Consideration of Modern Variations and Assessment of Jus Post Bellum in Asymmetric and Protracted Conflict: A Case Study of the United States Afghanistan War (2011-2021)

Abstract

Throughout the ages, great thinkers have grappled with the seemingly insensitive view of war that was cultivated in ancient times and the moral challenges posed by such acts. While ethical perspectives on war vary, especially in reflecting on tensions between the reality of the conflict and the humanitarian aspiration for justice and peace, they demand a consistent reflection of the complexities of war in reshaping the nature of the conflict especially the conditions that allow for the justification of war, the moral responsibilities of those involved and the consequences of war. Over the years, Just War Theory has significantly influenced international and ethical discussions about war, serving as a guiding principle for policymakers and military leaders. From its two key components jus ad bellum (the justification for going to war) and jus in bello (the justice of conduct within war), to a more contemporary addition ‘jus post bellum’, the principles of the just war theory have served as ethical guidelines in determining the justification and conduct in warfare, as well as the establishment to peace afterwards. Thus, helping to minimise the horrors of war, while maintaining a sense of moral responsibility to the parties involved. This thesis assesses both the significance and the notable shortcomings of post-war justice (jus post bellum) in contemporary asymmetric warfare and highlights the need for a more robust and effective approach to achieving justice and peace after conflict.