41 Pages Posted: 12 Feb 2007
This article distinguishes the traditional concepts of jus ad bellum and jus in bello (law of war and law in war) from the new doctrine of jus post bellum (law of post-war reconstruction). The author examines the recent legal reforms in Iraq, Kosovo and East Timor in order to demonstrate how international bodies and coalitions are increasingly assuming legislative functions, legitimately and otherwise, in the context of their duties as interim administrators. The large degree of discretion left to these administrators does not always ensure adequate levels of trusteeship, accountability, and proportionality to guarantee the stability of post-conflict zones. The author contends that a distinct jus post bellum framework that incorporates these factors would allow for a more systematic approach to legal reform in occupied territories, which would in turn ease the transition to legitimate self-government.
Keywords: post conflict, reconstruction, jus post bellum, legal reform, rule of law, legislative, UNMIK, UNTAET, Iraq, Security Council, trusteeship
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Boon, Kristen, Legislative Reform in Post-Conflict Zones: Jus Post Bellum and the Contemporary Occupant's Law-Making Powers. McGill Law Journal, Vol. 50, 2005; Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper No. 962094. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=962094