Preemption

Abstract

Abstract The dramatic declaration by US President George W. Bush that, in light of the attacks on 9/11, the United States would henceforth be engaging in ‘preemption’ against such enemies as terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction forced a wide-open debate about justifiable uses of military force. Opponents saw the declaration as a direct challenge to the consensus, which has formed since the ratification of the Charter of the United Nations, that armed force may be used only in defence. Supporters responded that in an age of terrorism defence could only mean ‘pre-emption’. This book provides the historical, legal, political, and philosophical perspective necessary to intelligent participation in the on-going debate, which is likely to last long beyond the war in Iraq. Thorough defences and critiques of the Bush doctrine are provided by the most authoritative writers on the subject from both sides of the Atlantic. Is a nation ever justified in attacking before it has been attacked? If so, under precisely what conditions? Does the possibility of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction force us to change our traditional views about what counts as defence? This book provides the most comprehensive assessment to date of the justifiability of pre-emptive or preventive military action. Its debate, accompanied by an analytic Introduction, focuses probing criticism against the most persuasive proponents of pre-emptive attack or preventive war, who then respond to these challenges and modify or extend their justifications.