Jus Post Bellum as a Normative Framework for Non-International Armed Conflicts

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 3, 814 - 839, 30.10.2025

Vildan Taştemel Kapucu , Pınar Gözen Ercan

https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2025.29

Öz

This article investigates how jus post bellum can be adapted to the realities of non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), which dominate contemporary conflict yet remain normatively underdeveloped. Existing debates—whether moral, legal, or interpretive—have largely focused on interstate wars, providing limited guidance for NIACs marked by fragmented authority, weak institutions, and recurrent violence. To address this gap, the article develops a context-sensitive normative framework that builds on, but moves beyond, existing models in the literature. It argues that post-conflict transitions in NIACs demand attention to the sequencing and interplay of three core dimensions—establishing order, pursuing justice, and fostering reconciliation—while remaining sensitive to specificities of each context. In this way, the article extends jus post bellum’s scope, advancing it as a principled yet adaptable normative compass for guiding post-conflict transitions in NIACs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Jus Post Bellum , Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIACs) , Post-Conflict Transitions , Peacebuilding , Post-Conflict Justice

Uluslararası Olmayan Silahlı Çatışmalar İçin Normatif Bir Çerçeve Olarak Jus Post Bellum

Öz

Bu makale, jus post bellum kavramının günümüzde en yaygın çatışma türü olmasına rağmen normatif açıdan yeterince geliştirilmemiş olan uluslararası olmayan silahlı çatışmaların (UOSÇ) gerçekliklerine nasıl uyarlanabileceğini incelemektedir. Mevcut tartışmalar—ahlaki, hukuki veya yorumlayıcı—büyük ölçüde devletler arası savaşlara odaklanmış ve parçalanmış otorite, zayıf kurumlar ve tekrarlayan şiddet karakterize edilen UOSÇ bağlamları için sınırlı bir rehberlik sağlamıştır. Literatürdeki bu önemli açığı gidermek amacıyla makale, mevcut modelleri temel alan ancak onların ötesine geçen, bağlama duyarlı bir normatif çerçeve ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma, UOSÇ’larda çatışma sonrası geçişlerin, her bir bağlamın özgünlüklerine duyarlı kalınarak düzenin tesis edilmesi, adaletin sağlanması ve uzlaşmanın teşvik edilmesi olmak üzere üç temel boyutun sıralaması ve etkileşimine dikkat edilmesini gerektirdiğini savunmaktadır. Bu şekilde makale, jus post bellum’un kapsamını genişleterek onu UOSÇ’larda çatışma sonrası geçişleri yönlendirecek ilkeli fakat uyarlanabilir bir normatif pusula olarak sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Jus Post Bellum , Uluslararası Olmayan Silahlı Çatışmalar (UOSÇ) , Çatışma Sonrası Geçiş , Barışın İnşası , Çatışma Sonrası Adalet

