International Law: To End the Scourge of War … and to Build a Just Peace?

  • Wendy Lambourne


International law began as a discipline concerned with the goal of peace, and has become the basis for organizing, managing and regulating relations between states in the maintenance of international peace and security. International law underpins a number of strategies and institutions focusing on different and sometimes contradictory, but related, priorities in the global quest for peace, including the concepts of state sovereignty, non-intervention and self-determination; the processes of collective security, humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect (R2P); and the treaty-based systems to prevent and prosecute genocide, protect human rights and pursue arms control and disarmament.


United Nations Security Council International Criminal Court Transitional Justice State Sovereignty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    It has been suggested that the emergent norm of responsibility to protect allows for the use of force in the absence of UNSC authorization or the right of self-defence, but both the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty are clear that the UNSC is central to obtaining consensus on the use of military force under R2P. United Nations, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. Report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (New York: United Nations, 2004);Google Scholar
  2. ICISS, The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre, 2001).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. McGregor, ‘Reconciliation: Where Is the Law?’ in Law and the Politics of Reconciliation, ed. S. Veitch (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007), 117.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    O. P. Richmond, The Transformation of Peace (London/New York: Routledge, 2007);Google Scholar
  5. O. P. Richmond, ‘The Rule of Law in Liberal Peacebuilding’, in Peacebuilding and the Rule of Law in Africa: Just Peace? eds. C. L. Sriram, O. Martin-Ortega and J. Herman (London/New York: Routledge, 2011), 44–59.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    D. Cortright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    N. D. White, International Conflict and Security Law (Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar, 2014), 21.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    K. Sikkink, The Justice Cascade: How Human Rights Prosecutions Are Changing World Politics (New York: W. W. Norton & Co, 2011);Google Scholar
  9. D. F. Orentlicher, ‘Settling Accounts: The Duty to Prosecute Human Rights Violations of a Prior Regime’, Yale Law Journal 100, no. 8 (1991): 2537–2615; Note, however, that ending impunity may be regarded more broadly in international law than prosecutions in the formal Western legal system.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Braithwaite, ‘Conclusion: Hope and Humility for Weavers with International Law’, in The Role of International Law in Rebuilding Societies after Conflict: Great Expectations, eds B. Bowden, H. Charlesworth and J. Farrall (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 274.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    C. Stahn, ‘“Jus ad Bellum”, “Jus in Bello” … “Just Post Bellum”? Rethinking the Conception of the Law of Armed Force’, European Journal of International Law 17, no. 5 (2007): 921–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 13.
    L. May, ‘Transitional Justice and the Just War Tradition’, in Critical Perspectives in Transitional Justice, eds N. Palmer, P. Clark and D. Granville (Cambridge, UK: Intersentia, 2012), 17–29.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    M. J. Allman and T. L. Wright, After the Smoke Clears: The Just War Tradition and Post War Justice (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010).Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    V. Chetail, ‘Introduction: Post-conflict Peacebuilding — Ambiguity and Identity’, in Post-conflict Peacebuilding: A Lexicon (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2009), 18.Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    B. Orend, ‘Jus Post Bellum: The Perspective of a Just-War Theorist’, Leiden Journal of International Law 20 (2007): 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 18.
    R. Paris, ‘International Peacekeeping and the “Mission Civilisatrice”’, Review of International Studies 28 (2002): 637–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 20.
    A. Jeng, Peacebuilding in the African Union: Law, Philosophy and Practice (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 22.
    C. L. Sriram, ‘Transitional Justice and the Liberal Peace’, in New Perspectives on Liberal Peacebuilding, eds E. Newman, R. Paris and O. P. Richmond (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2009), 112–129.Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    R. G. Teitel, ‘Rethinking Jus Post Bellum in an Age of Global Transitional Justice’, in Globalizing Transitional Justice: Contemporary Essays (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Wendy Lambourne 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wendy Lambourne

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations