Justice After War In Just War Tradition (Jus Post Bellum)

Öz

Addressing the issues of war and ethics, just war theory applies standards derived from war to the initiation and conduct of war in order to limit the destructiveness of war, minimize harm to civilians, prevent unnecessary damage to property and the environment, and limit violence against combatants. The basic premise of just war theory is that sometimes states can be morally justified in going to war. Its purpose is to provide moral justification for a war through a set of criteria, all of which must be met for it to be considered just. It is traditionally divided into two categories: jus ad bellum (when it is just to start a war) and jus in bello (how it is just to fight war after it has started). However, for a just war theory that deals with the ethics of war and peace to be complete, it must include a third category of moral analysis called jus post bellum. Although the concept of jus post bellum, used to describe the rules and principles applicable to efforts to transition to a just and lasting peace period, is relatively new, its roots go back to ancient times. In this study, thoughts on the tradition of just war and the origin of jus post bellum, definition and characteristics of jus post bellum, the criticism of jus post bellum, the relationship of jus post bellum with other just war components, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, and the need for codification in international law to be discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Jus Post Bellum
• just war
• justice after war
• just peace
• Jus Ad Bellum
• Jus In Bello.
• Jus Post Bellum, just war, justice after war, just peace, Jus Ad Bellum, Jus In Bello.

Haklı Savaş Geleneğinde Savaş Sonrası Adalet (Jus Post Bellum)

Öz

Savaş ve etik konularını ele alan haklı savaş kuramı, savaşın yıkıcılığını kısıtlamak, sivillere verilen zararı en aza indirmek, mülklere ve çevreye gereksiz zararı önlemek ve muhariplere karşı şiddeti sınırlamak için savaşın başlatılmasına ve yürütülmesine yine ondan türetilen standartları uygulamaktadır. Haklı savaş teorisinin temel önermesi, bazen devletlerin savaşa girme konusunda ahlaki olarak haklı olabileceğidir. Amacı ise, bir savaşın adil sayılabilmesi için tümünün karşılanması gereken bir dizi kriter aracılığıyla o savaşın ahlaki olarak haklı gösterilmesini sağlamaktır. Geleneksel olarak iki kategoriye ayrılmaktadır: jus ad bellum (savaşı başlatmanın ne zaman haklı olduğu) ve jus in bello (başladıktan sonra savaşın nasıl olması gerektiği). Ancak savaş ve barış etiğini ele alan haklı savaş teorisinin tamam olması için jus post bellum adında üçüncü bir ahlaki analiz kategorisini içermesi gerekmektedir. Adil ve sürekli bir barış dönemine geçiş çabalarına uygulanabilecek kural ve ilkeleri tanımlamada kullanılan jus post bellum kavramı nispeten yeni olsa da kökleri eski zamanlara dek uzanmaktadır. Mevcut çalışmada haklı savaş geleneği ile jus post bellum’un kökenine ilişkin düşünceler, jus post bellum’un tanımı ve özellikleri, kavrama yöneltilen eleştiriler, jus post bellum’un diğer haklı savaş bileşenleri olan jus ad bellum ve jus in bello ile ilişkisi ve uluslararası hukukta kodifikasyon ihtiyacı tartışılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Jus Post Bellum
• Haklı Savaş
• Savaş Sonrası Adalet
• Adil Barış
• Jus Ad Bellum
• Jus In Bello.

Kaynakça

1. Aquinas, Question 40, Of War (Four Articles), Secunda Secundae in the Summa Theologica. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm#article1 Erişim Tarihi: 20 Mart 2022
2. Augustine, Letter 189. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102189.htm Erişim Tarihi: 23 Mart 2022
3. Bass, G. J. (2002). Victor’s Justice, Selfish Justice. Social Research, 69(4), 1035–1044.
4. Bass, G. J. (2004). Jus Post Bellum. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(4), 384-412.
5. Bell, C. (2008). On the Law of Peace - Peace Agreements and the Lex Pacificatoria. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Bellamy, A. J. (2008). The Responsibilities of Victory: “Jus post bellum” and the Just War. Review of International Studies, 34(4), 601–625.
7. Bilmen, Y. C. (2018). A Feminist Critique of Just War Tradition (PhD Thesis), Istanbul Bilgi University Institute of Social Sciences Political Science PhD Program, İstanbul.
8. Boon, K. (2009). Obligations of the New Occupier: The Contours of a Jus post bellum, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 31, 57-84.

