In this piece, I am addressing arguments against the claim that the arms industry can be liable to post-bellum punishment for their unjust involvement in a war either before (i.e., ad bellum context) or during the war (in bello context). There are two variants of the arguments against post-bellum punishment. On one hand, there is the argument that the nature of war itself does not support a just process of punishment. Thus, the innocent could be (unjustly) punished along with wrongdoers. On the other hand, there is the argument that 'punishment' is incompatible with jus post bellum. That is, while jus post bellum is forward-looking with the aim of ensuring peacebuilding, punishment is considered backward-looking and may even cause a distraction to the peacebuilding process. I will argue against these arguments and maintain that post-bellum punishment is an essential condition for post-war peacebuilding. 

 

Contact Suzanne Whitten (suzanne.whitten@qub.ac.uk) for link.