Jus post bellum : modelos clássicos e contemporâneos

Abstract

The doctrinal tradition of Just War Theory (JWT) seems to have laid the moral and juridical beacons of the right to war (Jus ad bellum) and the appropriate form of conducting a conflict (Jus in bello). However, recent research is aimed at understanding the complex phenomenon of conflict termination and its moral and legal standards; what came to be named as Jus post bellum (JPB). This research is limited to the phenomenon of JPB and seeks, first, to reflect on it, its principles and contemporary elements, exploring in the view of current researchers the discussion of a most appropriate toolkit at the end of a war. In a second moment, we deepen the conception of JPB in late scholasticism, in the works of Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546) and Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) – identifying their models for the ending of conflicts. Third, we envision analyzing the junction of scholastic thinking with the systematic view of Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), seeking the innovative elements emerging in his work. By comparing recent research on JPB, with the scholastic tradition and Grotius's efforts, the research will finally raise a counterpoint to JPB's models linked of the latest debate among theorists and researchers on the subject, which has divided them in minimalist and maximalist visions. Our main objective is to compare classic and contemporary models of JPB, seeking in them the best adjustment to the ending of conflicts.