9. Charlesworth, H. (2007). Law After War, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 8, 233-247.
10. Chayes, A. (2013). Chapter VII½: Is Jus post bellum Possible?, European Journal of International Law, 24(1), 291–305.
11. Clausewitz, C. (2018). Savaş Üzerine, İstanbul:Alfa.
12. Clifford III, G. M. (2012). Jus post bellum: Foundational Principles And A Proposed Model, Journal of Military Ethics, 11(1), 42-57.
13. Crocker, D. A. (2012). Ending The Us Civil War Well Reconciliation and Transitional Justice. In E. Patterson (Ed.). Ethics Beyond War’s End. (pp. 145-174). Washinton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
14. Cryer, R. (2012). Law and the Jus post bellum. In L. May & A. Forcehimes (Ed.). Morality, Jus post bellum, and International Law (pp. 223-249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. De Brabandere, E. (2010). The Responsibility for Post-Conflict Reforms: A Critical Assessment of Jus post bellum as a Legal Concept. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 43(1), 126–132.
16. De Brabandere, E. (2014). The Concept of Jus post bellum in International Law: A Normative Critique. In C. Stahn, J. Easterday & J. Iverson (Eds.). Jus post bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations (pp. 123-141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. De Greiff, S. (2008). The Handbook on Reparations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Demy, T. J. (2015). How Should This Conflict End? Implications of the End of An Armed Conflict for the Decision to Use Military Force and Conduct in the Use of Such Force. In J. T. Johnson & E. Patterson (Eds.). Military Ethics (pp. 349-357). Burlington, USA: Ashgate Publishing Company.
19. Easterday, J. (2012). Jus post bellum in the Age of Terrorism: Remarks by Jennifer Easterday. Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting, 106, 335-337.
20. Eskauriatza, J. S. (2020). The Jus post bellum As ‘Integrity’ – Transitional Criminal Justice, The ICC, And The Colombian Amnesty Law. Leiden Journal of International Law, 33(1), 189–205.
21. Evans, G. (2006). From Humanitarian İntervention to the Responsibility to Protect. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 24(3), 703-722.
22. Evans, M. (2008). Balancing Peace, Justice and Sovereignty in Jus post bellum: The Case of `Just Occupation’. Millennium, 36(3), 533–554.
23. Fellmeth, A. X. & Horwitz, M. (2009), “Modus vivendi”, Guide to Latin in International Law, Oxford University Press
24. Gallen, J. (2014). Jus post bellum: An Interpretive Framework. In C. Stahn, J. Easterday & J. Iverson (Eds.). Jus post bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations (pp. 58-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
26. Garraway, C. (2008). The Relevance of Jus post bellum: A Practitioner's Perspective. In C. Stahn & J. K. Kleffner (Eds.). Jus post bellum - Towards a Law of Transition From Conflict to Peace (pp. 153-162). The Hague: T.M.C. Asset Press.
27. Gentili, A. (1933). De Iure Belli Libri Tres. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
28. Grotius, H. (1967). Savaş ve Barış Hukuku. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
29. Hall, R. A. S. (2019). The Justice of War: Its Foundations in Ethics and Natural Law. Lanham : Lexington Books.
30. Hilpold, P. (2015). Jus post bellum and the Responsibility to Rebuild - Identifying the Contours of an Ever More Important Aspect of R2P. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 6 (2015), 284-305.
31. Iverson, J. M. (2017). The Function of Jus post bellum in International Law (PhD Thesis), Leiden University, Netherlands.
32. Johnson, J. T. (1995). Just War Tradition and Low-Intensity Conflict. International Law Studies Series. US Naval War College, 67, 147-170.
33. Johnson, J. T. (2001). Morality and Contemporary Warfare. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press.
34. Johnson, J. T. (2012). Moral Responsibility After Conflict - The Idea of Jus post bellum for the Twenty-First Century. In E. Patterson (Ed.). Ethics Beyond War’s End. (pp. 17-33). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
35. Kamm, F. (2012). The Moral Target: Aiming at Right Conduct in War and Other Conflicts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Kant, I. (1887). The Philosophy of Law: An Exposition of the Fundamental Principles of Jurisprudence as the Science of Right. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.
37. Klein, A.W. (2020). Attaining Post-Conflict Peace Using the Jus Post Bellum Concept. Religions, 11(4),173, 1-21.
38. Koeman, A. (2007). Realistic and Effective Constraint on the Resort to Force? Pre-commitment to Jus in bello and Jus post bellum as Part of the Criterion of Right Intention, Journal of Military Ethics, 6, 198-220.
39. Kolasi, K. (2017). Savaşın Değişen Niteliği ve Jus ad bellum ve Jus in bello’ya Etkisi. İnsan Hakları Yıllığı, 35, 1-29.
40. Lech, M. (2020). Modern Jus Post Bellum: Finding New Branch of International Justice And Law. Polish Review of International and European Law, 9(2), 9-38.
41. Lucas, G. (2018). Annotated Bibliography War and Justice and Justice in War. Oxford Bibliographies Online. https://www.academia.edu/40086639/Annotated_Bibliography_War_and_Justice_and_Justice_in_War
42. May, L. & Edenberg, E. (Eds.). (2013). Jus post bellum and Transitional Justice. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. May, L. (2012). After War Ends: A Philosohical Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. May, L. (2014). Jus post bellum, Grotius, and Meionexia. In C. Stahn, J. Easterday & J. Iverson (Eds.). Jus post bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations (pp. 15-25). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Orend, B. (2000). Jus post bellum. Journal of Social Philosophy, 31(1), 117-137.
