International humanitarian law, <i>jus post bellum</i> and transformative justice

Abstract International law began as a discipline concerned with the goal of peace, seen as the ideal state of relations between States, focusing on the potential for peaceful settlement of disputes, arms control and disarmament, and the prevention of war. International humanitarian law (IHL) emerged as the first significant development in international law addressing issues of peace and security. The subsequent development of international criminal law (ICL) following World War II has enabled the criminal prosecution of war crimes (serious violations of IHL) as well as crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity and genocide. This article argues that IHL, as it was developed to regulate the conduct of war ( jus in be llo) as a means of preventing unnecessary suffering, should be considered as separate yet integrally linked to the pursuit of international criminal justice as part of transitional justice in the context of jus post bel lum, defined as “the set of norms applicable at the end of armed conflict … with a view to establishing a sustainable peace”. The article analyzes existing scholarship and emerging ideas about the relatively old yet underdeveloped concept of jus post bel lum, and what this concept means in practice since the rapid increase in international interventions in peacebuilding and transitional justice in non-international armed conflicts. Applying the author's theory of transformative justice along with jus post bel lum principles to the case study example of Cambodia, the paper discusses the complexities, uncertainties and apparent contradictions of establishing a “just peace” that builds on, yet goes beyond, the intersecting norms and practices of IHL and ICL. The article concludes by proposing the need for a radical reconceptualization of jus post bellum in order to support a more sustainable, transformative and emancipatory peacebuilding agenda.