Preemptive self defense Essay

The long-serving international law requires a possible danger of attack to permit preemptive attacks. The United States expressed concern of the limits of the concept of the imminent attack in tackling the security situation within the world. The United States expressed concerns about the potential threat that can be raised due to the diversification of the enemies’ potentials (Aron, 2003). The United States is considering evaluating their capability to deal with a potential harm before it finally affects the security situation of the nation. Some of the areas of evaluation include answering questions touching on various perspectives that include; the targets of action according to the 2002 security strategy include evaluation of the capability of the enemy in disrupting the security of the nation (Arend, 2003).

The footsteps of the United States have been followed closely by other major world countries (Reisman & Armstrong 2006). The modern perspective of international law touches on issues of self-defense in relations to rising cases of terrorism and impacts of external defense. Caroline doctrine created the precedence for the international law in relation to anticipatory defense. The examination of a country’s capacity to defend itself against adversaries was evaluated within the American context in adjustment to the danger posed by adversaries. The United Nations Security Council is concerned about the security threats arising from the cases of anticipatory self-defense. The international customary law requires countries to respond to a situation of a possible armed attack in an almost similar capacity in the same proportion of aggression.

Countries have expressed the desire for the actualization of a preemptive self-defense rule. The desire for a preemptive self-defense in case of an attack by the aggressor was openly endorsed by several countries some of which were opposed to the preemptive attacks by the United States in Iraq. Some of the influential nations that endorsed the inclusion of a preemptive self-defense in the case of an anticipated attack included Australia, Japan, United Kingdom, France, India, Israel, North Korea and Russia(Yoo, 2003). The position of a preemptive self-defense may create double standards according to the defense strategies of various nations. Countries have therefore been kept guessing of the possibility of attacks and retaliatory attacks that may possibly disrupt the world order. The efficiency of the law in providing a refuge to countries that feel threatened is therefore evaluated at this level.

Since in the traditional perspective of the law the United Nations Security Council is required to validate the extent of the illegality of an attack before efforts can be put in place to provide a self-defense against an enemy (Schachter, 1984). The extent of the modern threats by adversaries seems to be more dangerous especially with the levels of weapons that some countries hold today (Ikenberry, 2002). Some of the earliest international concerns that prompted the United States to advocate for a better National Security Strategy include the Cuban installation of the Soviet Union missile system (McDougal 1963). Various sections advocate for the inclusion of an anticipatory defense within the self-defense provision of the law (Sapiro, 2003). The law, however, identifies that since it is difficult to determine an imminent attack.

The inability to determine the imminence of an attack, therefore, rules out the case of anticipatory defense within the provisions of the international law (Alvarez, 2003). Some of the concerns of the anticipatory defense include the case where an aggressor may claim an aggression to seek an attack strategy against another party (Roberts, 2001). The self-defense act exemplifies ambiguity in some scenarios, especially where it exists as a threat to an international order. the United States the international Chief Justice clearly avoided the imagination of an anticipatory attack (Thirlway, 1990). The Caroline doctrine provides a better insight into the essence of scenarios where a self-defense is necessary (Rogoff & Collins 1990). The British government provided a justification for setting the ship on fire on the basis that it provided a threat of an imminent attack (Occelli, 2003).

The Caroline case was used in the determination of the principles that validate a self-defense and an anticipatory self-defense. Some of the principles that resulted within the jurisprudence of the Caroline case include the principle of immediacy, proportionality, necessity, breaking the international security law and capacity of the Security Council and immediacy (Reisman, 2003). Monitoring the current applications of the international laws and exceptions, identifying the shortcomings and proposals for adjustment consideration. Chapter 4. Methodology Includes the qualitative analysis of the provisions of the law from secondary sources, Concerns raised by nations regarding the inability of the international laws to solve disputes in some cases amicably. Ranking of the areas where the international laws have worked perfectly. Chapter 5 results Evaluation and discussion of the results obtained from the evaluations Chapter 6 Impact of the interventions Includes the concerns raised regarding the consequences of legalizing preemptive attacks.

The second year involves the determination of the proposal of the topic of discussion in the dissertation. Once the research area is approved a preliminary gathering of the data and materials used for the discussion can now begin. At the second year stage, it is necessary to explore a variety of secondary information to beef up both the qualitative and quantitative data. A satisfactory acquisition of both the primary data and secondary data creates the foundation for the actual preparation of the dissertation. The viability of the research is also determined at this particular stage on the proper selection of the data required in the development of the essay. The project seeks to incorporate the accurate interpretation and application of the international law.

The dynamics and the recent developments in the world regarding the uprising of the Islamic state and other terror groups validate the essence of accurate advisory and the defenses for an intervention(Cassese, 2001). It is, therefore, necessary to identify the ambiguity and the weaknesses of the provisions within the law in failing to take care of the security of countries (Polebaum, 1984). The project also provides a basis for revising the traditional international laws based on an interrogative and deductive analysis of the situations that have risen in its application (Malanczuk 2002). The project is also useful in providing an insight into the essence of reviewing the international law especially in the creation of policies that may be dealing with foreign allies (Paust, 2003).

The Security Council also deserves to understand the possible trends that may lead to serious security concerns without their intervention. The grounds for the reasonable speed of action raised within the project may provide a limelight useful for the security of nations. The project is also useful in guiding policymakers within the countries to act in the provision of the international law. Acting otherwise may provide serious security concerns especially with lack of a clear definition of an anticipatory self-defense. References Alvarez, J. Beard, J. M. America's New War on Terror: The Case for Self-Defense under Internatonal Law.  Harv. JL & Pub. Cassese, A. Terrorism is also disrupting some crucial legal categories of international law.  European Journal of International Law, 12(5), 993-1001. Drew, D.

M. Terrorism and the Right of Self-defense.  The American Journal of International Law, 95(4), 839-843. Gardner, R. N. Neither Bush nor the “jurisprudes”. A.  The limits of international law. Oxford University Press. Graham Jr, T. National Self-Defense, International Law, and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Imseis, A. Critical Reflections on the International Humanitarian Law Aspects of the ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion.  American journal of international law, 99(1), 102-118. Ivanov, I. The Missile-Defense Mistake: Undermining Strategic Stability and the ABM Treaty. Kunz, J. L. Bellum justum and bellum legale.  American Journal of International Law, 45(3), 528-534. Malanczuk, P. McDougal, M. S. The Hydrogen Bomb Tests and the International Law of the Sea.  American Journal of International Law, 49(3), 356-361. McDougal, M. Sinking the Caroline: Why the Caroline Doctrine's Restrictions on Self-Defense Should Not Be Regarded as Customary International Law.

 San Diego Int'l LJ, 4, 467. O'Connell, M. E. , & Alevra-Chen, M. Int'l L. Polebaum, B. M. National Self-Defense in International Law: An Emerging Standard for a Nuclear Age.  NYUL Rev. Assessing claims to revise the laws of war.  Am. J. Int'l L. Reisman, W.  American Journal of International Law, 95(4), 757-791. Rogoff, M. A. , & Collins Jr, E. The Caroline Incident and the Development of International Law. Schachter, O. The legality of pro-democratic invasion.  American Journal of International Law, 78(3), 645-650. Schreuer, C. The Warning of the Sovereign State: Towards a New Paradigm for International Law. Tucker, R. W. Reprisals and Self-Defense: The Customary Law.  American Journal of International Law, 66(3), 586-596. Wedgwood, R. Self-Defense in International Law.  Virginia Law Review, 1095-1115. Yoo, J. International law and the war in Iraq.