Abstract
This article makes the distinction between self-defence, anticipatory self-defence and pre-emption. It argues against pre-emption. In the presence of article 39 of the Charter the case for pre-emption is not convincing and the current international legal order can deal effectively with the threat of terrorism. The article argues that certain acts of terrorism may amount to an armed attack , hence necessary and proportionate force may be used after meeting the outlined criteria. © Oxford University Press 2007.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
