The successful transition from armed conflict to peace is one of the greatest challenges of contemporary warfare. It raises moral, legal, and practical problems that are the focus of intense interest across disciplines. The laws and norms of justice that apply to the process of ending war and building peace, or "jus post bellum, " is a central and growing concern. An inquiry into jus post bellum has occupied a significant space in the philosophical study of "just war theory, " but has been sidelined in international law and other fields. This volume thus has a foundational role: to examine the potential merits and criticisms of jus post bellum-not from one disciplinary standpoint, but from the angle of multiple disciplines and perspectives. Jus post bellum has its most traditional and systemic grounding in just war theory. Brian Orend has defined jus post bellum as a natural corollary of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. He writes: It seems, then, that just war theorists must consider the justice not only of the resort to war in the first place, and not only of the conduct within war, once it has begun, but also of the termination phase of the war, in terms of the cessation of hostilities and the move back from war to peace. It seems, in short, that we also need to detail a set of just war norms or rules for what we might call jus post bellum: justice after war.1

J.D. (UC Berkeley), B.A. (Literature, with honors) (UC San Diego), B.A. (Human Development) (UC San Diego). 1 Constitutional peace agreements were chosen in order to highlight the transformative goals and the paradoxes of the process of creating a peace agreement that includes or leads to a new constitution. This is something of a "hyper" example. Other types of peace agreements and new "transitional" constitutions may also fit this example, to greater or lesser degrees. 2 Carsten Stahn, "Mapping the Discipline(s)" in Carsten Stahn and Jann K. Kleffner (eds),

No abstract

Beyond the 'shadow' of the ICC Struggles over control of the conflict narrative in Colombia jennifer easterday [Paths to international justice] can be the production not only of justice itself but of the indirect and direct control of the terms by which decisions are made, naturalized, and controlled. 1

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.