Articles

• Stahn, Carsten

Abstract

The law of armed force is traditionally conceptualized in the categories of <it>jus ad bellum</it> and <it>jus in bello</it>. This dualist conception of armed force has its origin in the legal tradition of the inter-war period. This essay revisits this approach. It argues that the increasing interweaving of the concepts of intervention, armed conflict and peace-making in contemporary practice make it necessary to complement the classical rules of <it>jus ad bellum</it> and <it>in jus in bello</it> with a third branch of the law, namely rules and principles governing peace-making after conflict. The idea of a tripartite conception of armed force, including the concept of justice after war (‘<it>jus post bellum</it>’) has a long-established tradition in moral philosophy and legal theory. This article argues that this historical concept deserves fresh attention from a legal perspective at a time when the contemporary rules of <it>jus ad bellum</it> and <it>jus in bello</it> are increasingly shaped by a normative conception of law and justice and a broadening notion of human security. Moreover, it identifies some of the legal rules and principles underlying a modern conception of ‘<it>just post bellum’</it>.