Preemptive war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Preemptive war (or preemptive attack) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable. However, the legal ground for pre-emption remain highly a contentious issue.

In a classical approach self-defense is restricted to a response to an armed attack, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, following the practice of states an imminent threat emanating from neighboring state or disturbances by enemy forces from foreign territory may justify preemptive attacks. Legal experts refer to the Caroline affair of 1837 when British Forces in Canada crossed the U.S. border and killed Canadian rebels and one American citizen who were preparing a next offensive against British power in Canada. The United States rejected the legal ground of the Caroline case. The U.S. Secretary of State Webster in 1842 pointed out that the necessity for forcible reaction must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”.

Nowadays, it is claimed that the development of warfare enhanced the notion of self-defence. For instance, the Israeli attack in 1981 against the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq has been portrayed by Israel as preventive action. The Bush doctrine on preemption refers to potential threat caused by so-called rogue states with the WMD. However, the problem of determination of the imminent and extreme threat remains the subject of disputes. Many states do not support the idea of preemption.

Renown scholar Abraham D. Sofaer identifies four key elements for justification of preemption: (1) the nature and magnitude of the threat involved; (2) the likelihood that the threat will be realized unless pre-emptive action is taken; (3) the availability and exhaustion of alternatives to using force; and (4) whether using pre-emptive force is consistent with the terms and purposes of the UN Charter and other applicable international agreements.[1]

The intention with a preemptive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization.

While the labeling of an attack (on strategic and tactical levels) seldom is controversial, it is much more so in regard to the initiation of a war. For propagandist reasons, and in the name of information warfare, an adversary's defensive dispositions may often be attributed offensive purpose alleging the necessity of the own attack.

One hypothetical example of a preemptive war would be an attack staged against enemy troops, massed at a state's border, that were preparing to invade.

The Soviet Union's aerial attack on Finland on June 25, 1941, as an answer to the German attack on Russia of June 22 (Operation Barbarossa leading to the Great Patriotic War), can be argued to be an example of such a preemptive attack, although failed, and though the bombing of residential districts has to be attributed a psychological aim rather than a tactical. Finland's army was mobilized and prepared for both defense and offense, its government had declared its intention to remain outside of the war, and its parliament was assembled to confirm the status of nonbelligerence when attacked. The following Continuation War led to a three year long Finnish occupation of Russian Karelia.

Some commentators have pointed out that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could be regarded as a preemptive attack.

The Kosovo War was used as an example by Tony Blair in his first description of his Doctrine of International Community, made in his speech to the Economic Club of Chicago on April 24, 1999.[2][3] The Bush Doctrine, first explained in his commencement speech to the graduating class of West Point on June 1, 2002, states that it is the policy of the United States that "preemptive war" or even preventive war may be waged in appropriate circumstances.

There is some question as to the legality of this doctrine under international law. Article 2 Section 4 of the UN Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state. At the same time, however, Article 51 clearly permits self defense. The tension between these two principals is evident in the doctrine of preemptive war, which claims to be defensive, yet does not come in response to an attack.

Today only U.S. and Israel support policy of "preemptive war" in difference to all other members of U.N. This policy is very good shown in polls where people from all countries think that this two states are more dangerous for world peace of any other. In last poll of 2007 democratic Israel is in first, fundamentalist Iran second and democratic U.S. on third place. [2]

[edit] References

  1. ^ Abraham D. Sofaer. On the Necessity of Pre-emption. European Journal of International Law, Vol. 14 No. 2, 2003, p.220 [1]
  2. ^ Prime Minister's speech: Doctrine of the International community at the Economic Club, Chicago 10 Downing Street, April 24, 1999
  3. ^ The Blair Doctrine PBS NewsHour, April 22, 1999


[edit] External links

[edit] See also

In other languages