The following essay focuses on the phase when the actual fighting and violence stops, the phases of de-escalation and consolidation, where within the concept of the R2P the means and tools of rebuilding and conciliation shall avoid another fighting again. The underlying research question consequently asks: if the concept of the R2P addresses prevention, conflict management as well as post conflict rebuilding, does there exist an obligation and a legal
1 HIICR, Conflict Barometer 2010, http://hiik.de/de/konfliktbarometer/index.html.
4
justification within this context for a jus post bellum under the international law? Measures for an after conflict time rebuilding have never been before part of a wider legal concept to fight violent conflicts. It often was treated as part of development efforts and policies, but never as a legal obligation for an intervening party. For this reason some legal experts call it already a jus post bellum. The term of the jus post bellum then describes the legal responsibility and commitment of the international community as well as certain individual nations within the overall frame of the R2P. The hypothesis for that reason is that the concept of the Responsibility to Protect will fail to prevent deadly conflicts as long there is no legal obligation and an international tool set for a jus post bellum as a pre-conflict prevention of a new outbreak.
Within the essay, the author wants to provide an overview of the Concept of the R2P, the legal perception of this concept in the context of the Law of Armed Conflict and especially of the obligations and possibilities coming along with this concept after the end of violent conducts. The research question therefore provides the framework for this essay, whilst the hypothesis shall be used to prove limitations and possibilities of a legal concept that might develop towards a jus post bellum.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The concept and the idea of the R2P
3. The Law of Armed Conflict in International Law
4. A theoretical approach to deadly conflicts
5. The Responsibility to Protect and the Jus post Bellum
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay explores the potential for integrating the concept of "jus post bellum" into the international legal framework of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). It examines whether the current international legal system, which effectively regulates the onset and conduct of war, contains sufficient obligations to ensure stable rebuilding and reconciliation following the cessation of hostilities to prevent future violence.
- The evolution and core principles of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.
- The existing legal structure of the Law of Armed Conflict, specifically jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
- Theoretical models of conflict escalation and the necessity of conflict transformation.
- The moral and practical arguments for a legal "jus post bellum" to bridge gaps in post-conflict stability.
Excerpt from the Book
4. A theoretical approach to deadly conflicts
Conflicts are a central element of human behavior and social contact. They always existed in the history of mankind. Conflicts do have destructive as well as creative elements and potential, without conflicts there would have been stagnation in the development of mankind as they mark the permanent struggle of interests. Conflicts can be solved by peaceful means or even in a worst case by the use of force and violence. In order to become violent, conflicts have to develop through a process of increasing tension and require certain root causes to escalate. Such root causes could be for example in intrastate conflicts the existence of bad governance, political and social imbalances, cultural differences, the denial of basic rights or even the absence of a civil society. Root causes like this can trigger the development of a conflict into an armed or violent conflict. But at the same time it is not a necessity that root causes like these above cause violence. Even more subjective assumptions, assessments and preferences of the people and parties involved in a conflict play an equal role in the determination towards a non-violent or violent conflict solution. Therefore it is always difficult to assume or predict the development. By recognizing already the root causes, an initial indicator might be given and can be seen as a first alarming signal for an early warning system.
Looking back in history it can be summarized, that violent conflicts never erupted from one day to another. They developed through different phases of tension and escalation. A very simple model of such a process towards an armed conflict provides a subdivision into three to five different phases: the emerging phase, the escalation phase, the battle phase, the de-escalation phase and the consolidation phase. Each phase has its own features and can be a step upwards or downwards on an escalation and intensity level. The sequence therefore is not determined. The same applies to the duration and the intensity of each phase; they vary from case to case.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the shift towards intrastate conflicts and the emergence of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a framework for international intervention and post-conflict rebuilding.
2. The concept and the idea of the R2P: This chapter outlines the origins of R2P through the ICISS report, detailing the three-pillar approach and the conditions necessary for legitimate international intervention.
3. The Law of Armed Conflict in International Law: This chapter analyzes the traditional legal pillars of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, explaining why they currently fail to provide a robust framework for post-conflict reconstruction.
4. A theoretical approach to deadly conflicts: This chapter discusses the drivers of conflict escalation and the necessity of conflict transformation as a tool for sustainable peacebuilding.
5. The Responsibility to Protect and the Jus post Bellum: This chapter examines the historical and moral arguments for a legal jus post bellum and how it could formalize the rebuilding responsibilities within the R2P framework.
6. Conclusion: The concluding chapter summarizes the study's findings, arguing that without transitioning post-conflict responsibilities into binding international law, intervention efforts remain fragmented and voluntary.
Keywords
Responsibility to Protect, R2P, Jus post Bellum, International Law, Law of Armed Conflict, Conflict Transformation, Humanitarian Intervention, Sovereignty, Peacebuilding, Conflict Management, Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, Human Rights, United Nations, Atrocity Crimes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
This work focuses on the intersection of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine and the legal concept of "jus post bellum," specifically investigating the lack of binding legal obligations for post-conflict reconstruction in international law.
What are the core thematic areas discussed?
The core themes include the limitations of current international law regarding intrastate conflicts, the theoretical progression of conflict escalation, and the moral requirement for an institutionalized approach to rebuilding war-torn societies.
What is the research question addressed in this study?
The study asks whether, given that the R2P addresses prevention and conflict management, there exists an obligation and legal justification under international law for a "jus post bellum" to ensure stability after hostilities end.
Which scientific methodology is applied here?
The author employs a normative and theoretical analysis, synthesizing legal principles of the Law of Armed Conflict with political philosophy and conflict management theory to evaluate the current status of R2P.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the evolution of R2P, a detailed breakdown of existing international laws (jus ad bellum/in bello), a theoretical model of conflict cycles, and the proposal for integrating post-conflict reconstruction into international legal mandates.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
The research is best characterized by terms such as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), jus post bellum, international legal obligations, conflict transformation, and humanitarian intervention.
How does the author define the "three pillars" of R2P?
The three pillars represent the state's responsibility to protect its own population, the international community's responsibility to assist states in this capacity, and the international community's responsibility to react when a state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocity crimes.
Why does the author argue that "prevention and re-building are pretty much the same"?
The author argues this because both phases require similar actions and levels of intervention to stabilize a society; both aim to either prevent an outbreak of violence or prevent a relapse into the violent conditions that necessitated the intervention in the first place.
What is the role of the Peacebuilding Commission mentioned in the text?
The Peacebuilding Commission serves as a specialized UN counseling institution established in 2005 to coordinate efforts in post-conflict situations and integrate peace consolidation into a coherent, long-term strategy.
- Quote paper
- Dipl. pol., MCGI Göran Swistek (Author), 2012, The Responsibility to Protect and the obligations for a Jus post Bellum, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/230329