Kaynakça

• Accord (2018), “Post-conflict Reconstruction and Reconciliation in Rwanda and Sri Lanka”, https://accord.org.za/conflict-trends/post-conflict-reconstruction-and-reconciliation-in-rwanda-and-sri-lanka/ (30.05.2025).
• Barma, Naazneen H. (2017), The peacebuilding puzzle: Political order in post-conflict states (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Bartels, Rogier (2014), “From jus in bello to jus post bellum: When do non-international armed conflicts end?”, Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S., and Iverson, Jens (Eds.), Jus post bellum: Mapping the normative foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 297-314.
• Bass, Gary J. (2004), “Jus post bellum”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32 (4): 384-412.
• Bassiouni, M. Cherif and Daniel Rothenberg (2007), “Facing atrocity: The importance of guiding principles on post-conflict justice”, The Chicago Principles on Post-Conflict Justice, https://concernedhistorians.org/content_files/file/to/213.pdf (21.04.2025).
• Bell, Christine (2008), On the law of peace: Peace agreements and the Lex Pacificatoria (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
• Bloomfield, David, Teresa Barnes and Luc Huyse (2003), Reconciliation After Violent Conflict: A Handbook, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), https://idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/reconciliation-after-violent-conflict-handbook.pdf (21.08.2025).
• Boon, Kristen E. (2014), “The application of jus post bellum in non-international armed conflicts”, Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S., and Iverson, Jens (Eds.), Jus post bellum: Mapping the normative foundation (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 259-268.
• Caplan, Richard (2000), “Assessing the Dayton Accord: The Structural Weaknesses of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Diplomacy & Statecraft 11 (2): 213–232.
• Chetail, Vincent (2009), “Introduction: Post-conflict peacebuilding - ambiguity and identity”, Chetail, Vincent (Ed.), Post-Conflict Peace-Building: A Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 1-33.
• Clifford III, George M. (2012), “Jus post bellum: Foundational principles and a proposed model”, Journal of Military Ethics, 11 (1): 42-57.
• Collier, Paul, V. L. Elliott, Håvard Hegre, Anke Hoeffler, Marta Reynal-Querol and Nichloas Sambanis (2003), “Breaking the conflict trap: Civil war and development policy”, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/ce680d98-c240-5747-a573-b4896762e5f5/content (21.08.2025).
• Corey, Allison and Sandra F. Joireman (2004), “Retributive justice: The Gacaca courts in Rwanda”, African Affairs, 103 (410): 73–89.
• Cullen, Anthony (2010), The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Cruvellier, Thierry and Ephrem Rugiririza (2019), “Rwanda: The most judged genocide in history”, https://justiceinfo.net/en/40846-rwanda-the-most-judged-genocide-in-history.html (20.08.2025).
• de Brabandere, Eric (2014), “The concept of jus post bellum in international law: A normative critique”, Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S., and Iverson, Jens (Eds.), Jus post bellum: Mapping the normative foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 123-141.
• Dinstein, Yoram (2021), Non-International Armed Conflicts in International Law (2nd ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Dizdaraviç, Emina (2023), “From court to classroom: Bringing wartime facts to Bosnia’s schools”, https://balkaninsight.com/2023/04/11/from-court-to-classroom-bringing-wartime-facts-to-bosnias-schools/ (18.03.2025).
• Donais, Timothy (2013), “Power Politics and the Rule of Law in Post-Dayton Bosnia”, Studies in Social Justice, 7 (2): 189-210.
• Easterday, Jennifer S. (2014), Peace agreements as a framework for jus post bellum. Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S., and Iverson, Jens (Eds.), Jus post bellum: Mapping the normative foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 379-415.
• Fischer, Martina (2007), “Dealing with the Past’ in Bosnia–Obstacles and Challenges for ‘Reconciliation’ in the Region of former Yugoslavia”, https://jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep11082.7.pdf (21.04.2025).
• Fleck, Dieter (2014), “Jus post bellum as a partly independent legal framework”, Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S., and Iverson, Jens (Eds.), Jus post bellum: Mapping the normative foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 43-57.
