Description
The concepts of peace and international law are deeply intertwined. This is true for the emerging paradigm of jus post bellum in particular. In this article, I conduct a critical review of the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), a core pillar of jus post bellum, as well as the legal scholarship on the relationship between law and peace. I argue that the CCM builds upon and reproduces a limited notion of peace which is compatible with the presence of military violence. The CCM is thus unable to fulfill the requirements of a more demanding or non-violent conceptualization of peace. Critical legal scholars drawing on the political philosophy of Jacques Derrida have argued that pacifism and law are inherently incompatible, implying that the CCM could not play a more pacifying role even if its discursive content was changed. However, this argument relies on a problematic and simplifying reading of the work of Derrida. I argue that there is a need for deeper and more nuanced critical theoretical engagement with the concept of peace. Illustrating this potentiality, I conclude the article by providing a tentative theorization of peace drawing on the work of Butler.
