DOCSLIB.ORG

Jus Post Bellumand Proportionality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jus Post Bellumand Proportionality 5 Jus Post Bellum and Proportionality Michael A. Newton* I. Introduction This chapter proceeds from the premise that the proportionality principle as applied in its respective legal usages before the onset of armed conflict (embedded within the jus ad bellum framework) and during armed conflict (jus in bello), cannot and should not be dis- aggregated from the larger question of the desirability of justice following conflict (jus post bellum). Ours is the ‘era of proportionality’ in the sense that the proportionality principle is a ‘legal construction’ that is an integral aspect of legal and moral discourse in every effective legal system.1 The proportionality principle as classically formulated in bothjus ad bellum and jus in bello proceeds from the normative baseline that its value as a methodological tool is grounded on the cornerstone of a ‘proper purpose’.2 Combatants have affirmative rights under interconnected jus in bello principles, yet these rights carry correlative duties re- quiring that the loss of lives must be offset by equally serious matters if the conduct of war is to be justified. Military commanders see jus in bello proportionality as an essential element of professional ethos, providing the necessary latitude to accomplish their strategic and tac- tical mandates. As a necessary legal predicate, the overarching objective driven by the jus ad bellum analysis provides the evaluative template for assessing the legality of the strategic, operational, and tactical decisions necessarily undertaken during the armed conflict. Lawyers, philosophers, and just war scholars have long debated the proper relationship between jus ad bellum principles warranting the resort to force and the jus in bello utility of the proportionality principle. Nevertheless, the lex lata remains firm for the moment that each legal context functions as a distinct and independent body of law.3 Proportionality simultaneously empowers war- fighters and imposes concrete restraints over the conduct of armed conflicts when properly applied. The demonstrable gap between internationally accepted articulations of proportionality and its perceived application is not inevitable. However, the mere invocation of proportionality cannot become an effective extension of asymmetric combat power by artificially crippling combatant capabilities. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the subtle but undeniable role of jus post bellum considerations in linking otherwise disparate invocations of the proportionality principle. * Professor of the Practice of Law at the Vanderbilt Law School. 1 Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (translated from Hebrew by Doron Kalir, Cambridge University Press 2012) 131. 2 Ibid. 3 Serena K. Sharma, ‘Reconsidering the Jus ad Bellum/Jus in Bello Distinction’, in Carsten Stahn and Jan Kleffner (eds), Jus Post Bellum: Towards a Law of Transition From Conflict to Peace (TMC Asser 2008) 9–31. Michael A. Newton, Jus Post Bellum and Proportionality In: Just Peace After Conflict. Edited by: Carsten Stahn and Jens Iverson, Oxford University Press (2020). © The several contributors. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198823285.003.0005 80 Michael A. Newton Concepts of proportionality are amongst the most controversial imperatives in waging modern conflicts from the legal, moral, and political perspectives. Their very termino- logical familiarity may result in overly formulaic applications in practice. Jus post bellum provides useful analytical continuity that can become a load- bearing pillar for affirmative articulations of the proportionality principle in a variety of usages. The difficulty in practice is that its parameters remain bounded by contextual challenges in every instance. Aharon Barak, of the Israeli Supreme Court, summarized this aspect of proportionality and its interrelationship with appropriate oversight as follows: The court will ask itself only if a reasonable military commander could have made the decision which was made. If the answer is yes, the court will not exchange the military commander’s security discretion with the security discretion of the court. Judicial re- view regarding military means to be taken is within the regular review of reasonable- ness . [T]he question is not what I would decide in a given circumstance, but rather whether the decision that the military commander made is a decision that a reasonable military commander was permitted to make. In that subject, special weight is to be