This article asserts that the link between peace and security and stabilization and development, as exemplified by the UN-mandated international presences in Afghanistan, is to be welcomed but that, from the perspective of the laws governing both the use of force and the conduct of warfare, such an evolution is problematic for a number of reasons. One, the broader functions of the military in peace support raises questions for jus ad bellum such as determining whether the basis for the peace enforcement has been achieved, as States and their armed forces engage in stabilization and state-building initiatives as a means to counter breaches of and threats to the peace. Two, the broader functions are problematic for jus in bello as the practical application of such initiatives is not easily incorporated into a body of law that was drafted primarily to deal with inter-state conflict and only provides limited guidance on internal conflict such as that in Afghanistan. Consequently, international law must evolve to clarify the rights and obligations stemming from peace support operations for both States and their military personnel.
Afghanistan, Bonn Agreement, economic reconstruction, international peace and security, jus ad bellum, New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team, peacekeeping operations, peace support operations, social Reconstruction
"The Legal Implications Arising from Economic and Social Reconstruction as an Aspect of Peace Support Operations,"
Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 18:
2, Article 2.
Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol18/iss2/2