Monday, November 28, 2011

Call for Papers: Jus Post Bellum Project Launch Conference

A call for papers has been issued for the Jus Post Bellum Project Launch Conference, to take place in The Hague, Netherlands, May 31-June 1, 2012. Here's the call:

Call for Papers
“Jus ‐ Post ‐ Bellum”: Mapping the normative foundations
May 31– June 1, 2012, The Hague, Netherlands

The proper ending of conflict and the organization of post‐conflict peace is one of the greatest challenges of contemporary warfare. This issue has resurfaced in the context of modern interventions and their aftermath. The Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies’ Jus Post Bellum Project investigates whether and how a contemporary jus post bellum may facilitate greater fairness and sustainability in conflict termination and peacemaking. It seeks to establish the historical and normative foundations of a modern jus post bellum, including its relationship to jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The project seeks to identify the contours, operation, and impact of this concept, based on analysis of historical peace settlements, contemporary peace agreements and case‐studies. In addition, the project seeks to develop a catalogue of rules and principles of post‐conflict peace in order to guide priorities and policy choices in a number of key areas: conflict termination and ending of conflict, the interplay between international humanitarian law and human rights law in post‐conflict settings, the balance between “local ownership” and foreign authority, reconstruction and rule of law reform, the treatment of individual criminal responsibility in peace settlements, and the allocation of property rights.

The project is proud to host its launch conference, “‘Jus ‐ Post – Bellum’: Mapping the normative foundations”, May 31 – June 1, 2012. The first of several project seminars, this conference will seek to clarify the meaning and content of the concept (including, e.g., its relationship to and distinction from the field of transitional justice), including contemporary understandings and criticisms of the concept, and historical and modern approaches towards the definitions of key notions, such as “jus”, “post” and “bellum”.

We are seeking submissions of academic research papers for presentation at the conference. Submissions should include an abstract of no more than 300 words and be accompanied by a CV. Please indicate for which panel the abstract is intended (panels may be subject to change). Submissions must be written in English and sent to no later than Friday, January 13, 2012. Selected participants will be informed in early February 2012. Final papers should be submitted by April 15, 2012. Accepted papers may be considered for publication in a conference volume.

Submissions should address one or more of the following issues:

1. Conflict termination and the definition of “post”:

Since Grotius’ De Jure Belli ac Pacis, the rules of international law have been founded upon a distinction between “war” and peace. Warfare has been categorized in the notions of jus ad bellum (justification of the use of force) and jus in bello (conduct of hostilities) for centuries. Modern armed conflict is characterized by a decline of formality in the beginning and ending of conflict. This makes it necessary to re‐define the trigger for the application of jus post bellum. Taking into account the diversification in contemporary practice (collective security arrangements, modern peace‐settlements, cease‐fire arrangements, occupation), questions arise as to when, and under what circumstances, jus post bellum comes into play, and whether it is necessary to distinguish a jus post bellum proper from a further “jus ex bello”.

We are particularly interested in submissions on the temporal scope of application of the laws of war and armed conflict (i.e., the beginning and ending of hostilities), and indicators for the ending of conflict (whether the conflict is international, internal or involves occupation) as well as guidelines for conflict termination (e.g., exit strategies from conflict).

2. Modern conflicts and the definition of “bellum”:

Classical jus post bellum has been linked to inter‐state warfare and international armed conflict. In light of the proliferation of civil wars, and the extension of the laws of war to internal armed conflict, a modern jus post bellum must be tied to armed violence more generally, rather than inter‐state war. In this context, it is important to investigate which rules of jus post bellum are context (and conflict) specific, and which are global in nature. To what extent can the concept of jus post bellum be extended to internal armed conflicts, non‐traditional wars (e.g. the “war on terror” or the “war on drugs”) and enforcement operations? What would a modern jus post bellum internum imply? What are its sources, and its normative content?

3. Which law applies to the transition to peace — the “jus” in jus post bellum:

Law‐making in the 20th century has been more concerned with jus ad bellum and jus in bello than with jus post bellum. Classical treatises have treated specific elements of the concept (e.g., end of hostilities, conditions of peace treaties, reparation) in a cursory fashion. Individual aspects of jus post bellum have been analyzed as a single phenomenon in law or doctrine, and the study of processes of transition from conflict to peace have been addressed in a sui generis and ad hoc fashion. Rules and norms have remained focused on conflict termination, rather than peacemaking. It has been invoked in connection with themes such as occupation, reconstruction after conflict, state‐building, counter‐insurgency strategy, accountability and post‐conflict justice or R2P. However, the field is muddy and a clear set of norms needs to be developed. What rules, principles and normative frameworks should be included in a definition of jus post bellum? How do these rules interact with just war theory, the conduct of hostilities or the practical challenges of operating in a post‐conflict environment? How does jus post bellum relate to, and how is it different from, the field of transitional justice? Which are obligatory laws and which are better defined as “best‐practices” principles? To what end will these rules of jus post bellum serve? Can they limit the consequences of armed force by entailing a closer consideration of post‐conflict peace in decisions made prior to intervention? Can they encourage parties not to engage in conflict, or to conduct their hostilities during conflict in a manner so as not to damage the prospects of fair and just peace? Can they facilitate a successful transition to peace, rather than a mere “exit” from conflict?