philosophiques tacites dans le rapport de la CIISE qui sous-tendent le choix de préserver une règle de non-intervention ferme de laquelle la dérogation n’est exigée qu’en des circonstances exceptionnelles. Nous identifions trois arguments allant en ce sens : la reconnaissance du relativisme moral et culturel; la nécessité de respecter l’autonomie et l’indépendance des communautés politiques en raison d’une conception communautarienne de la légitimité de l’État, des réquisits de la tolérance et des avantages d’une responsabilité assignée; enfin, l’appréhension d’un bouleversement de l’ordre international sur la base de postulats du réalisme classique. Pour finir, nous nuançons chacune de ces thèses en souscrivant à un mode de raisonnement cosmopolitique et conséquentialiste. Notre adhésion au discours individualiste normatif nous amène à inclure dans la juste cause de la CIISE les violations systématiques des droits individuels fondamentaux et à cautionner l’intervention conduite par une coalition ou un État individuel, pourvu qu’elle produise les effets bénéfiques désirés en termes humanitaires. / The increasing number of internal conflicts in the Post-Cold War era propelled to the foreground the concern for individuals. Though international peace and security historically constituted the pillars of the world institutional system, the opportunity arose to establish an effective and cross-boundary human rights protection regime. According to humanists, humanitarian intervention was the necessary evil to bring an end to the human sufferings caused by ethnic and religious differences. Nevertheless, this kind of interference is still nowadays perceived as a neo-colonialist action and goes against the highest international relations norms, namely the state sovereignty and the non-intervention principles. This thesis’ issue lies within the controversy between states’ rights and universal human rights, which are two conflicting ends the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) tried to reconcile along with elaborating its responsibility to protect concept. The field of this paper is political science in international studies, but the focus is above all on political philosophy notions and stakes, particularly on ethics of international relations. The goal is to build a critical and theoretical thinking about the Responsibility to Protect conclusions, particularly regarding the just cause and appropriate authority criteria. In accordance with our interpretation of the ICISS moral justification conditions for humanitarian intervention – criteria derived from the just war theory’s concern for jus ad bellum – the commission’s stance is split into a progressive cosmopolitan view and a more conservative one that promotes a world order constituted by sovereign states. On one hand the commission separates itself from international law, putting forward an ethical duty to stop the massive human rights violations beyond borders. At the same time it is afraid of excessive interferences, as shown by the establishment of a relatively high just cause threshold and the appointment of a multilateral body in charge of legitimizing the intervention. This dialectical paper’s first objective is to describe and place the ICISS recommendations into the just war tradition. Then, the purpose is to sum up the tacit philosophical premises of the ICISS report in relation to its choice to preserve a firm non-intervention norm from which no derogation is permitted, except in case of exceptional circumstances. From that we identify three arguments: the acceptance of moral and cultural relativism; the requirement of respecting political communities’ autonomy and independence on account of a communitarian conception of state sovereignty, the prerequisites for tolerance and the assigned responsibility advantages; finally, the fear of an international order disruption on the basis of classical realism postulates. Ultimately, we challenge each one of these ideas adopting a cosmopolitan and consequentialist reasoning. Adhering to the normative individualist discourse, we propose to broaden the ICISS just cause so that it includes systematic fundamental human rights violations and to support coalition or individual state intervention, insofar as it produces the desired humanitarian benefits.

La notion d’administration internationale post-belligérante est spécifique au sein des administrations de territoire en relations internationales, au côté des opérations de paix. Lors de situations exceptionnelles, une Autorité internationale est instaurée lors de périodes transitoires, qui oscillent entre la guerre et la paix, pour remédier à des différends territoriaux et/ou à des problèmes de gouvernance. Cette institution politique repose sur le fait qu’un acteur international est responsable de l’administration d’un territoire de manière temporaire dans une situation de post-belligérance, qu’il exerce sa fonction dans l’intérêt de la population et de la société internationale, qu’il superpose les ordres juridiques international et interne, qu’il établit des structures de gouvernance mixtes et qu’il peut intervenir dans les relations internationales au nom du territoire administré. Pour élaborer une réflexion sur ce concept, il faut faire le lien entre le droit international public et les relations internationales afin de disséquer « l’idée » et d’établir ainsi une grille de lecture. Dans la pratique, l’expérimentation en matière d’administration internationale post-belligérante se divise entre la phase plénière, le partenariat et l’appropriation locale du processus afin d’entrevoir la finalité de ce mécanisme : la construction d’une passerelle entre la prégnance de l’étatisme au sein du système international et la diffusion des normes de la société internationale. Ceci est révélé à la lumière des expériences de la Bosnie-Herzégovine, du Kosovo et du Timor oriental. / Beside peace operations, the concept of international post-belligerent (post-conflict) administration is a particular form of territorial administration in international relations. In exceptional situations, an international Authority is set up during transitional periods that fluctuate between war and peace to settle territorial disputes and/or problems of governance. The basis of this type of political institution is that an international actor has responsibility for the temporary administration of a territory in a post-belligerent situation, that it discharges that function in the interest of the population and of international society, that it juxtaposes the international and internal legal orders, that it establishes joint governance structures and that it can act in international relations on behalf of the territory it administers. Studying this concept entails establishing the connection between public international law and international relations so that one can dissect the “idea” and determine an approach. In practice, experimentation in the realm of international post-belligerent (post-conflict) administration comprises a plenary phase, partnership and local ownership of the process and has as its end-purpose the building of a bridge between the impact of statism in the international system and the propagation of the norms of international society. This is demonstrated in the light of the developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and East Timor.