Narrative zum Gerechten Krieg im Völkerrecht.

The narrative of bellum legale, which excludes just war reasons from the collective security system, has not rendered the concept of bellum iustum in international law harmless, nor could it do so. For even if one believes that a positivist adaptation of the bellum iustum concept must be rigorously rejected, one ultimately cannot avoid conceding that recourse to natural law ideas cannot be excluded, as law is value-based. International law and its narratives cannot overcome the concept of bellum iustum; they can at best attempt to shape it according to their own understanding. This is because international law is fundamentally a law of war and peace, de jure belli ac pacis. This means that a legal justification for war cannot be value-free. Ultimately, it can only be about a conceptual or narrative distancing from ideas of justice.

Narratives on Just War in International Law: A large part of contemporary legal scholarship holds the view that the bellum iustum doctrine was never part of international law. However, the topic remains contentious. This paper seeks to shed new light on the long-standing bellum iustum – bellum legale controversy in line with the recent narrative shift in international law. It is shown that any categorical rejection of the Just War doctrine in international law has been flawed from the outset, as law is value-based.