46. Orend, B. (2002). Justice After War. Ethics and International Affairs. 16(1). 43-56.
47. Orend, B. (2004). Just Wars and Cosmopolitan Hope. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 104, 128-149. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41802261
48. Orend, B. (2005). “War”, In E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/war/
49. Orend, B. (2006). Morality of War. Petersborough, ON: Broadview Press.
50. Orend, B. (2007). Jus Post Bellum: The Perspective of a Just-War Theorist. Leiden Journal of International Law, 20(3), 571-592.
51. Orend, B. (2008). “Jus Post Bellum: A Just War Theory Perspective.” Jus Post Bellum: Towards a Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace. In C. Stahn & J. K. Kleffner (Eds.). Jus post bellum - Towards a Law of Transition From Conflict to Peace (pp. 31-52). The Hague: T.M.C. Asset Press.
52. Orend, B. (2012). Justice After War - Toward a New Geneva Convention. In E. Patterson (Ed.). Ethics Beyond War’s End. (pp. 175-196). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
53. Osterdahl, I. & van Zadel, E. (2009). 'What Will Jus post bellum Mean? Of New Wine And Old Bottles', 14(2), Journal of Conflict and Security Law. 175-207.
54. Osterdahl, I. (2012). Just War, Just Peace And The Jus post bellum. Nordic Journal of International Law, 81(3), 271-294.
55. Patterson, E. (2012a). Ending Wars Well: Order, Justice, And Conciliation in Contemporary Postconflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
56. Patterson, E. (2012b). Ethics Beyond War’s End. Washinton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
57. Pensky, M. (2013). Jus post bellum and Amnesties. In L. May & E. Edenberg, (Ed.). Jus post bellum and Transitional Justice. (pp. 152-177). New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) (2001), The Responsibility to Protect. https://www.globalr2p.org/resources/the-responsibility-to-protect-report-of-the-international-commission-on-intervention-and-state-sovereignty-2001/
59. Rojas-Orozco, C. (2021). Jus post bellum: A Normative Framework for the Transition from Armed Conflict to Peace. In International Law and Transition to Peace in Colombia: Assessing Jus post bellum in Practice (pp. 23–52). Brill. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv1v7zbx9.6
60. Royal, R. (2012). In My Beginning is My End. In E. Patterson (Ed.). Ethics Beyond War’s End. (pp. 65-76). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
61. Sassòli, M., Antoine A., Bouvier & Quintin A. (2006). How Does Law Protect in War? Geneva: ICRC.
62. Saul, M. (2014). Creating Popular Governments in Post-Conflict Situations:The Role of International Law. In C. Stahn, J. Easterday & J. Iverson (Eds.). Jus post bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations (pp. 447-466). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63. Schuck, M. J. (1994, October 26). When the Shooting Stops: Missing Elements in Just War Theory, Christian Century, 982-984.
64. Sezen, H. K. (2004). Yöneylem Araştırması. Bursa: Ekin.
65. Shapcott, R. (2010). International Ethics: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
66. Stahn, C. (2008). Just Post Bellum: Mapping the Discipline(s). In C. Stahn & J. K. Kleffner (Eds.). Jus post bellum - Towards a Law of Transition From Conflict to Peace (pp. 93-112). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
67. Suárez, F. (1944). Selections From Three Works of Francisco Suárez. (Trans. Williams, G. L.. & Davis, H.) De legibus, ac Deo legislatore, 1612. Defensio fidei catholicae, et apostolicae adversus anglicanae sectae errores, 1613. De triplici virtute theologica, fide, spe, et charitate, 1621. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
68. Taslaman, F. K. (2011). Geçmişten Günümüze Haklı Savaş Kavramının Yorumu (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Uluslararası İlişkiler Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul.
69. Taşdemir, F. (2020). Terörizm ve Ülke Dışı Kuvvet Kullanma Hukuku, Ankara:Nobel.
70. Vikipedi (2021, November 4). Victor’s Justice. Şubat 7, 2022 tarihinde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor%27s_justice adresinden alındı.
71. Walzer, M. (2004). Arguing about War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
72. Walzer, M. (2012). The Aftermath of War - Reflections on Jus post bellum. In E. Patterson, (Ed.). Ethics Beyond War’s End. (pp. 35-46). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
73. Walzer, M. (2017). Haklı Savaş Haksız Savaş, İstanbul:Alfa.
74. Wilde, R. (2008). Are Human Rights Norms Part of the Jus post bellum, and Should They Be? In C. Stahn & J. K. Kleffner (Eds.). Jus post bellum - Towards a Law of Transition From Conflict to Peace (pp. 163-186). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
75. Williams Jr., R. E. (2012). A More Perfect Peace - Jus post bellum and the Quest for Stable Peace, In E.Patterson, (Ed.). Ethics Beyond War’s End. (pp. 77-96). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
76. Williams Jr, R. E. (2014). Jus post bellum: Justice in the Aft ermath of War. In C. E. Gentry & A. E. Eckert (Eds.). The Future of Just War: New Critical Essays (pp. 167-179). London: The University of Georgia Press.
77. Williams, R. E. & Caldwell, D. (2006). Jus post bellum: Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace. International Studies Perspectives, 7(4), 309-320.
78. Yalçınkaya, H. (2008). Savaş: Uluslararası İlişkilerde Güç Kullanımı, Ankara:İmge.