granted to the military opinion of the officials who bear responsibility for security . Who decides about proportionality? Is it a military decision to be left to the reasonable application of the military, or a legal decision within the discretion of the judges? Our answer is that the pro- portionality of military means used in the fight against terror is a legal question left to the judges . Proportionality is not a standard of precision; at times there are a number of ways to fulfill its conditions . a zone of proportionality is created; it is the borders of that zone that the court guards.4 As noted above, jus post bellum considerations provide an important connecting premise. The precise parameters of this zone of proportionality remain very much in dispute amidst the complexity of modern armed conflicts and the rise of a globalized media. An adversary’s ability to broadcast (or fabricate) allegations of inappropriate conduct also adds an unprece- dented level of difficulty to modern proportionality determinations. Proportionality serves as one of the tendons linking otherwise distinct bodies of law into an interdependent whole. This intertwined relationship between various invocations of proportionality preserves the utility of the principle while ensuring its appropriate role within larger debates over the role for military force and the responsibilities of ethical war-fighters. This chapter addresses recurring confusions that cloud the application of proportion- ality. Section II addresses the oft- repeated misunderstanding of the relationship between the rule of law and the onset of armed conflict as a condition of human conduct. Because peace is the proper object of warfare, Section III describes commonalities of the propor- tionality principle as applied across varying fields of usage, while Section IV details the evo- lution of its modern normative content. Section V concludes by reviewing the role of jus post bellum as an embedded component connecting the invocation of proportionality as an aspect of military practices across domains and usages. 4 Aharon Barak, President (ret’d) Supreme Court of Isr., Address at the Jim Shasha Center of Strategic Studies of the Federmann School for Public Policy and Government of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (18 Dec. 2007). Jus Post Bellum and Proportionality 81 II. ‘Correcting’ Cicero Embodying the classical conception of hostilities, Hugo Grotius quoted the Roman phil- osopher Cicero for the proposition that Inter bellum ac pacis nihil est medium (‘there is no medium between war and peace’).5 This archaic conception of conflict led to sharp intel- lectual cleavages drawn between the law of war and the law of peace.6 The conception of a legal firewall by which the prevailing body of law is automatically displaced by a wilder and impliedly non- legal set of norms is often said to originate some two thousand years ago from the mind of the famed orator and litigator Cicero. The philosophical and legal notion that antagonists may properly discount legal constraints when facing in extremis situations is captured in the oft-repeated sentiment from Cicero that ‘silent enim leges inter armes’. 7 The quote is often incorrectly attributed to saying that ‘in times of war, the law falls silent’.8 Cicero’s maxim has been invoked to argue that otherwise unlawful conduct may be per- missible in furtherance of a public good (presumably defined in utilitarian terms).9 Other advocates have invoked it to delineate peace (the courts are open and available for recourse) versus war (the courts are closed).10 Early British cases often quoted Cicero as embracing the idea that military matters fall outside the jurisdiction of common law courts.11 Courts in different jurisdictions repeatedly relied upon this same notion during the American Civil War and Reconstruction era cases, most famously in the Union arguments supportive of the suspension of the right to habeas corpus in Ex parte Milligan. In modern times, the phrase is more often used in discourse related to civil liberties during the investigation and prosecu- tion of terrorists. Heated debates over the rejection of civil liberties during recent armed conflicts rest on the fullest implications of the misquoted phrase. Justice Scalia’s dissent in the US Supreme 5 Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli Ac Pacis [The Law of War and Peace] (first published 1625, trans. Francis W. Kelsey, Oxford Clarendon Press 1925) 832. Modern translation available online at <http:// oll.libertyfund.org/ titles/ grotius- the- rights- of- war- and- peace- 2005- ed- vol- 3- book- iii>; [<https:// perma.cc/ ZK8X- EGU8>] 6 The very title of Hugo Grotius’ classic work framed the issue in precisely this manner because that was the in- tellectual and philosophical fissure that he sought to explicate. 