Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not …show more content…
Misunderstandings arise looking at Article 51 in international law that gives the right to self- defence. It is debatable as to whether this is an explicit right, only exercisable in response to armed attack or whether it allows force in response to potential attacks. Article 2(4) of the UN charter states that the use of force by states is banned however this has not stopped over one hundred large conflicts since 1945. States generally use international law as an excuse and form of justification for their actions (Evans, 2006: 589). Article 2(4) declares “all members shall abstain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.” Yet the main exception is self- defence (Evans, 2006: 598). The article does not make clear what constitutes self- defence. How is a state to distinguish self-defense from hegemonic desires? The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was confronted with questions about the meaning of ‘threat of force’, it concluded that a threat of force is illegal when the actual use of force threatened would itself be unlawful; the ICJ rejected to identify that the mere possession of nuclear weapons was an unlawful threat of force. This suggests that the mere possession of nuclear weapons, despite their extremely threatening appearance, cannot be an actual pending threat, in the case of Iran,
Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.
Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states
Crawfor argues against George Bush in his article "The Slippery Slope to preventive War" published that same year. His argument focuses on the lack of evidence for preemptive war and that it will just lead to instability and fear. Crawfor argues that there is reasonable evidence that al-Qaida desires to harm the U.S but that it is unfair to assume that rogue states have the same intent. This erases the difference between terrorists and the states they reside. Yet there are distinctions that make a difference. You cannot start a war with the excuse that a potential adversary might be out there somewhere triggered the offensive use of force. Crawford argues that this is not preemption but indeed paranoid aggression. The U.S has to accept vulnerability and uncertainty of potential threats and adversaries. They have to avoid exaggerating the threat, all this does is heighten their own fear. Crawford believes that their needs to be a middle threshold in place. Having a threshold that is too high can allow adversaries to plan and commit acts of terror before the U.S has time to deter or react. On the contrary having too low of a threshold will leave some states defensively arming themselves because they are afraid of the preemptive state or arm offensively because they resent the preventive war aggressor who may have killed innocent people on their mission for total security. Crawford uses this as an example for why fear of possible attack is not enough to justify this
Post measures lead to the view of international law on the military action against non-state groups. The question was asked. “To what extent can a state actor use force, in self-defense, on the territory of another state, in order to punish a non-state group, if that state is not directly responsible for the actions of the non-state group” (Jennifer 2011, 1). The US has informed the UN Security Council citing that they will use its right of self-defence, under the terms of the UN Charter, to attack al-Qaeda training camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan (Martyn 2002, 1). Dramatic measures had to be taken by the US being a state actor; there was a status they had to
armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a
The UN Charter was created after the Second World War to prevent future wars and to promote international peace and security. It states that a nation may only use force if it is an act of self defense to protect its own country or if it gets approval from the UNSC (United Nations Security Council). If a country is a part of the UN, a violation of the UN charter is a violation
With a renewed economy and enhanced military, if Iran elects to pursue a nuclear weapon in the future, critics argue they will be able to effectively withstand renewed sanctions and more ably protect centrifuge sights. Iran is also refusing to release details to the U.S. of its past nuclear activities, critics believe that the release of this information would finally disprove Tehran’s previous statements, that Iran was utilizing a peaceful program and that Islam forbids nuclear weapons. The ambiguity of Iran’s nuclear past has led to incomplete information on the part of the US and incomplete information in international relations is often a catalyst for military action. Furthermore, Critics believe that Iran will not entirely halt their nuclear program, but rather has significant incentive to misrepresent what they are developing, and will in fact work, in secret, on smaller-scale projects, such as specialized high-explosives that could act as a trigger in a nuclear bomb. Finally, according to many critics of this deal, the US is, in essence, allowing the Iranians, who in their opinion will have no incentive to abide by the limitations of this deal after they receive the pay out of lifted economic sanctions, to build a bomb. To them this
In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)
Because of numerous efforts by countries such as North Korea and Syria, the competition for acquiring nuclear weapons has escalated from what it was formerly. As this expands over time, it will increase the chance for another international conflict. In order to prevent this from happening, a substantial idea is to have the United Nations address this issue. With it’s vast amount of members, the UN can set a guideline for all its countries that limits the amount of weapons they are allowed to possess. By doing this, it will aid in relieving the tension occurring between multiple nations and provide international
The preemption doctrine is a doctrine of war making that reserves the right of the U.S. military to use advance strikes to stop rogue states from developing weapons of mass destruction. This doctrine has allowed us to use aggressive action in the Middle East in order to prevent terrorist groups from getting weapons of mass destruction. This has become engrained in U.S. policy as it is used to justify aggressive actions when there is an imminent threat of attack. It shouldn 't be used to justify attacks that are distant and vague. This is an important doctrine even though some people disagree with it. They believe advance
When a country encounters a catastrophic situation where human rights are being violated, it is the state’s responsibility to protect its nation. Frequently state’s shift from humanitarian intervention to responsibility to protect as a solution to human rights violations. Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a states’s use of “military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.”1 In order for a state to successfully protect, according to Anne Orford in the article Lawful Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, they must “prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.” (pg 248, Orford) A state is responsible for protecting its population, if they fail to do so the responsibility and authority to do so shifts to the international community.
I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.
the tenet of preventative war is immensely controversial as it is questionable how the elimination of a functional nation-state including all of the associated collateral damage and loss of life can justify the safety of the United States. Indeed, the ramifications of preventative war would only serve to be detrimental to national security as the deaths of innocent bystanders would only flourish more adversaries of the United
However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its
“Just war” can be waged only as a last resort, when all other options are insufficient.