The increasing involvement of international actors in various forms of international missions set up to supervise reconstruction or peace-building processes has raised many questions with respect to both the legal framework applicable to such activity and the authority to engage in such reforms. Recently, new normative propositions on the subject have been labelled jus post bellum. This Article challenges the usefulness and accuracy of jus post bellum as a legal concept. Such theories either amount to an explicit or implicit challenge of the crucial objectivity of the post-conflict phase by linking the rights and obligations of foreign actors to the legality of the use of force, or they simply bring together previously existing obligations.
top of page
bottom of page