7 Cicero, Pro Milone, IV, xi. See Cicero, Marcus Tullius. M. Tulli Ciceronis pro T. Annio Milone ad iudices oratio (Clarendon Press, 1895). Text available online at <http:// www.thelatinlibrary.com/ cicero/ milo.shtml> ac- cessed 15 December 2019. 8 See e.g. William H. Rehnquist, ‘Dwight D. Opperman Lecture: Remarks of the Chief Justice of the United States’ (1999) 47 Drake Law Review 201, 205– 8 (‘Here we have an illustration of an old maxim of Roman law— Inter Arma Silent Leges—which loosely translated means that in time of war the laws are silent . The courts, for their part, have largely reserved the decisions favoring civil liberties in wartime to be handed down after the war was over. Again, we see the truth in the maxim Inter Arma Silent Leges—in time of war the laws are silent . per- haps we can accept the proposition that though the laws are not silent in wartime, they speak with a muted voice’).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jus Post Bellum
    The Unjustness of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum by Dan G. Cox us post bellum was originally conceived as an extension of modern just war theory. Specifically, it was aimed at examining the justness and morality of actions during war, jus in bello, in relationship to negotiations for peace in the post-war setting. Under the initial conception of Jjus post bellum, considerations of distinction of enemies from civilians, for example, takes on a more pointed meaning, as one has to calculate how much collateral damage is appropriate given the longer-term end-goal of successful and beneficial peace negotiations. Unfortunately, jus post bellum has recently been expanded to mean that the victor in the war is now responsible for the long-term well-being of the people it has defeated. This has led to a concerted outcry for post-war nation-building, which neither leads necessarily to successful negotiations, nor ensures a better or lasting peace. In fact, current conceptions of jus post bellum remove national interest from the equation altogether, replacing all military endeavors with one monolithic national interest—liberal imperialism.1 Further, current incantations of jus post bellum obviate the possibility of a punitive strike or punitive expedition, even though this might be exactly what is needed in certain cases to create a better peace than existed prior to conflict. This article is an exploration of the current incantation of jus post bellum. The concept of an incantation was chosen purposively, as proponents of jus post bellum are engaging in a dogmatic approach to war termination oblivious to the complexities and realities of conflict and, in fact, in violation of just war theory itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Cox, Abstract, the Injustice of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum
    The Injustice of the Current Incantation of Jus Post Bellum Dan G. Cox, Ph. D., School of Advanced Military Studies, US Army, [email protected] 9137583319 Abstract: Jus post bellum was originally conceived as an extension of modern just war theory. Specifically, it was aimed at examining the justness and morality of actions during war, jus in bello, in relationship to negotiations for peace in the post-war setting. Under the initial conception of jus post bellum, considerations of distinction of enemies from civilians, for example, takes on a more pointed meaning as one has to calculate how much collateral damage, even if allowed for in just in bello, is appropriate given the longer-term end-goal of successful and beneficial peace negotiations. Unfortunately, jus post bellum has been expanded to mean that the victor in the war is now responsible for the well-being of the people and/or nation it has defeated. This has led to a concerted cry for post-war nation-building which neither leads necessarily to successful negotiations nor ensures a better or lasting peace. In fact, current conceptions of jus post bellum remove national interest from the equation altogether replacing all military endeavors with one monolithic national interest; liberal imperialism1. Further, current incantations of jus post bellum obviate the possibility of a punitive strike or punitive expedition even though this might be exactly what is needed in certain cases to create a better peace than existed prior to conflict. This paper will explore the genesis and evolution of the jus post bellum concept.
