Conceptual Overview

Jus ad Bellum (start) Jus in Bello (middle) Jus post Bellum (end)

● Just Cause ● Right Intention ● Public Declaration of War by a Proper Authority ● Proportionality ● Probability of Success ● Last Resort (N.B. how the first 3 rules are expressive of first principles—notably, respect for rights— and are concerned with correct and fair process, whereas the last 3 are expressive of concern for consequences and are concerned with ensuring certain results are achieved).

Resisting Prior, Inter-state Aggression "Strict Defence Purism" Justified as: reasonable; fair; respectful of responsibility; and an entitlement implied by the need to secure all other rights Classical Punishing/Thwarting Terrorism & Any State Sponsorship Thereof Well-Grounded Anticipatory Attacks Civil Wars (and Intervention in such) Armed Humanitarian Intervention (AHI) Non- Classical

A) EXTERNAL (viz-a-viz The Enemy) ● Discrimination/ Non-Combatant Immunity ● Benevolent Quarantine for Prisoners-of-War (POWs) ● Follow the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) ● Proportionality ● No Illegal Weapons (esp. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)) ● No Means “ Mala in Se ” ● No Reprisals ● Follow Just War Values re: Emerging Military Technologies (EMTs), like drones or cyber-war

B) INTERNAL (viz-a-viz One’s Own Citizens) ● Adhere to the External Rules ● Respect the Human Rights Claims of One’s Own Soldiers, and Civilians, as Best One Can Amidst War

(N.B.: A “Supreme Emergency” is an extremely rare and tragic threat of (near-) genocide and utter destruction, wherein the violation of these rules might be excused (though never justified). A Supreme Emergency cries out for international AHI, so that no violations would be required.)

Retribution Rehabilitation Substantially (and sadly) un-regulated by international law, we can only speak of different theories of post-war justice. There are 2 major rival theories in this regard—Retribution and Rehabilitation—though they do share some common ground:

A) Overlapping Consensus: The Thin Theory ● GOAL: vindicating the rights whose violation triggered the war, forcing the defeated Aggressor to accept a proportionate policy on surrender which includes: ● Public Terms of Settlement ● Mutual Exchange of POWs ● Aggressor to Apologize ● Aggressor to Give Up Unjust Gains ● Aggressor to Demilitarize ● War Crimes Trials ( Jus ad Bellum trials for Aggressor; Jus in Bello trials for all sides)

B) Thick Theory #1: RETRIBUTION ● GOAL: to make the defeated Aggressor worse-off than prior to the war (as backward-looking punishment) ● MEANS: all of the thin theory above, plus: ● Compensation Payments from Aggressor to Victim, and possibly to International Community more broadly ● Sanctions put on Aggressor, to hamper its future economic growth ● No aid or assistance with post-war reconstruction. Such is left up to the locals, with no forcible regime change imposed on Aggressor

C) Thick Theory #2: REHABILITATION ● GOAL: to make the defeated Aggressor better-off than prior to the war (as forward-looking reconstruction). ● MEANS: all of the thin theory above, plus: ● No Compensation Payments ● No Sanctions ● Aid and Assistance with post-war reconstruction, including Forcible Regime Change imposed on defeated Aggressor ● Follow 10-step “Rehabilitation Recipe” (Chapter 7), with best efforts over years post-war, to realize in the defeated former Aggressor a new, and minimally just, society