Conventional conceptions of just war theory have largely adhered to the ethical conceptions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, the criteria consulted before and during war, respectively. It is only recently that just war theorists have posited a way to think of justice after war, or jus post bellum. These conceptions of what constitutes a just peace provide the opportunity to examine the nature of rights after war and what is owed to the victims of violent conflict. This essay offers an articulation of how jus post bellum may be used to think about the use of weapons that alter a civilian populations environment. The weapons in question are those that result in unexploded ordinance and pose a particular risk to civilian noncombatants long after the cessation of hostilities.