    [Show full text]
  • State Sovereignty Discourse and the Just War Tradition: Assessing Colombia’S 2008 Cross-Border Raid Into Ecuador and Its Foreign Policy Implications
    i State sovereignty discourse and the Just War Tradition: Assessing Colombia’s 2008 cross-border raid into Ecuador and its foreign policy implications Kim Refshauge Master of Arts (Research) in International Studies, School of International Studies, University of Technology Sydney 2017 ii CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP This thesis is the result of a research candidature at the University of Technology, Sydney as in fulfilment of the requirements for a Master’s degree. I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a different degree. I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis. Signature of Student: Date: 27-July-2017 iii iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am grateful to my supervisor, Associate Professor Jeff Browitt, for his unwavering support and dedicated supervision over the last two years. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my parents for their encouragement. This thesis would not have been possible without them. v vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION: ............................................................................... 1 Military interventions similar to Operation Phoenix: ........................... 2 Typology of justifications for military interventions .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Attaining Post-Conflict Peace Using the Jus Post Bellum Concept
    religions Article Attaining Post-Conflict Peace Using the jus post bellum Concept Albert W. Klein 1,2,3 1 Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45208, USA; [email protected] 2 Fellow, The Center for Cyber Strategy and Policy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA 3 Faculty Fellow, Ohio Cyber Range Institute, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45208, USA Received: 27 January 2020; Accepted: 1 April 2020; Published: 8 April 2020 Abstract: To attain peace after state-on-state war, there must be a belligerent occupation to establish control and security of a defeated state—but that is not enough. There is the concept of jus post bellum concerning the vanquished, which is critically necessary in practice, yet insufficiently developed and understood. Providing the history and tentatively trying to determine the elements that are contained in this concept are the present article’s purpose. Tracing the concept from the earliest Christian writers to the more secular present-day authors will aid in the prospective application of jus post bellum. Scholars, military officers, statesmen, religious leaders, and humanitarians need to understand and accept the basic elements of the concept. A clear understanding of the largely religious history behind these elements should assist in their acceptance and future practical application, once these are agreed upon. Keywords: Just war; jus post bellum; Laws of War; Laws of Peace; Just War Theory 1. Introduction In my view, attaining a just peace after state-on-state wars requires a belligerent occupation and the application of the concept of jus post bellum.
    [Show full text]
  • Waging War: Filling the Gap in Just War Theory
    Waging War: Filling the Gap in Just War Theory by James M. Dubik Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Retired A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Baltimore, Maryland June 18, 2014 © 2014 James M. Dubik All Rights Reserved Abstract 1. Statement of the Problem. Just war theory’s account of jus in bello is deficient. Michael Walzer, the prime representative of the prevailing view in the United States, restricts jus in bello to combat, war-fighting, then constructs a theory of responsibility and presents a set of principles that guide action when fighting: the principles of combatant/noncombatant distinction, proportionality, double effect and double intent, as well as the principle of due care/due risk—all of which arise amid the tension between winning and fighting well. 2. Procedures and methods. This study establishes and describes the gap in the prevailing view’s treatment of jus in bello, then investigates alternative ways to fill that gap. Throughout, the study combines elements of moral philosophy, political philosophy, and strategic studies with historical and contemporary case illustrations of war. 3. Results. This study finds that the prevailing view is necessary but insufficient; it omits jus in bello’s strategic, war-waging dimension which involves a tri-partite tension: (a) setting war aims and making strategy, policy, and campaign decisions that increase the probability of being right, or at least less wrong than those one is fighting; (b) translating those decisions into action to achieve war aims at the least cost, in lives and resources, and least risk to one’s political community and adapting aims, strategies, policies, and campaigns to the changing realities of war as they unfold; and (c) doing all of the foregoing while observing the war convention, sustaining the war’s legitimacy in the eyes of the political community, and maintaining proper subordination of the military to civilian ii leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 24 no. 1 © The Author, 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of EJIL Ltd. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War Larry May* Downloaded from Abstract http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/ This article begins by briefly discussing the general idea of jus post bellum norms before turning to discuss some of Michael Walzer’s ideas about jus post bellum, particularly what he says, or could be construed to infer, about post-war proportionality. It also re-examines Walzer’s discussion of the problems of post-war retribution and reconciliation. The article seeks to formulate and defend a post-war principle of proportionality, discussing how it relates to other proportionality principles, as well as to other jus post bellum principles. This leads to an examination of the fog of war, especially concerning Robert McNamara’s at New York University School of Law on April 30, 2013 calculations about the application of the principle of proportionality to the firebombing of Tokyo. I outline a general account of contingent pacifism that seems to me to follow from careful consideration of the jus post bellum principle of proportionality. The article closes by initiating a discussion of the prospects for the end of war in light of considerations about the justice of how particular wars should end. For the last 2,000 years, a philosophical and theological tradition has dominated dis- cussions about war, the Just War tradition. Augustine of Hippo is often credited with starting that tradition as he argued against the early Church Fathers who were largely pacifists.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm
