Jus post bellum in international law

Abstract

For many years international law has concentrated on the enactment of laws, which regulate the initiation of war that should be done in a just manner and laws that regulate how war should be conducted so as not to constitute an act of aggression. Conversely, so far there are no hard laws, which attempt to regulate the termination of war. That is, there is no international treaty similar to the Geneva or the Hague Conventions, which establishes the terms and conditions that, should bind States at the end of war. Consequently, international actors are being exposed to different bodies of law, which include the law of occupation, human rights law and Security Council resolutions. These are not wholly applicable to these situations and lack uniformity. Hence these actors end up in a situation of uncertainty. By referring to past and contemporary post-conflict international operations, this thesis aims to emphasize the need that the international community is feeling to have a common treaty, which would provide for proper ways to end a situation of armed conflict and to deal with the aftermath of conflict. Nevertheless, it is important that such a legal mechanism should also be broad enough so as to leave room for the uniqueness of every war. Such a treaty could compel States to develop an exit plan even before going to war. This in itself could help to prevent useless wars because if a State sees that the end result is not proportionate to the aim behind the war then it might decide not to initiate that war in the first place. Moreover, if it does not prevent the initiation of war it might prevent the prolonging of unnecessary fighting because States would know what to expect once the war has been terminated.