Disclaimer: This commentary reflects on a philosophical debate in international relations and does not seek to advocate for or align with colonialist perspectives.
Nations are often at their most vulnerable following a conflict — locals are intensely traumatised, their economy weakened, their infrastructure damaged, their political institutions under extreme pressure, and in certain situations, their communities divided. Hence, there are multiple duties an intervening state should ideally assume to return the country to its pre-conflict condition. The basic idea is that there must be a focus on ensuring reconciliation, promoting political inclusivity, uniting the state, facilitating the resettlement of refugees and displaced persons, reintegrating former combatants into society, controlling the prevalence of weapons, and mobilizing resources for infrastructure and economic recovery.
Interestingly, in international politics, there is an ambiguity as to who is responsible for rebuilding a state post-intervention; should it rest solely on the intervening state, the state best equipped to take on the task, or the global community as a whole?
These ambiguities are crucial to resolve as history has shown that stopping at military intervention without committing to post-conflict recovery can have disastrous consequences; the intervention in Libya serves as a cautionary tale: while the United Nations Security Council aimed to protect civilians under threat, the failure to ensure long-term peace left the country vulnerable to a power vacuum and subsequent civil war. This void was quickly exploited by ISIS, further destabilizing the region, while a more comprehensive approach to rebuilding might have supported Libya’s transitional regime and prevented such a collapse.
Who is responsible for rebuilding after intervention?
As per the Belligerents Rebuild Thesis, the intervening state has the responsibility to rebuild a state following intervention. Michael Walzer asserts that individuals who “do good” have more duties as opposed to others and that this holds true for states as well. For example, when Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, it was obligated to establish law and order and support the creation of a functioning government. Similarly, any state engaging in military intervention under the “responsibility to protect” must commit to rebuilding peace, governance, and sustainable development. Failing to do so would be an act of irresponsibility, leaving the affected nation in an even more precarious state.
However, it is important to recognise that not all states are equally capable of rebuilding a conflict-ridden nation. For instance, if Kyrgyzstan were to attempt to rebuild Afghanistan, its limited resources could exacerbate existing challenges rather than resolve them. In such cases, the global community, including entities like the United Nations, has a collective moral duty to assist.
Ultimately, while the scope of responsibilities may vary, the intervening state must fulfil its obligations if it possesses the capacity to do so. Failing this, the global community must step in to ensure that post-conflict rebuilding is carried out effectively and sustainably.
Preventing Revenge Killings: The Critical Role of Disarmament and Demobilization
One of the immediate risks following intervention is the possibility of “revenge killings”, whereby persecuted groups may retaliate against those associated with their oppressors, targeting individuals or entire communities linked to the perpetrators of repression. To prevent such punitive measures and uphold the rights of all civilians, the intervening state has a responsibility to ensure that no group enforces collective punishment or violates basic human rights.
The situation in Libya, again, serves as a stark example, where the lack of effective measures to disarm and demobilize local forces led to widespread violence. On the one hand, Gaddafi loyalists carried out mass killings, taking advantage of the abundance of weapons in the country. On the other, retaliatory attacks were launched against these loyalists by groups seeking to consolidate power.
To avoid such outcomes, the intervening force must prioritize the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of local armed forces. This not only mitigates the immediate threat of retaliatory violence but also fosters conditions for long-term peace and stability.
Ensuring Justice Through Accountability and the Rule of Law
Justice is also a fundamental aspect of post-intervention efforts, requiring the establishment and enforcement of an unbiased, transparent, and consistent legal process. This includes holding individuals accountable for actions that justified the intervention, especially those involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. Key figures, including political and military leaders who violated international law, must face prosecution, whether through domestic courts, the International Criminal Court (ICC), or a combination of both.
In many cases, however, the state where the intervention occurred may lack a functional or impartial judicial system; corruption, inefficiency, or outright absence of such institutions can render post-conflict justice impossible. Without a reliable framework to prosecute perpetrators, an intervention risks becoming redundant. In these instances, the intervening power has a “responsibility to assist” in rebuilding the rule of law, ensuring the establishment and enforcement of basic human rights and creating institutions capable of upholding them.
However, the necessity for rebuilding must be assessed carefully. If the affected political community already has functioning institutions or is in the process of establishing them, rebuilding efforts may undermine the self-determination of the local population. For this reason, intervention should focus on strengthening existing systems rather than imposing external control unless such institutions are entirely absent or non-functional.
A case in point is Sierra Leone, where the judicial system had been severely weakened by civil war. To ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law, the Special Court for Sierra Leone was established through an agreement between the United Nations and the Sierra Leonean government in 2002. Then, a landmark judgment came in 2013 when the court upheld a 50-year sentence for former Liberian President Charles Taylor, wherein he was convicted for his role in supporting Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels to commit widespread atrocities during the conflict. This verdict demonstrated that even powerful leaders are not above the law, serving as a leading example of post-conflict justice in action.
