13 Te Application of Jus Post Bellum in Non-International Armed Conficts Kristen E. Boon* I. Introduction Jus post bellum’s deep moral and legal associations with the humanitarian tradition have meant that predominant approaches to the concept have tended to focus on inter- national wars and international actors at the expense of any deep exploration of what role jus post bellum might play in non-international or internal situations.1 Now that non-international armed conficts (NIACs) outnumber international armed conficts (IACs) by a signifcant margin, some predict the line between IACs and NIACs will be erased altogether.2 In light of this dissipating distinction, or even despite it, the central question posed in this contribution is: What role does and should jus post bellum play in cases of non-international conficts? From an empirical perspective, it is clear that jus post bellum practices are a regular feature of transitions from internal conficts.3 Peace agreements, transitional constitu- tions, and commitments made by non-state actors during ceasefres contain examples of core processes that are relevant to the post bellum of intrastate wars.4 Tese sources create valuable indicators of jus post bellum norms that are credible, enforceable, and * Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School, Visiting Senior Adviser, International Peace Institute. Te author gratefully acknowledges the valuable contributions of Jacob Cogan and Andrea Ó Súilleabháin. Bonnie Birdsell provided valuable research assistance. 1 Cf. Carsten Stahn, “Mapping the Discipline (s): Jus Post Bellum” (2007) 23 American University International Law Review 311 (who notes that jus post bellum rules should apply to national and inter- national actors). See also Eric De Brabadere, “Te Responsibility for Post-Confict Reforms: A Critical Assessment of Jus Post Bellum as a Legal Concept” (2012) 43 Vanderbilt Journal of International Law 119 (discussing the role of international transitional administrations). 2 As the International Committee of the Red Cross notes: “NIACS [remain] the predominant form of confict. Tis has been generated primarily by state weakness that has lef room for local militias and armed groups to operate, leading to environments where looting and trafcking, extortion and kidnap- ping have become proftable economic strategies sustained by violence and national, regional and interna- tional interests, with all the consequent sufering on civilians.” International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), “International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conficts, 31st International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent” (ICRC 2011) 5–6. See also Jakob Kellenberger, “Grotius Lecture” 2012 American Society of International Law Annual Meeting (Intercross, 3 April 2012) <http://intercrossblog.icrc.org/blog/kellenberger-grotius-lecture-asil-case-reason-vision-and-humanity> (accessed 18 May 2013), who predicts that the distinction between IACs and NIACs will break down. 3 Internal armed conficts may also be non-international, however the reverse is not true: not all non- international armed conficts are internal because they may have a cross-border element. For the purposes of this analysis, the terms non-international and intrastate are used interchangeably, while the use of the term internal follows the Conventions and Protocols. 4 For an extensive analysis of these practices, see Jennifer Easterday, ch. 20 and Christine Bell, ch. 10, this volume. Jus Post Bellum. Carsten Stahn, Jennifer S. Easterday and Jens Iverson. © Oxford University Press 2014. Published 2014 by Oxford University Press.