This paper aims to critically analyse two conflicting ethical orientations that dominate the debate on the issue of justice in the post-war phase: minimalism and maximalism. The former approach narrows down the scope of the third aspect of just war theory, known as jus post bellum (justice after war), to the restoration of peace and the prevention of future hostilities. In contrast, the latter emphasizes the importance of achieving political objectives via military triumph and the use of force. Furthermore, it underscores the need for conscientious state-building after a military triumph in order to guarantee the welfare of individuals and the effectiveness of the justly established state. In line with Immanuel Kant's philosophy, it argues for minimalism by giving importance to upholding the rights of civilians and prisoners of war while striving to achieve enduring peace. In addition, it analyzes the fundamental concepts of Orend's maximalist approach to peace accords. These principles give priority to social justice, equality, human rights, democratic government, and social and economic progress. Orend's criteria for a fair peace settlement after a morally justified conflict include the vindication of rights, proportionality, discrimination, punishment, compensation, and rehabilitation. It also discusses the justifiability of regime change in this context. In line with Walzer, it contends that instances in which a new regime will be significantly better compared to the old one should be the only ones in which regime change is appropriate.