Thesis advisor: Kenneth Himes / The category of jus post bellum (jpb, postwar justice and peace) is a welcome addition to discussions of the justice of war. The goal of this dissertation is to review the significance of this recent development within the just war tradition. This project is based on a proposition that just war should aim at just peace; peace does not mean the absence of armed conflict, but it requires the establishment of justice. There is no true peace if it exists for the strong but not for the weak, for the victor but not for the vanquished. At the heart of jpb is the establishment of a just peace. With this preliminary proposition in mind, this dissertation endeavors to challenge the view of those who argue that reconciliation, mainly political reconciliation, is the first and foremost ambition of jpb. Instead, it attempts to justify the proposition that achieving just policing, just punishment, and just political participation are key to building a just peace, of which the fundamental characteristic must be human security. In the immediate aftermath of war there is little or no policing, punishment, or avenues for political participation to protect the civilians of defeated states, especially the most vulnerable ones. Therefore, this project argues (i) that human security is a neglected theme in the discourse of moral and theological intellectual traditions; and (ii) that a more balanced understanding of jpb must pay direct attention to the elements comprising human security in a postwar context as well as the quest for reconciliation. In particular, holding a realistic view that war is inherently destructive of people, institutions, and infrastructure, this project focuses on justice in reconstruction—reconstruction of just policing, just punishment, and just political participation. This destruction raises questions about the fulfillment of justice in the damaged postwar society. Considering these issues through the lens of human security and political reconciliation theories, I propose my “maxim(um) of ethical minimalism” for jpb—the principle of achieving to the highest extent possible human security, which is the necessary and essential outcome for jpb. It is the norm for jpb of achieving the common good to the highest extent possible, with priority on human security, using nonviolent means insofar as possible and violent means when necessary. This proposal contends that determination of the content of the responsibilities for just war reconstruction should be specified on the basis of the damage to relationships that need to be not merely restored, but also fundamentally transformed in the postwar society that prevents future threats. This thesis pays particular attention to civil society peacebuilding, which needs to be considered only to the extent that it is an objective of the postwar discussion and to the extent it is affected by jpb decisions. Yet, my primary thesis is that this transformative vision of jpb should be distinguished from an extensive buildup of a civil society scheme, which requires a wider and longer range of peacebuilding efforts. Instead, it must be tempered by realism in a careful and concrete manner, since the priority should be given to human security in the immediate aftermath of war. This study is an exercise in applied political ethics that employs various disciplines—security studies, international law, and peacebuilding work—to address the topic of jpb as a means of illuminating the theological discourse. Plainly, I employ this literature to explore how contemporary scholars view the idea of jpb and how this relatively new development fits within the Christian tradition of just war, a moral tradition that is historically interdisciplinary. Further, this attempt is a valuable contribution to the just war tradition by identifying what I view as three key themes of jpb, namely, three practices that are essential to implementing jpb immediately after a war: just policing, just punishment, and just political participation. While examining the interrelated challenges of moral and social norms in both political and legal domains, this dissertation proposes an innovative methodology for linking theology, ethics, and social science so that the ideal and the real can inform each other in the ethics of war and peacebuilding. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2018. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Theology.

No description available.

This thesis considers the issue of the Responsibility to Rebuild in International Law. It posits that the R2R must be re-elevated to significance as a conceptual, normative, and functional element of Responsibility to Protect (R2P), with its institutional homes in the United Nation’s framework and the Secretary-General’s function adequately articulated. In most instances, the 2009 three-pillar R2P framework functions effectively, but it has the flaw of burying and overlooking the critical value of the initial ICISS third pillar, the responsibility to rebuild and reconstruct war-ravaged communities’ threshold of viability and self-sufficiency. This thesis draws some crucial insight from the significant international interventions of the twenty-first century and recalling the scope in which R2P was first conceived to illustrate the unique characteristics of its contribution to global politics or international policy. This thesis addresses the question of who should rebuild after a war. The ‘Belligerents Rebuild Thesis,’ which suggests that those who have been engaged in the battle - including the victor, just belligerent, unjust aggressor, or humanitarian intervener - should be charged with the responsibility of rebuilding, is held by many leading proponents of the importance of jus post-Bellum for Just War Theory. On the other hand, this thesis argues that there is a mutual, international responsibility to rebuild that should be delegated solely based on the agent's capacity to rebuild rather than the belligerents. / Graduate / 2022-08-09

No description available.

