How to Cut Cards

How to Cut Cards - HowtoCutCards 19:29...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
How to Cut Cards 19:29 Szewczyk, Bart M. J. (2005) 'Pre-emption, Deterrence, and Self-Defence: A Legal and Historical Assessment', Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 18:1, 119 – 135 We have a right to use pre-emptive force against a nation that poses a military threat  under international law. Deterrence is effective but not against rouge nations so the use  of pre-emptive force against a rouge nation is trying to get WMD’s is just and lawful  under international law. Bush administration declared a policy of pre-emptive use of force, as a measure of last resort, to prevent ‘rogue states’ from acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Some scholars have asserted that this policy was affirmed and effectuated with Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US-led war in Iraq begun on 19 March 2003 (Wedgwood 2003; Yoo 2003; 2004). 2 However, the United States itself has not embraced this legal argument. Instead, in its letter to the UN Security Council, the US government based the lawfulness of the war in Iraq on existing Security Council Resolutions, including Resolutions 678 (1990), 687 (1991), and 1441 (2002). 3 Additionally, William H. Taft IV, the Legal Adviser at the US Department of State, observed that, ‘viewed as the final episode in a conflict initiated more than a dozen years earlier by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, [the war] may not seem . . . as an example of preemptive use of force. . . . Preemptive use of force is certainly lawful where, as here, it represents an episode in an ongoing broader conflict initiated—without question—by the opponent and where, as here, it is consistent with the resolutions of the Security Council’ (Taft and Buchwald 2003, 562). Thus, it is unclear whether the current US government regards the preventive war claim of the NSS as a lawful measure it would enforce or a strategic bluff. The NSS based the authority for the doctrine on the inherent right of selfdefence under customary international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter: 4 For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
The NSS further argued that the development of WMD by rogue states triggered the right of pre-emptive self-defence due to a different posture of the threat: In the ColdWar, especially following the Cuban Missile Crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defence. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations. The logic of the NSS implied that normal states, such as India, Pakistan, and Israel,
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/10/2011 for the course PHIL 160 taught by Professor Coakley during the Spring '11 term at Arizona.

Page1 / 26

How to Cut Cards - HowtoCutCards 19:29...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online