Of jus post bellum and lex pacificatoria: What's in a name?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)peer-review

Abstract

This chapter discusses whether a jus post bellum regime operating across different types of conflict is possible and desirable, and if not, how we should best situate and respond to contemporary developments in international law relating to terminating intra-state conflict. It explores what arguably has been the main driver of the legal concept of jus post bellum: the relationship between law and practice in contemporary peace negotiations in deeply divided societies. The chapter argues that a dynamic relationship between law and practice has generated novel interpretations and even mutations in the relevant international law so as to give some substance to arguments for a “third way” regime, or lex pacificatoria. The chapter considers whether it is firstly possible, and secondly desirable, to try to “complete” and develop this lex pacificatoria into a clearer set of legal standards and even a new regime such as a jus post bellum.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationJus Post Bellum
Subtitle of host publicationMapping the Normative Foundations
EditorsCarsten Stahn, Jennifer S. Easterday, Jens Iverson
Place of PublicationOxford
PublisherOxford University Press
Chapter10
Pages181-206
Number of pages26
ISBN (Print)9780199685899
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 13 Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Of jus post bellum and lex pacificatoria: What's in a name?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this