Post-Conflict Law (Jus Post Bellum)– A Legal Order with Defined Scope of Action After an Armed Conflict

Abstract

Is it possible to determine the exact times when post-conflict law will enact and terminate? How do transitional justice and post-conflict law differ from each other? To what extent is it acceptable to use the same operational framework of post-conflict law after international and non-international armed conflicts? What is the main problem that post-conflict law faces when military occupation ends? – answering these questions is the basic task of this article. In order to fulfill the latter, there is presented a discussion on the following topics relevant to international law: on drawing the line between international humanitarian law and post-conflict law – in the context of determining the moment of enactment of post-conflict law; on the challenges related to the definition of the term “peace” and simultaneously achieving the goals set by the basic principles of post-conflict law – in the context of determining the moment of termination of post-conflict law; on the concept of transitional justice, its legal burden and scope of interest – in the context of the separation of the mentioned doctrine from post-conflict law; on the protection of the civilian population with the same standard by the international humanitarian law, the same responsibility imposed on war criminals, the same application of international human rights law and the same involvement of international organizations in the implementation of the basic principles of post-conflict law irrespective of the type of armed conflict – in the context of establishing a uniform framework of post-conflict law applicable after both types of armed conflict; on the relationship between the occupier and the occupied parties during the period of military occupation – in the context of the post-occupation legal order.