Questions regarding responsibilities in war are deeply related to moral discussions. Just war theory is a theory developed in order to categorize in which ways a war can be performed to be as just as possible. The theory was primarily divided into two dimensions: jus ad bellum and jus in bello which focuses on the reasons for going to war and the execution of the war. In recent years a third component to the theory has been discussed which incorporates the responsibilities after a war has been terminated, also known as jus post bellum. In this essay, just war theory is applicable to NATO:s invasion, Operation Unified Protector (OUP), of Libya during the civil war in 2011. In order to do so, a qualitative study has been chosen as methodology based on primary and secondary sources. By analyzing NATO:s actions from a just war perspective, the results present that the invasion was just based on jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The jus post bellum dimension did, in this case study, weaken OUP from a just war perspective as very few post war measures were implemented and sustainable peace did not arise after the operation ended.

Jus post bellum is the less known part of the just war theory which concerns how one should act morally in the end and the aftermath of a war. Lately this component of the theory has gained a lot of attention among researchers who state that jus post bellum is at least as important as the other parts, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and needs to be given more priority. Central in the researchers’concepts of jus post bellum is the international community which is stated to be a key party in the implementation. This essay aims to increase the understanding about this subject by analyzing how the problems surrounding jus post bellum is discussed by the international community today. This is achieved by using the “What’s the Problem Represented to Be” (WPR) policy analysis approach on the UN general assembly debate held in 2019. The results shows that jus post bellum is discussed frequently in the debate and contains several similarities with the research overview. However, opinions are divided on what the problems, solutions, responsibilities and main factors are which can be a problem for future development.

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.

I cambiamenti verificatisi nel sistema internazionale nel corso degli ultimi anni hanno avuto una profonda incidenza sul dibattito teorico circa l'uso della forza e i conflitti armati. In particolare, il cambiamento che si è avuto nel warfare ha portato a concentrare l'attenzione su due aspetti particolari della guerra, ovvero la sua giustificazione morale e la relazione tra uso della forza e diritto internazionale. Inoltre, rispetto al passato, la fase successiva ai conflitti assume una rilevanza sempre maggiore. Scopo di questo lavoro è, quindi, da un lato analizzare la teoria della guerra giusta in relazione al diritto internazionale e alle sfide poste dall'attuale sistema internazionale, evidenziandone gli elementi teorici più problematici e, dall'altro, delineare gli elementi normativi necessari per una teoria della pace giusta. Se, infatti, la tradizione teorica relativa a ius ad bellum e ius in bello è ben consolidata, i problemi teorici ed empirici che si pongono circa lo ius post bellum sono nuovi e ancora senza risposta. Il lavoro cerca quindi di formulare gli elementi normativi che dovrebbero regolare lo ius post bellum affinché vengano soddisfatti i requisiti di giustizia post-conflittuale Infine, alla luce degli elementi teorici emersi sono stati analizzati tre conflitti che ben si prestano a valutare empiricamente la teoria della guerra giusta, ovvero il primo conflitto in Iraq del 1991, l'intervento in Kosovo del 1999 e il secondo conflitto in Iraq del 2003. / The changes occurred in the international system during the last decade had a deep influence on the theoretical debate about use of force and armed conflicts. In particular, changes in warfare focused attention on two different aspects of war its moral justifiability and the relation between the use of force and international law. Furthermore, the post-conflict phase is becoming more and more important. The aim of this work is twofold: on one hand, to analyse the relationship between Just War Theory and international law and the challenges raising from the new international system, underlining the most problematic aspects from a theoretical point of view. On the other hand, the aim is to sketch some normative elements of Just Peace Theory. If jus ad bellum and jus in bello theories are well-established, there are many theoretical and empirical problems related to jus post bellum Consequently, this work tries to advance some normative elements required to regulate jus post bellum in order to satisfy requirements of post-conflict justice. Finally, in the light of the elements arisen in the theoretical part of the work, three conflicts particularly relevant for Just War Theory are taken into account: the 1991 war in Iraq, the 1999 intervention in Kosovo e and the 2003 conflict in Iraq.

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.

No description available.