Iraq War 2003 and the Issue of Pre-emptive and Preventive Self-defence: Implications for the United Nations

Abstract

The adoption of pre-emptive self-defence as a policy by the United States of America in its war against terrorism has revived the controversy over the concept of pre-emptive use of force in international politics. Some scholars argue that states are stretching the right of self-defence as pre-emptive, preventive and anticipatory in accordance with their needs and interests and to justify their actions. For others, in the context of changing security threats such as terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction pre-emptive strikes are permissible. These efforts to redefine and re-interpret the right of self-defence and use of force for justifying state’s actions have challenged the role of international organisations that were principally designed to regulate the unilateral use of force, and to maintain international peace and security. Against this backdrop, this article will examine how the pre-emptive and preventive use of force undermines the role of the United Nations in international politics through probing the case of Iraq War 2003. This would be a much needed reflection on the implications of Iraq War on multilateralism in the context of 10 years after the war.