• Gallen, James (2014), “Jus post bellum. An interpretive framework”, Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S., and Iverson, Jens (Eds.), Jus post bellum: Mapping the normative foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 58-79.
• Gallen, James and Luke Moffett (2022), “The Palliative Role of Reparations in Reconciling Societies with the Past: Redressing Victims or Consolidating the State?”, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 16 (4), 498–518.
• Galtung, Johan (1969), “Violence, peace, and peace research”, Journal of Peace Research, 6 (3): 167-191.
• Gastreich, Ruth (2020), “Post-Genocide Rwanda: A Unique Case of Political and Psycho-Social Peacebuilding” https://beyondintractability.org/casestudy/gastreich-rwanda (19.08.2025).
• Global Survivors Fund (GSF) (2022), “‘Survivors in Bosnia-Herzegovina Still Feel Neglected and Forgotten’ Finds a New Study” https://globalsurvivorsfund.org/latest/articles/survivors-in-bosnia-herzegovina-still-feel-neglected-and-forgotten-finds-a-new-study/ (19.03.2025).
• Grebo, Lamija (2023), “Bosnia’s genocide denial law: Why prosecutors haven’t charged anyone”, https://balkaninsight.com/2023/02/28/bosnias-genocide-denial-law-why-prosecutors-havent-charged-anyone/ (18.03.2025).
• Gromes, Thorsten and Florian Ranft (2021), “Preventing Civil War Recurrence: Do Military Victories Really Perform Better than Peace Agreements? Causal Claim and Underpinning Assumptions Revisited”, Civil Wars, 23 (4): 612-636.
• Hayashi, Nobuo and Cecilia M. Bailliet (2017), The Legitimacy of International Criminal Tribunals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2015), “What are Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello?”, https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0 (18.03.2025).
• International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (2024), “How is the term ‘armed conflict’ defined in international humanitarian law?”, https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document_new/file_list/armed_conflict_defined_in_ihl.pdf (31.05.2025).
• International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) (n.d.), “Reparations” https://www.ictj.org/reparations (21.08.2025).
• International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (1997), “Tadić (IT-94-1)”, https://www.icty.org/en/case/tadic (31.08.2025).
• Keating, Tom, and W. Andy Knight (Eds) (2004), Building Sustainable Peace (New York: The University of Alberta Press).
• Kleffner, Jann K. (2014), “Towards a functional conceptualization of the temporal scope of jus post bellum”, Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S., and Iverson, Jens (Eds.), Jus post bellum: Mapping the normative foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 287-295.
• Licklider, Roy (1995), “The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945–1993”, American Political Science Review, 89 (3): 681–690.
• Lieblich, Eliav (2016), “Internal jus ad bellum”, Hastings Law Journal, 67 (3): 687-748.
• Longman, Timothy (2004), “Obstacles to Peacebuilding in Rwanda”, Ali, Taisier, M. and Robert O. Matthews (Eds.), Durable Peace: Challenges for Peacebuilding in Africa (Toronto: University of Toronto Press): 61-85.
• Loyle, Cyanne E. and Benjamin J. Appel (2017), “Conflict recurrence and postconflict justice: Addressing motivations and opportunities for sustainable peace”, International Studies Quarterly, 61 (3): 690-703.
• May, Larry (2012), After war ends: A philosophical perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• May, Larry (2014), “Jus post bellum, Grotius, and meionexia”, Stahn, Carsten, Easterday, Jennifer S., and Iverson, Jens (Eds.), Jus post bellum: Mapping the normative foundations (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 15-25.
• McCready, Doug (2009), “Ending the war right: Jus post bellum and the just war tradition”, Journal of Military Ethics, 8 (1): 66-78.
• Moghalu, Kingsley C. (2005), Rwanda’s Genocide: The Politics of Global Justice (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan).
• Ngari, Allan (2020), “Reparations for victims matter as much as Kabuga’s trial”, https://issafrica.org/iss-today/reparations-for-victims-matter-as-much-as-kabugas-trial (30.08.2025).
• Orend, Brian (2000), “Jus post bellum”, Journal of Social Philosophy, 31 (1): 117-137.
• Orend, Brian (2007), “Jus post bellum: The perspective of a just-war theorist”, Leiden Journal of International Law, 20 (3): 571-592.
• Orend, Brian (2012), “Justice after war”, Patterson, Eric (Ed.), Ethics Beyond War’s End (Georgetown: Georgetown University Press): 175-195.
