A Moral Argument on Preventive War
Abstract
The determination of legitimate first strikes has long been a focal point of international law. While the United States continues to recognize that positive results can be achieved through a policy of deterrence the administration concedes that deterrence can fail. Previous United States National Security Strategies (NSS) have relied on a policy of anticipatory self-defense to defend the nation. The current NSS states the purpose for the use of preemptive action is to prevent attacks from occurring without warning. This paper examines the application of anticipatory self-defense in the form of preventive war. The theory is examined under the concepts of imminent attack just fear and sufficient threat. Preventive war challenges the jus ad bellum criteria of just cause legitimate authority and proportionality/last resort. The review of Kenneth M. Pollack's argument in his book The Threatening Storm concludes that preventive war may meet the criteria of jus ad bellum. While recognizing that acts of prevention may in some cases be justified the recommendation is made to adhere to the United Nations Charter and not extend the right to conduct preventive or enforcement measures beyond the authority of the Security Council.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Mar 18, 2005
- Accession Number
- ADA432152
Entities
People
- Donald K. Ulrich
Organizations
- United States Army War College