    Controlling Cyberwarfare International Laws of Armed Conflict and Human Rights in the Cyber Realm by William James Jordan A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2021 © William James Jordan 2021 Examining Committee Membership The following served on the Examining Committee for this thesis. Thedeci­ sion of the Examining Committee is by majority vote. External Examiner: Col. David Barnes Professor, Department of English and Philosophy United States Military Academy Supervisor: W. Mathieu Doucet Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal Member: Brian D. Orend Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal Member: Patricia A. Marino Professor, Department of Philosophy University of Waterloo Internal­External Member: Veronica M. Kitchen Associate Professor, Department of Political Science University of Waterloo ii Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my ex­ aminers. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the pub­ lic. iii Abstract Cyberwarfare, military activities in cyberspace conducted by a state against another state and intended to disrupt or destroy computing or communica­ tion systems or data, is a recent addition to the warfaring arsenal. The in­ ternational laws of armed conflict set out an obligation for states at warto protect civilians from the effects of the conflict. As societies continue toex­ pand their activities in the cyber realm, the risk of cyberwarfare negatively affecting the civilian population increases.
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Ad Bellum’, ‘Jus in Bello’
    The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.5 © EJIL 2007; all rights reserved ........................................................................................... ‘Jus ad bellum’, ‘jus in bello’ . ‘jus post bellum’? – Rethinking the Conception of the Law of Armed Force Carsten Stahn* Abstract The law of armed force is traditionally conceptualized in the categories of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This dualist conception of armed force has its origin in the legal tradition of the inter-war period. This essay revisits this approach. It argues that the increasing interweaving of the concepts of intervention, armed conflict and peace-making in contemporary practice make it necessary to complement the classical rules of jus ad bellum and in jus in bello with a third branch of the law, namely rules and principles governing peace-making after conflict. The idea of a tripartite conception of armed force, including the concept of justice after war (‘jus post bellum’) has a long-established tradition in moral philosophy and legal theory. This article argues that this historical concept deserves fresh attention from a legal perspective at a time when the contemporary rules of jus ad bellum and jus in bello are increasingly shaped by a normative conception of law and justice and a broadening notion of human security. Moreover, it identifies some of the legal rules and principles underlying a modern conception of ‘just post bellum’. 1 Introduction Since Grotius’ De Jure Belli ac Pacis, the architecture of the international legal sys- tem has been founded upon a distinction between the states of war and peace. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was taken for granted that ‘the law recog- nizes a state of peace and a state of war, but that it knows nothing of an intermediate * Dr.jur., LL.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Abstract
    HUMANITARIAN WAR IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: A CASE STUDY OF THE NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO Owen Michael Godfrey, MA Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2007 Thesis Abstract TITLE: Humanitarian War in Theory and Practice: A Case Study of the NATO Intervention in Kosovo This thesis aims to test and refine the theory of humanitarian war through the medium of a case study of the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. Key research questions include: Is ‘humanitarian war’ a contradiction in terms? To what extent can military force be an appropriate and effective instrument for solving or averting humanitarian crises and ensuring respect for human rights? Is the concept, as some critics argue, too easily abused by powerful states seeking to justify wars fought for self-interested reasons? The thesis will look at the arguments of both proponents and critics of the concept of humanitarian war. The aim is to provide an immanent critique of the theory, judging it on its own terms; therefore when the arguments of critics are considered, the main emphasis will be on critics who come from within the liberal spectrum, rather than on realists or communitarians. It will examine the theory in terms of its three aspects- the jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum- with the aim of taking a ‘longer view’ of intervention than is often the case in the existing literature, viewing it not as a discrete event but as part of a complex long- term process. The case of Kosovo was chosen as a recent intervention that has often been cited as a good example of a humanitarian war, and one which most proponents of the concept supported, at least in principle.
