An analysis of pre-attack self-defence doctrines through a risk-based lens

Abstract

ABSTRACT For many writers, States have a customary law right to self-defensive force before an attack has occurred. The self-defence doctrines of anticipatory, pre-emptive and preventive self-defence all purport to condition the resort to pre-attack self-defensive force in various ways. However, these doctrines are marred by acute terminological ambiguities. To help resolve this ambiguity, this article explores the utility of a risk-based framework for understanding the content of each doctrine and the points of correspondence and disagreement between them. The article undertakes a detailed textual analysis of literature published from 1945 to 2023, analysing the descriptions and discussions of each doctrine in-depth through the lens of a risk-based framework to categorise the variables that condition the resort to force. Even when analysed in this manner, the article finds that the three self-defence doctrines struggle to be meaningfully differentiated. If unresolved, this ambiguity may undermine efforts at conflict mitigation and de-escalation.