Jus Post Bellumand the Responsibility to Rebuild

Abstract

This article considers the issue of who should rebuild after war. Many leading advocates of the relevance of jus post bellum for Just War Theory adhere to the ‘Belligerents Rebuild Thesis’, which holds that those who have been involved with the fighting – such as the victor, just belligerent, unjust aggressor or humanitarian intervener – should be tasked with the responsibility to rebuild. By contrast, this article argues that there is a collective, international duty to rebuild that should be assigned primarily according to the agent's ability to rebuild – and not necessarily to the belligerents. The article also claims that, in contrast to the prevailing view, considerations of jus post bellum do not play any moral role in the justifiability of a war. Accordingly, defending the Belligerents Rebuild Thesis by invoking the alleged moral relevance of jus post bellum for Just War Theory is mistaken.

Should humanitarian interveners promote democracy after genocide?

“…Nevertheless, he is drawn toward the conclusion that interveners should 'aim at a democratically elected government' because modern democracy enables self-determination and 'offers greater protection [of ethnic minority rights and other human rights] than a regime of oligarchs, patriarchal chiefs, or clerics' (44). Doyle (2015, 148-49, 166-70) similarly supports postbellum 'transformational peacebuilding' aimed at establishing electoral democracy -not in all circumstances, but clearly when domestic groups in divided societies appear unable to negotiate a peace agreement by themselves, and a fortiori to facilitate peaceful self-determination and respect for minority rights after genocide (for similar arguments, see also Stahn 2006;Jacob 2014;Pattison 2015).…”

“…This is required to punish those complicit in the crime of genocide and to enable a new political beginning based on peaceful collective self-determination (see esp. Orend 2002;Bass 2004; but also Stahn 2006;Jacob 2014;Doyle 2015;Pattison 2015). 1 I argue that an unqualified injunction to promote democracy after humanitarian interventions to stop genocide is problematic.…”

“…This is required to punish those complicit in the crime of genocide and to enable a new political beginning based on peaceful collective self-determination (see esp. Orend 2002; Bass 2004; but also Stahn 2006; Jacob 2014; Doyle 2015; Pattison 2015). 1…”

Terrorism, jus post bellum and the Prospect of Peace

“…This question has been debated for instance in May (2012), Bass (2004), and Pollard (2013. A rejection of the 'dependence thesis', that is, the thesis that the jus ad bellum depends on jus post bellum can be found in Pattison (2015). 31.…”

Introduction: Mapping the Normative Framework for the Distribution of Shared Responsibility

“…116 There is also a strand of literature that transforms the idea into a normative proposition, for instance to the effect that responsibility should reflect power (or capacity, which is a distinct, but related, concept). 117 Assigning responsibility to states or other actors on the basis of power makes sense. Power refers to the ability of a state to influence or control other actors, and thereby get another actor to do what it wants, if necessary even against its will.…”