User:Blim1711/sandbox

Testing!!!

In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, war crimes trials, and war reparations. [22] — jus post bellum — has been added to deal with fact that some hostile actions may take place outside a traditional battlefield. Jus pos bellum governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals, and publicly labeled terrorists. This idea has largely been added to help decide what to do if there are prisoners that have been taken during battle. It is, through government labeling and public opinion, that people use jus post bellum to justify the pursuit of labeled terrorist for the safety of the government's state in a modern context. The actual fault lies with the aggressor, so by being the aggressor they forfeit their rights for honorable treatment by their actions. This is the theory used to justify the actions taken by anyone fighting in a war to treat prisoners outside of war. 199.107.209.155 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Actions after a conflict can be warranted by actions observed during war, meaning that there can be justification to meet violence with violence even after war. Orend, who was one of the theorist mentioned earlier, proposes the following principles:

This is a good summary of Just War Theory, however this seems to already exist in the wikipedia article, you should look to include something new to the article, and bring in other outside sources.

Parnia's Comments

1) You used a good source that is really reliable. It seems like you did a lot of good research on the topic and were able to expand on jus pos bellum compared to what the original page had.

2) Although you were able to find more information, I would recommend going a little more in depth in regards to what jus pos bellum is. For someone who hasn't been exposed to it they would have no idea what it is. I tried going back to the original page but that didn't help either. Try to simplify what it is.

In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within Just War theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, war crimes trials, and war reparations. Orend, for instance, proposes the following principles:
 * Just cause for termination
 * A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.


 * Right intention
 * A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.


 * Public declaration and authority
 * The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.


 * Discrimination
 * The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Truth and reconciliation may sometimes be more important than punishing war crimes.


 * Proportionality
 * Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.