Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

Abstract

In this article, I shall consider a couple of suggestions regarding the relationship between jus post bellum and other aspects of the laws of armed conflict. In §§ 6-11, I shall consider and express some doubts about a hypothesis put forward by Michael Walzer on this subject. Walzer believes that the best account of some of the central doctrines of jus in bello is that they look forward to the viability of the situation post bellum: we refrain from killing civilians because there must be a people to make peace and prosper with after the cessation of hostilities. I shall contrast Walzer's position with a position taken by Jeff McMahan, which does not move from jus in bello to jus post bellum in this way. In §§ 12-19, I shall consider a more ambitious hypothesis put forward by Oliver O'Donovan about the connection between jus post bellum, on the one hand, and jus ad bellum and jus in bello, on the other hand. O'Donovan shares some of Walzer's concerns. But O'Donovan also believes that the three aspects of just war theory are united by a central concept of judgment, as something which distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate war-making and warrelated activities at every stage of the process. Neither of these hypotheses tells us much about occupation as a specific topic in jus post bellum, although I think that O'Donovan's framework does have serious implications-negative implications-for the kind of War-making that envisages occupation of the home territory of an adversary nation as a likely end to a just war.

First Page

31

Volume

31

Publication Date

2009

Download

Share

COinS