    [Show full text]
  • Just War to Just Peace: Jus Post Bellum for a Lasting Peace
    Just War To Just Peace: Jus Post Bellum For A Lasting Peace Final Thesis Submission by Mansi Rathour (S2074990) Course: MA Philosophy, Politics and Economics Supervisor: Dr. E.R. Boot, Postdoc, Institute of Philosophy Date: June 14, 2018 Table of Contents Abstract Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Perspectives on the Just War Theory...............................................................................4 1.1 Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello .................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Traditionalists versus Revisionists ............................................................................................. 7 2. Nature of Peace ...............................................................................................................16 2.1 Transition from Negative to Positive Peace ............................................................................. 18 2.2 Kantian Peace Triangle ............................................................................................................ 22 2.2.1 Republican Constitution .......................................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Economic Interdependence ...................................................................................... 25 2.2.3 International Organizations .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jus Post Bellum and Global Responsibility for Peace
    Pro-Fil 21 (2) 2020: 18–29 https://doi.org/10.5817/pf20-2-2127 JUS POST BELLUM AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PEACE LUKÁŠ ŠVAŇA Institute of Ethics and Bioethics, Faculty of Arts, University of Prešov, Slovakia [email protected] RESEARCH PAPER ▪ SUBMITTED: 3/6/2020 ▪ ACCEPTED: 14/10/2020 Abstract: The article deals with the newly discussed set of principles that focus on various issues concerning the end of a war and the establishment of peaceful conditions for the society after a war ends. It also reveals some drawbacks of the jus post bellum principles and searches for its possible modifications into a more complex and applicable set of rules that should govern any post-war activities on both sides of the conflict. The aim is to reach its plausibility in a dynamic global society and thus argue that global peace is an attainable goal only when it becomes the goal of the global community. Keywords: war; just war; jus post bellum; global peace Post-war considerations in the just war theory This introductory section deals with one major philosophical-ethical tradition concentrated around problems of conduct of a war and its possible justification. Wars have been present in our history since the beginning of societal life of man and have been fought mainly for resources, land and power. Politicians, philosophers and other scholars began to think about rules that will limit violence in warfare and thus making it more considerate towards ordinary people's lives and their suffering. As more societies and nations have been established, warfare has become a more complicated issue.
    [Show full text]
  • “Gaps” by Countering Hybrid Warfare – Building Resilience in Jus Ante Bellum
    LEGAL CHALLENGES OR “GAPS” BY COUNTERING HYBRID WARFARE – BUILDING RESILIENCE IN JUS ANTE BELLUM Morten M. Fogt* Abstract This article is based on practical legal experience with the concept of “hybrid war.” It addresses this much discussed concept, the specific treaty limitations and the currently adopted hybrid countermeasures and then goes into a detailed legal analysis of the challenges and “gaps” that emerge. Both the traditional gray zones of the jus ad bellum and jus in bello are investigated from a hybrid war perspective as well as the specific legal challenges of confronting and countering a hybrid threat or warfare in peace time and crisis. A legal tetrachotomy is proposed consisting of the jus ante bellum, the traditional divide of the jus ad bellum and jus in bello and, moreover, the jus post bellum. It is suggested that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) build more robust legal resilience in the jus ante bellum, that legal research in this area is prioritized, that NATO look at drafting model SOFAs and reforming the old NATO SOFA of 1951 and thereby take the new peacetime and crisis hybrid challenges into account, as this would reduce the need for and complexity of different multiple bilateral SOFAs, and that NATO instigates legal research aiming at harmonizing and aligning the various national peacetime and crisis (emergency or martial) laws and draft * Lieutenant Colonel of the Danish Army, Chief Legal Advisor, NATO Multinational Division North (MNDN), Latvia/Denmark, Associated Professor in Civil and International Law, Aarhus University, Denmark. The author is grateful for comments on this paper by Professor Geoffrey S.
    [Show full text]