Abstract
Just War scholars focus increasingly on the importance of jus post bellum – justice after war – for the legitimacy of military campaigns. Should something akin to jus post bellum standards apply to terrorist campaigns? Assuming that at least some terrorist actors pursue legitimate goals or just causes, the first part of the chapter asks whether terrorist actors have greater difficulty satisfying the prospect of success criterion of Just War Theory than military actors. The second part discusses whether the use of the terrorist method as such – state or non-state – may jeopardize a lasting peace in a way that other violent, for instance military, strategies do not? I will argue that as an indirect strategy, terrorism is less likely to secure concrete positive long-term political goals. However, non-state terrorist agents may still be more likely to meet jus post bellum-criteria and secure a lasting peace than military agents.