Justice after War Brian Orend* adly, t h ere are few re s traints on the importance, of ending wars in a full and fair end i n g s of wa rs . The re has never been f a s h i on . We know that wh en wars are an intern a ti onal trea t y to regu l a t e war’s wra pped up badly, t h ey sow the seeds for S 2 final ph a s e , and there are sharp disagree- future bloodshed. m ents rega rding the natu re of a just pe ace • To allow unconstrained war termination tre a ty. Th ere are , by con tra s t , re s tra i n t s is to allow the winner to enjoy the spoils of a p l en ty on starting wars , and on con du ct war.This is dangerously permissive, as win- dur ing war. These res t raints include : pol i t i- ners have been known to exact peace terms cal pre s su re from allies and en em i e s ; t h e that are draconian and vengeful. The Treaty lo gis t ics of raising and depl o ying force; th e of Vers a i ll e s , term i n a ting World War I, i s Un i ted Na ti on s , its Ch a rter and Sec u ri ty often mentioned in this connection.3 Co u n c i l ; and intern a ti onal laws like the • Failure to regulate war termination may Hague and Gene va Conventi on s . Ind eed, in prolong fighting on the ground. Since they just war theory— wh i c h frames moral prin - have few assurances regarding the nature of ciples to regu l a t e wartime action s — t h e re is a the set t l em en t , bell i gerents wi ll be sorely robust set of rules for res o rting to war (jus ad tem pted to keep using force to jockey for bellu m ) and for condu c t dur ing war (jus in position. Many observers felt that this reali- bello ) but not for the termi n a ti o n phase of ty plagued the Bosnian civil war, which saw wa r .1 Recent events in Afgha n i s t a n , and the m a ny failed nego ti a ti ons and a three - ye a r “war against terrori s m ,” vivi dly underl i n e “s l ow bu rn” of con ti nuous vi o l en ce as the the rele van c e of reflecting on this omi s s i on , very negotiations took place.4 and the comp l e x issues rela t ed to it. • All owing war term i n a ti on to be deter- The intern a ti onal com mu n i ty should mi n e d wit h o u t norma t ive res t raints leads to rem edy this gl a ring gap in our on goi n g in c ons i s t ency and conf u s i on . Fi rs t , ho w can s tru ggle to re s train warf a re . The fo ll owi n g we try to reg u l a te the first two phases of facts bear this out: war—the beginning and middle — y et not the • Recent armed conflicts—in the Persian end? Second , the lack of es t a bl i s h e d norms to Gu l f , Bo s n i a , R w a n d a , and Ko s ovo — gu i d e the cons t ruc tio n of pea ce trea t ies leads demonstrate the difficulty, and illustrate the to patchwork “s o luti on s ,” m ere ad hoc * Thanks to the editors of Ethics & International Affairs, bl ed ay, 1 9 9 2) ; D avid Ri ef f , Sl a ugh t erhou s e: Bosnia and e s pec i a lly Ch ri s tian Ba rry. Th a n k s , too, to Mi ch ael the Failure of the West (New York: Simon and Schuster, Wa l zer and some anonymous revi ewers who com- 1995); Gerard Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis: History of a mented on an earlier draft. Genocide (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995); 1 On just war theory in general,see Michael Walzer, Just and Brian Oren d , “Crisis in Ko s ovo : A Just Use of and Unjust Wars, 3rd ed.(New York: Basic Books,2000); Force?” Politics 19, no. 3 (1999), pp. 125-30. and Brian Oren d , Mi ch a el Wa l zer on War and Ju s ti ce 3 Man f r ed F.Boem e ke ,G erald D. Feld m a n , and Elisabeth (Cardiff: University of Wales, 2000). Gl a s e r, eds . , The Trea t y of Versa i l les: A Rea s se s s m e nt after 2 David E. Decosse, ed., But Was It Just? Reflections on 75 Yea r s (Ca m b rid ge : Cam b rid g e Uni versi t y Pres s , 19 9 8 ). the Morality of the Persian Gulf War (New York: Dou- 4 Rieff, Slaughterhouse. 43 ar ran g eme nts that may not meet well- c on- ti onal arm ed con f l i cts invo lving com p l ex si d ered standards of prud enc e and jus ti ce . m i x tu res of s t a te and non s t a te actors . For Pe ace tre a ties should sti ll , of co u rs e , i n s t a n ce , I bel i eve the fort h coming pri n c i- remain tightly tailored to the historical real- ples are as meaningful for the current “war i ties of the particular con f l i ct in qu e s ti on . a gainst terrori s m” as they were for Worl d But admitting this is not to concede that the War II. Next,the set of postwar principles is s e a rch for gen eral guidel i n e s , or univers a l being of fered as guidance to those parti c i- s t a n d a rd s , is futile or naïve . Th ere is no pants who want to end their wars in a fair, inconsistency, or mystery, in holding partic- ju s ti f i ed way. Not all participants do, of ular actors in complex local conflicts up to course, and to the extent they fail to do so, m ore gen era l , even universal standards of t h ey act unju s t ly du ring the term i n a ti on con du ct . Ju d ges and ju ries do that daily, phase. A related assumption is that there is evaluating the factual complexities of a given no su ch thing as “ vi ctor ’s jus ti ce . ” The raw case in light of gene ral prin c i p l e s . We should f act of m i l i t a ry vi ctory in war does not of do the same regar ding war termi n a ti on . i t s el f con fer moral ri ghts upon the vi ctor, This artic le wil l cons i d er what partic i p a n t s n or duties upon the va n qu i s h ed . In my should do as they move to wrap up a war. It ju d gm en t , it is on ly wh en the vi ctori o u s wi ll do so while drawing on the re s o u rce s regime has fought a just and lawful war, as cont a i n e d within the just war trad i ti on ,p a r- def i n ed by intern a ti onal law and just war ti c u l a rly its reworking of fered by Mi ch ael t h eory, that we can speak meaningf u lly of Wal z er.5 Sin c e just war theory has played a ri ghts and duti e s , of both vi ctor and va n- cons t ruc tive role thus far in its influen c e on qui s h ed , at the conc lus i o n of arm e d confli ct . 6 po l i tical and legal disco u rse con cern i n g Such a just and lawful war is defined by la u n c hing and carrying out war, th e re is rea - just war theorists as one that was begun for so n to beli e ve it has light to shed on war ter- the right reasons, and that has been fought mi n a ti on . My goal is to cons t ruc t a gene ral set appropriately. The resort to war was just (jus of pl a u s i b le principles to guide commu n i ti e s ad bellum), and only the right methods were se eking to res o l ve their arme d confli c ts fairly.