Jus Post Bellum, Peacebuilding, and Non-state Actors: Lessons from Afghanistan

Abstract

The just war tradition, with its twin focus on jus ad bellum and jus in bello, attempts to mitigate against the indiscriminate use of force. As noted in the introductory chapter to this volume, this tradition provides the moral underpinning and ethical parameters for the means and ends of the use of force by international actors. It is reflected in religious writings, ancient civilizational laws, international treaty law, and international and regional organizational charters. However, just war principles also exhibit a forward-looking perspective, prompting states to assess their actions consistently to ensure that war does not become an end in and of itself. By logical extension, wars should be fought for a higher normative purpose well beyond the use of force—and beyond the end of war itself. Indeed, few would disagree with St. Augustine’s admonition that [w]e do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against and bring them to the prosperity of peace.1 Echoing St. Augustine, B.H. Liddell-Hart argued that “the object of war is a better state of peace.”2 Scholars increasingly recognize that discerning the justness of war cannot solely be based on what happens as the fighting begins. In the words of one commentator, if we “assume for the moment—as [many] do—that the rubrics of the just war theory are morally tenable, … then such post-war behavior must come under moral scrutiny.”3 KeywordsTransitional JusticeHuman SecuritySecurity Sector ReformInternational Crisis GroupSustainable PeaceThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.