This concluding chapter revisits some of the key issue areas in peace settlements, which have been covered in the International Law and Peace Settlements volume, to demonstrate how past settlement practice has added to the repertoire of legal tools that can be deployed in conflict settlement, and to highlight the contours of the relationship between this settlement practice and international law. By reflecting on the ‘patterns’ of approaches and provisions that have emerged in settlement practice in addressing these key issues, the chapter lays some empirical foundations to interrogate the normative character of these emerging ‘patterns’ of legal tools in peace-making. The normativity to legal tools for peace-making is considered in the context of the diversity in settlement actors and in the legal character of settlements, with a view to identifying how settlement practice has affected international law, and whether it is possible, helpful or necessary to proclaim the existence of a lex pacificatoria.

This chapter examines the role of international finance for post-war transitions and its relationship to international law. That relationship is considered in two respects: first, the international legal norms relevant to ‘who should pay?’; and second, the relevance of international aid to the development of international law. Section 2 tracks the evolution of post-conflict funding for settlement implementation and reconstruction in light of historical transformations in peace-making practice; and addresses the financial demands on conflict-affected states. Urgent needs for international aid to finance settlement implementation and peacebuilding, raises questions about whether third states might have a duty to provide finance. Thus, Section 3 evaluates prospects for international legal duties to provide that aid. The relevance of post-conflict finance and aid conditionality to the development of international law is considered in Section 4 to shed a different light on debates about an emerging law of peace-making or lex pacificatoria.

This introductory chapter identifies the key questions and themes for the International Law and Peace Settlements volume, and provides a framework and conceptual map for analysing the relationship between international law and peace settlement practice. In particular, it examines the concepts of peace and war, and their relation to law, before developing a working lexicon for peace agreements and settlements. The chapter then critically examines the legal character of peace agreements and settlement commitments as ‘legal tools’ for peace-making. This analysis provides essential foundations to map out the ways in which peace settlements and international law can interact. Those forms of interaction become key focal points for the various contributions in the remainder of the volume. The thematic rationale and structure of the volume is explained to orientate the reader in light of its key themes and questions.

This chapter attempts to assess whether and to what extent international law can be seen as governing intra-state peace agreements; and, by turning to the practice of negotiating such agreements, whether international legal obligations, such as with respect to the inclusion of civil society actors, have emerged or are currently emerging. Demonstrating that there exist complex relationships between the practice reflected in peace agreements and international law, the chapter argues that when trying to understand these relationships, much depends on our theoretical stance vis-à-vis international law. Relying on an interactional and pluralistic conception of law, this chapter emphasises the relevance of process-related obligations and the continuous creation and adjustment of legal norms. Finally, the chapter considers the reasons why it might be desirable to ground the practice of peace agreements in international law and to allow this practice to contribute to the development of international law.

The proliferation and internationalisation of TG invite us to treat it as an object of study in its own right under international law. Given the limitations in literature, this study has to be carried out afresh. The fields of TJ and ius post bellum and the concepts of legitimacy and democracy are only of limited utility in this regard. In light of the ‘irrelevance of outcome’, this study is not so much concerned with the question of to what extent the decision of a political system is purely a domestic matter. It rather focuses on the state renaissance preceding and accompanying that decision: the very operation of choosing or replacing a political system in many cases takes time. It often results from a protracted process, TG, which includes, but is not limited to, reconstitutionalisation. Because of the recurrence and potential lasting impact of TG in various countries today, a refined legal analysis is now overdue.