What do states and societies do after violent conflict? What SHOULD they do? This normative question is related to ethical considerations, yet ethics remains a relatively limited field of inquiry in International Relations. There are two notable exceptions: Just War Theory and Transitional Justice.
Just War Theory, an established approach in political philosophy with a longstanding history, concentrates on reasons to go to war (ius ad bellum) and appropriate behavior in war (ius in bello), but is also reflecting justice after war (ius post bellum). Interestingly, there is hardly any explicit connection with the second notable exception of ethics in International Relations, Transitional Justice, which investigates, inter alia, war crime tribunals, truth and peace commissions, and reconciliation, and involves philosophical, legal, and political investigation of the aftermath of war.
The paper wants to explore the ways in which Transitional Justice intersects with the ius-post-bellum-considerations of Just War Theory, how each may shape, contribute to and challenge the other.
