Download Free An Assessment Of Preemptive Self Defense Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online An Assessment Of Preemptive Self Defense and write the review.

Essay from the year 2007 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: Distinction, Macquarie University, course: IRPG 842 Politics of International Law, language: English, abstract: This paper will argue against an expansion of international law to include an unrestricted doctrine of pre-emptive war in the legal conception of self-defence. In order to back this position arguments both for and against pre-emptive self-defence will be examined from a moral as well as practical point of view. After examining the nature of terrorist threats and current international law, this essay will focus on alternatives to and consequences of pre-emptive self-defence, before considering the limits of law and power in international relations.
The legality of preemptive strikes is one of the most controversial questions of contemporary international law. At the core of this controversy stands the temporal dimension of self-defence: when and for how long can a state defend itself against an armed attack? Can it resort to armed force before such an attack occurs? Is anticipatory action covered by the rules of self-defence or should it be treated as a different concept? This book examines whether anticipatory action in self-defence is part of customary international law and, if so, under what conditions. The pre-Charter concept of anticipatory action is demarcated and then assessed against post-Charter state practice. Several instances of self-defence – both anticipatory and remedial – are examined to elucidate the rules governing the temporal dimension of the right. The Six-Day War (1967), the Israeli bombing of an Iraqi reactor (1981), the US invasion of Iraq (2003) and other instances of state practice are given thorough attention.
In September 2002, President Bush published his first National Security Strategy (NSS) to the U.S. Congress. In this strategy, the President asserted a new doctrine of unilateral preemptive self-defense, arguing that this new doctrine is needed to adequately defend a nation against the capabilities and objectives of today's enemies. This new right of preemptive self-defense would be authorized against rogue states and terrorist organizations that attempt to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Although the current right of self-defense is not universally defined, most international scholars agree the right extends to action taken in self-defense before an armed attack has occurred, if the armed attack is imminent, and the use of force in self-defense is both necessary and proportionate. The Caroline incident of the mid-1800's established the limits of imminence, necessity, and proportionality for the use of self-defense. The NSS argues that the definition of imminent must be expanded to threats that are more distant or merely foreseeable to account for the drastic change in technology since the Caroline incident. Because of the technology in the mid-1800's, a state that was about to be attacked would be able to adequately defend itself because of the time it took the attacking state to place troops and equipment along its borders. Additionally, because weapons had a limited capacity for destruction, the attacked state would still have the ability to defend itself against an attack that was about to start or had just started. However, current technology allows a rogue state or terrorist organization to attack without warning and the destructive capability of weapons of mass destruction could easily ensure the attacked state will not be able to respond to defend itself. This paper reviews the right of self-defense as it has evolved over time, culminating in the right as expressed in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Self-defense and the right to go to war. Originally published: New York: Praeger, [1958]. xv, 294 pp. Bowett observes that the use or threat of force by any state can be a delict, an approved sanction, or a measure taken in self-defense. He examines the evolution of self-defense doctrine in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, with the assumption of the existence of a state's unlimited 'right' to go to war. He then attempts to outline the limited and provisional effects of this right under the U.N. Charter. This book was written after Bowett's term as a United Nations legal officer from 1957-1959. "Throughout the work there is a refusal to dogmatize or to state in absolute terms any aspect of the 'privilege' of self-defence in its present context. (...) [Bowett] is to be congratulated on producing a timely and scholarly survey of one of the most fundamental, and often abused, sovereign rights known to international law." --K.R. Simmonds, British Year Book of International Law 34 (1958) 432. SIR DEREK WILLIAM BOWETT [1927-2009], an international lawyer, was President of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1969-1982 and Whewell Professor of International Law, Cambridge, from 1981-1991. He was awarded a CBE in 1983 and a knighthood in 1998. He is the author of The Law of International Institutions (1963), United Nations Forces: A Legal Study (1964), The Law of the Sea (1967), The Search for Peace (1972) and The International Court of Justice (1996).
The imminence requirement for preemption can make all the moral difference in deciding to launch a lethal strike. Influenced by Michael Walzer's just war criteria for preemption, I provide three necessary conditions to strike first in self-defense. A commander must justifiably believe three things: that an unjust aggressor is poised to attack, that her capacity to avert an attack is constrained by an imminent decision point or last window of opportunity, and that preemption is part of a moral-risk proportionate strategy. In any event, a commander must decide to preempt or not preempt under conditions of uncertainty. Imminence must be seen as a necessary requirement for preemption, which is the term normative theorists use when an unjust aggressor poses an imminent threat of attack, and a defender strikes first in self-defense. Insofar as a defender foresees an imminent threat and need not await her fate before taking action, preemption can be just. If preemption is just
Examines the difficulties in applying international law to recent armed conflicts known as 'new wars'.
The book examines the complex and contested moral and legal issues of preventive warfare.