![Self-Defense in an Imperfect World.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Self-Defense in an Imperfect World.](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Self-Defense in an Imperfect World.
Ethics & International Affairs 2003, April, 17, 1
-
- 2,99 €
-
- 2,99 €
Descrizione dell’editore
In his address at West Point on June 1, 2002, President George W. Bush appeared to be signaling America's willingness to regard the mere possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by potential enemies as grounds for an anticipatory war. (1) Historically, however, a clear distinction has been drawn between preemptive and preventive, or anticipatory, war, with the latter regarded as illegitimate. The National Security Strategy announced by the president on September 20, 2002, was more conventional in its approach to preemption, but doubts remain as to whether the old distinction can be preserved. And this discussion is taking place in the context of a specific problem, namely the apparent desire of Iraq to obtain WMD and the determination of the United States, and, less clearly expressed, the UN Security Council, to prevent this from happening. (2) At the time of writing (November 2002) this matter remains unresolved, but preemption has not received the attention it deserves. It is not only the United States that may engage in preemptive action; the possibility exists in other parts of the world and with respect to other conflicts, most noticeably on the Indo-Pakistani border. The distinction between preemption and prevention is made by reference to the notion of an immediate threat. (3) States, it is presumed, do not have an unqualified right to use force in international relations, hut they do have the right to defend themselves--a right established in customary international law and reaffirmed in the UN Charter--and, crucially, are under no obligation to allow an aggressor to strike first. The right to preempt is thus an extension of the right of self-defense, if, and only if, it is indisputably the case that there is an imminent threat of an unprovoked aggression.