Wars of Recovery.

The article examines the contested legality and normative justification of "wars of recovery," defined as armed efforts by a victim state to reclaim territory long occupied by an aggressor state after active hostilities have ceased. It outlines two main doctrinal positions in international law: a permissive view that treats prolonged occupation as a continuous armed attack justifying self-defence, and a restrictive view that regards such situations as territorial disputes to be resolved peacefully. The debate reflects a deeper tension between a traditional statist focus on territorial sovereignty and a rising individualist emphasis on human rights and the moral justifications for killing and sacrifice in war. The article argues that resolving the issue requires explicit normative commitments regarding the ends of jus ad bellum and suggests that even if wars of recovery were deemed lawful, they would remain heavily contested due to competing considerations of stability, justice, and the ethics of war.