Promoting Economic Development and Stability Post-Intervention
A critical post-intervention responsibility is fostering economic development, revitalizing markets, and ensuring sustainable growth. Rapid economic development significantly reduces post-intervention risks by stabilizing the region and addressing underlying vulnerabilities.
One of the first steps for the intervening country is to identify and eliminate any economically coercive measures imposed on the state prior to the intervention, for such measures, if left in place, can hinder recovery and exacerbate instability. For example, in Libya, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 mandated the freezing of financial assets belonging to specific Libyan individuals. A sanctions committee was also empowered to designate additional individuals, further tightening financial restrictions. These measures had a broad and far-reaching impact, severely limiting the financial resources of Libyan authorities, even as Gaddafi’s control waned.
Recognizing the importance of economic support, the UK government, on August 29, 2011, unfroze 280 million Libyan dinars from the Central Bank of Libya. These funds were used to pay public sector salaries, provide aid to refugees, and support critical medical and food supplies. Similarly, the European Union lifted sanctions on Libyan ports, oil companies, and banks to facilitate the country’s economic transition after the fall of Gaddafi’s regime.
Peacebuilding: Preventing Recurrence and Fostering Reconciliation
Another essential post-intervention obligation is successful peacebuilding, which seeks to establish enduring peace and prevent the recurrence of conflict. Without effective peacebuilding, states risk becoming trapped in cycles of prolonged armed conflict. To mitigate this, efforts must focus on encouraging groups to coexist, resolve disputes peacefully, and actively engage in reconciliation processes.
Central to peacebuilding is the rehabilitation and development of political institutions to support post-intervention responsibilities. This may include creating or strengthening state institutions, overseeing free and fair elections, safeguarding human rights, implementing rehabilitation programs, and fostering conditions necessary for sustained development.
A notable example of peacebuilding is Rwanda’s efforts following the 1994 genocide. The Rwandan National Unity and Reconciliation Commission, established in 1999, provided training in trauma support, conflict management, and early warning mechanisms to community leaders, political organizations, women, and youth. To facilitate reconciliation at the grassroots level, the Government of Rwanda introduced the traditional community court system known as ‘Gacaca.’
Under this system, communities elected judges to preside over cases involving individuals suspected of genocide. Judges could grant reduced sentences to those who demonstrated genuine repentance and sought forgiveness from the community. Offenders who confessed were often released or assigned community service orders. This approach allowed victims to learn the truth about the killing of their loved ones while allowing offenders to confess, express guilt, and seek forgiveness.
Rebuilding Through Local Ownership and Consensus
Central to all these factors is the understanding that rebuilding efforts must not be imposed on a population against their will. Instead, these operations should be grounded in consensus, ensuring that the local population takes the lead in executing necessary activities on their terms. Programs should be designed to enable a gradual transfer of responsibilities from the intervening state to local authorities, fostering independence and sustainability.
Efforts that disregard the priorities of the local population or exclude their involvement risk creating an unsustainable reliance on the intervening state. Such approaches can undermine peacebuilding by failing to empower communities and eroding the foundation for long-term stability. Ultimately, the goal should be for the intervening state to make itself replaceable, transferring authority to a competent local body, as the local population has the primary duty to sustain the rebuilding process.
A successful example of this principle can be found in East Timor. In 1999, the United Nations and the World Bank led a Joint Assessment Mission to develop a framework for the country’s reconstruction. This mission emphasized “community empowerment” as a cornerstone of grassroots development; the framework proposed the creation of village councils to institutionalize decentralized governance, enabling local communities to take ownership of the rebuilding process and fostering long-term self-reliance. By prioritizing local ownership, intervening states can ensure that rebuilding efforts are sustainable and aligned with the long-term interests of the community.
A Path to Lasting Peace and Stability
Post-intervention responsibilities are essential to ensuring that nations emerging from conflict can transition to stability and long-term peace. From maintaining security to promoting justice, fostering economic development, enabling peacebuilding, and ensuring local ownership, these responsibilities are multifaceted and require sustained effort. Ultimately, the responsibility to rebuild goes beyond addressing immediate crises—it is about creating the conditions for a self-sustaining, peaceful society. Intervening states must approach these duties with determination, collaboration, and sensitivity to the needs of the local population, ensuring that interventions lead not only to the end of conflict but also to lasting stability and development.
Sources:
https://ycsg.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/reforming_UN_for_peace_and_security.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/scenarios-for-reforming-the-united-nations/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7srr1
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27800702
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26296654
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=4415636
https://ycsg.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/reforming_UN_for_peace_and_security.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2152321
https://ycsg.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/reforming_UN_for_peace_and_security.pdf
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/618091?ln=es
https://ycsg.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/reforming_UN_for_peace_and_security.pdf
Leave a Reply
You must belogged in to post a comment.