By Simone Bak
During the Summer of 2018, I traveled to Egypt and Jordan to observe the practice of jus post bellum in post-conflict societies. In Jordan, I interviewed senior leaders of the Jordanian military on their practice and challenges in implementing ethical end-of-war strategies in conflicts with non-state actors. The project’s interviewees included the Commander of Jordanian Special Forces and the Director of War Operations, Jordanian Armed Forces. In Egypt, I visited local communities and non-profits to either observe or discuss the opportunities and challenges they face in a post-conflict society.
How did you come up with your project and why does it interest you?
The study of Just War theory (JWT) is intellectually interesting to me because of its prominent role in creating norms by which the U.S. often (though not always) enters and conducts its wars. A newer topic of study within JWT is jus post bellum, or the study of how nations ought to end wars. By placing war on a strategic continuum, jus post bellum also acknowledges a dictum taught in SSP, which is that war is never final (whereas traditional JWT differentiates ad bellum/ in bello from post bellum as nearly unrelated components of restrained statecraft).
The unresolved nature of U.S. intervention in the Middle East, which focuses less on detailed planning for war’s end, illuminates just how underdeveloped jus post bellum’s role within JWT studies is. Thus, I also wanted to study jus post bellum because of its practical implications for US national security practitioners.
Why did you choose this particular country?
I chose to study the practice of jus post bellum in Jordan and Egypt because of the integral role both states also play in the U.S.’s national security strategy in the Middle East, and because of the unique challenges both states face with non-state actors. In both countries, the U.S. works amongst populations whose religious and cultural norms are unfamiliar to us; historically, our lack of understanding of these norms has and continues to adversely affect our ability to achieve strategic aims in the region. This will continue to be the case as the U.S. works with its allies Jordan and Egypt, who deal (particularly) with violent religious ideologies which unfortunately hold sway in pockets of both societies.
If you are working on a unique project, what impact will it have on both you and others?
Through my research, I hope to add to a growing body of literature which seeks to provide grand strategists with a better framework for post-war peace, particularly in the Middle East. During the course of my interviews, senior U.S. and Jordanian government officials repeatedly commented on the necessity and relevance of jus post bellum research for their particular challenges. Since my research also covered the application of JWT to non-state actors, the security practitioners with whom I spoke in the Middle East were specifically interested in the outcomes of my project because they (and the international community) still grapple with how to deal with the impact of groups which do not fit into a state-based international system.
How did you come up with your project and why does it interest you?
The study of Just War theory (JWT) is intellectually interesting to me because of its prominent role in creating norms by which the U.S. often (though not always) enters and conducts its wars. A newer topic of study within JWT is jus post bellum, or the study of how nations ought to end wars. By placing war on a strategic continuum, jus post bellum also acknowledges a dictum taught in SSP, which is that war is never final (whereas traditional JWT differentiates ad bellum/ in bello from post bellum as nearly unrelated components of restrained statecraft).
The unresolved nature of U.S. intervention in the Middle East, which focuses less on detailed planning for war’s end, illuminates just how underdeveloped jus post bellum’s role within JWT studies is. Thus, I also wanted to study jus post bellum because of its practical implications for US national security practitioners.
Why did you choose this particular country?
I chose to study the practice of jus post bellum in Jordan and Egypt because of the integral role both states also play in the U.S.’s national security strategy in the Middle East, and because of the unique challenges both states face with non-state actors. In both countries, the U.S. works amongst populations whose religious and cultural norms are unfamiliar to us; historically, our lack of understanding of these norms has and continues to adversely affect our ability to achieve strategic aims in the region. This will continue to be the case as the U.S. works with its allies Jordan and Egypt, who deal (particularly) with violent religious ideologies which unfortunately hold sway in pockets of both societies.
If you are working on a unique project, what impact will it have on both you and others?
Through my research, I hope to add to a growing body of literature which seeks to provide grand strategists with a better framework for post-war peace, particularly in the Middle East. During the course of my interviews, senior U.S. and Jordanian government officials repeatedly commented on the necessity and relevance of jus post bellum research for their particular challenges. Since my research also covered the application of JWT to non-state actors, the security practitioners with whom I spoke in the Middle East were specifically interested in the outcomes of my project because they (and the international community) still grapple with how to deal with the impact of groups which do not fit into a state-based international system.