• Österdahl, Ian (2012), “Just war, just peace and the jus post bellum”, Nordic Journal of International Law, 81: 271-294.
• Orentlicher, Diane (2018), Some Kind of Justice: The ICTY’s Impact in Bosnia and Serbia (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
• Özdemir, Erdinç (2022), “Haklı Savaş Geleneğinde Savaş Sonrası Adalet (Jus Post Bellum)”, Kırklareli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 11 (2): 385-422.
• Paris, Roland (2004), At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Patterson, Eric (2012a), “Conclusion”, Patterson, Eric, (Ed.), Ethics beyond war’s end (Georgetown: Georgetown University Press): 221-229.
• Patterson, Eric (2012b), Ending wars well: Order, justice, and conciliation in contemporary post-conflict (New Haven: Yale University Press).
• Patterson, Eric (2022), “The Afghanistan War and jus post bellum: A look at 3 milestones for peace & security”, Washington University Review of Philosophy, 2: 62-77.
• Quinn, J. Michael, T. David Mason and Mehmet Gurses (2007), “Sustaining the Peace: Determinants of Civil War Recurrence”, International Interactions, 33 (2): 167–193.
• Reyntjens, Filip (2004), “Rwanda, Ten Years On: From Genocide to Dictatorship”, African Affairs, 103 (411): 177-210.
• Richmond, Oliver P., and Franks, Jason, (2009), “Between partition and pluralism: The Bosnian jigsaw and an ‘ambivalent peace’”, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 9 (1-2): 17-38.
• Rojas-Orozco, César (2021), International law and transition to peace in Colombia (Leiden: Brill).
• Ruvugiro, Emmanuel S. (2019), “Rwandan reparations fund breaks ground but is still not enough, say victims”, https://justiceinfo.net/en/40610-rwandan-reparations-fund-breaks-ground-but-is-still-not-enough-say-victims.html (19.08.2025).
• Schuck, Michael J. (1994), “When the Shooting Stops: Missing Elements in Just War Theory’, Christian Century, October: 982-83.
• Sentama, Ezechial (2014), “Unity and reconciliation process in Rwanda, 20 years after the 1994 genocide perpetrated against Tutsi”, https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/publications/unity-and-reconciliation-process-in-rwanda-20-years-after-the-199 (15.03.2025).
• Šimić, Goran (2013), “Searching for reparation: Has the ICTY brought real justice for the victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina?”, https://peaceinsight.org/en/articles/ict-bosnia-and-herzegovina/ (19.08.2025).
• Šimić, Goran (2017), “ICTY and the Question of Justice”, https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hrj/2017/12/icty-and-the-question-of-justice/ (19.08.2025).
• Stahn, Carsten (2006), “‘Jus ad bellum’, ‘jus in bello’ … ‘jus post bellum’? – Rethinking the conception of the law of armed force”, The European Journal of International Law, 17 (5): 921-943.
• Stahn, Carsten (2008), “Jus post bellum: Mapping the discipline(s)”, American University International Law Review, 23 (2): 311-347.
• Stewart, James G. (2003), “Towards a single definition of armed conflict in international humanitarian law: A critique of internationalized armed conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, 85 (850): 313-350.
• Taşdemir, Fatma (2016), “Devlet Merkezli Uluslararası Hukuk Sistemi ve Devlet Dışı Silahlı Aktörler”, Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 11 (2): 85-120.
• United Nations (UN) (1992), An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping, A/47/277-S/24111.
• United Nations (UN) (2010), “UN Peacebuilding: an Orientation”, https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/sites/www.un.org.peacebuilding/files/documents/peacebuilding_orientation.pdf (26.04.2025).
• United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2005), Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law, A/RES/60/147.
• Vestner, Tobias (2023), “The divide between war and peace”, Geneva Center for Security Policy Working Paper, https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/the-divide-between-war-and-peace-gcsp-working-paper (15.03.2025).
• Waldorf, Lars (2009), “Transitional Justice and DDR: The Case of Rwanda”, International Center for Transitional Justice, https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-DDR-Rwanda-CaseStudy-2009-English.pdf (26.04.2025).
• Walzer, Michael (2006), Arguing About War (New Haven: Yale University Press).
• Williams, Robert E. and Dan Caldwell (2006), “Jus post bellum: Just war theory and the principles of just peace”, International Studies Perspectives, 7 (4): 309-320.