"In Constructing Justice and Security after War, the distinguished contributors - including scholars, criminal justice practitioners, and former senior officials of international missions - examine the experiences of countries that have recently undergone transitions from conflict with significant international involvement. The volume offers generalizations based on careful comparisons of justice and security reforms in some of the most prominent and successful cases of transitions from war of the 1990s drawn from Central America, Africa, the Balkans, and East Timor."--BOOK JACKET.

This edited volume examines a range of historical and contemporary episodes of reconciliation and anti-reconciliation in the aftermath of war. Reconciliation is a concept that resists easy definition. At the same time, it is almost invariably invoked as a goal of post-conflict reconstruction, peacebuilding and transitional justice. This book examines the considerable ambiguity and controversy surrounding the term and, crucially, asks what has reconciliation entailed historically? What can we learn from past episodes of reconciliation and anti-reconciliation? Taken together, the chapters in this volume adopt an interdisciplinary approach, focused on the question of how reconciliation has been enacted, performed and understood in particular historical episodes, and how that might contribute to our understanding of the concept and its practice. Rather than seek a universal definition, the book focuses on what makes each case of reconciliation unique, and highlights the specificity of reconciliation in individual contexts. This book will be of much interest to students of transitional justice, conflict resolution, human rights, history and International Relations.

Beginning in late 1945, the United States, Britain, China, Australia, France, the Netherlands, and later the Philippines, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China convened national courts to prosecute Japanese military personnel for war crimes. The defendants included ethnic Koreans and Taiwanese who had served with the armed forces as Japanese subjects. In Tokyo, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East tried Japanese leaders. While the fairness of these trials has been a focus for decades, Japanese War Criminals instead argues that the most important issues arose outside the courtroom. What was the legal basis for identifying and detaining subjects, determining who should be prosecuted, collecting evidence, and granting clemency after conviction? The answers to these questions helped set the norms for transitional justice in the postwar era and today contribute to strategies for addressing problematic areas of international law. Examining the complex moral, ethical, legal, and political issues surrounding the Allied prosecution project, from the first investigations during the war to the final release of prisoners in 1958, Japanese War Criminals shows how a simple effort to punish the guilty evolved into a multidimensional struggle that muddied the assignment of criminal responsibility for war crimes. Over time, indignation in Japan over Allied military actions, particularly the deployment of the atomic bombs, eclipsed anger over Japanese atrocities, and, among the Western powers, new Cold War imperatives took hold. This book makes a unique contribution to our understanding of the construction of the postwar international order in Asia and to our comprehension of the difficulties of implementing transitional justice.

Can war ever be just? By what right do we charge people with war crimes? Can war itself be a crime? What is a good peace treaty? Since the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, many wars have erupted, inflaming such areas as the Persian Gulf, Central Africa and Central Europe. Brutalities committed during these conflicts have sparked new interest in the ethics of war and peace. Brian Orend explores the ethics of war and peace from a Kantian perspective, emphasizing human rights protection, the rule of international law and a fully global concept of justice. Contending that Kant’s just war doctrine has not been given its due, Orend displays Kant’s theory to its fullest, impressive effect. He then completely and clearly updates Kant’s perspective for application to our time. Along the way, he criticizes pacifism and realism, explores the nature of human rights protection during wartime, and defends a theory of just war. He also looks ahead to future developments in global institutional reform using cases from the Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda to illustrate his argument. Controversial and timely, perhaps the most important contribution War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective makes is with regard to the question of justice after war. Orend offers a principled theory of war termination, making an urgent plea to reform current international law.

In this work, two former State Department lawyers provide an account of how and why justice was misapplied and mishandled throughout the peace-builders' efforts to settle the Yugoslav conflict. The text is based on their personal experience, research and interviews with key players in the process.

This volume argues that a wide range of policies in the international system today – economic sanctions, military intervention, and counter terrorism policy – are part of a ‘punitive ethos’ that has arisen since the end of the Cold War.

In recent years there has been a tendency to intervene in the military, political and economic affairs of failed and failing states and those emerging from violent conflict. In many cases this has been accompanied by some form of international judicial intervention to address serious and widespread abuses of international humanitarian law and human rights in recognition of an explicit link between peace and justice. A range of judicial and non-judicial approaches has been adopted in recognition of the fact that there is no one-size-fits-all model through which to seek accountability. This book considers the merits and drawbacks of these different responses and sets out an original framework for analysing transitional societies and transitional justice mechanisms. Taking as its starting point the post-Second World War tribunals at Nuremburg and Tokyo, the book goes on to discuss the creation of ad hoc international tribunals in the 1990s, hybrid/mixed courts, the International Criminal Court, domestic trials, truth commissions and traditional justice mechanisms. With examples drawn from across the world, including the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Sierra Leone, Uganda and the DRC, it presents a compelling and comprehensive study of the key responses to war crimes. Peace and Justice is a timely contribution in a world where an ever-increasing number of post-conflict societies are grappling with the complex issues of transitional justice. It will be a valuable resource for students, scholars, practitioners and policy-makers seeking to understand past violations of human rights and the most effective ways of addressing them.

The just war ethic emerges from an affirmative response to the basic question of whether people may sometimes permissibly intend to kill other people. In Politics, Justice, and War, Joseph E. Capizzi clarifies the meaning and coherence of the "just war" approach, to the use of force in the context of Christian ethics. By reconnecting the just war ethic to an Augustinian political approach, Capizzi illustrates that the just war ethic requires emphasis on the "right intention," or goal, of peace as ordered justice. With peace set as the goal of war, the various criteria of the just war ethic gain their intelligibility and help provide practical guidance to all levels of society regarding when to go to war and how to strive to contain it. So conceived, the ethic places stringent limits on noncombatant or "innocent" killing in war, helps make sense of contemporary technological and strategic challenges, and opens up space for a critical and constructive dialogue with international law.

As contemporary studies have increasingly viewed just post bellum to the concept of peace, or the law of peace, so opinions concerning what a 'just peace' could look like have diverged. Is it merely an elusive ideal? Or is it predominantly procedural justice? Is it dependent on concessions and compromise? In this volume, the third output of a major research project on Jus Post Bellum, Carsten Stahn, Jens Iverson, and Jennifer Easterday bring together a team of experts to explore the issues surrounding a just peace, what it is composed of, and how it makes itself felt in the modern world, concluding that a just peace is not only related to form and

At the century's end, societies all over the world are throwing off the yoke of authoritarian rule and beginning to build democracies. At any such time of radical change, the question arises: should a society punish its ancien regime or let bygones be bygones? Transitional Justice takes this question to a new level with an interdisciplinary approach that challenges the very terms of the contemporary debate. Ruti Teitel explores the recurring dilemma of how regimes should respond to evil rule, arguing against the prevailing view favoring punishment, yet contending that the law nevertheless plays a profound role in periods of radical change. Pursuing a comparative and historical approach, she presents a compelling analysis of constitutional, legislative, and administrative responses to injustice following political upheaval. She proposes a new normative conception of justice--one that is highly politicized--offering glimmerings of the rule of law that, in her view, have become symbols of liberal transition. Its challenge to the prevailing assumptions about transitional periods makes this timely and provocative book essential reading for policymakers and scholars of revolution and new democracies.