Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory matter for many states. The issues of abiding by international law, understanding the meaning of ‘imminent threat’ and morality all come into question. The biggest of problems is that states misjudge threat. The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war. Referring to realist and liberal theorists in conjunction with previous examples where states have pursued ‘pre-emptive’ force to legitimize their actions, a conclusion as to whether pre-emptive war can be justified can be reached. Pre-emptive war can be justified supporting a states internal responsibility to protect. Yet, due to states having previously exploited this use of force, justification can appear to be exceedingly controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, pre-emptive war is either about ‘strategic or morals… one or the othe...
... middle of paper ...
...and order within in the endangered state. It does not give the vulnerable state a right to misuse and abuse the rights given to it by the international community.
Despite the confusion surrounding the justification for launching pre-emptive war, multiple sources including UN Charters, International Law, theoretical approaches from Webster and Waltz and historical cases where pre-emptive force has and hasn’t been legal or justified provides a basis for under which circumstances a state is justified in using pre-emptive force against the aggressor. If an imminent threat exists and there is clear intention of attacking, and this would cause problems within the targeted state, it is then lawful under the UN charter to resort to pre-emptive war, thus meaning it’s justified. As Hugo Grotius stated, “it be lawful to kill him who id preparing to kill you!” (Reference).
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
Last Resort: A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. From a diplomatic standpoint there are many other options in which conflict can be resolved. Often treaties are used to avoid war, however, the intention of resolutions should be to preserve moral justice rather than to avoid costly combat. The use of force should only be a last resort as a response to aggressive action.
There are two methods one can use when interpreting the Constitution. The first method includes not doing something unless the Constitution says that one can (i.e. unless the Constitution says one can do something, then one cannot). The other is where one can go ahead and do something if the Constitution doesn’t say one can’...
...tee against arbitrary and malicious persecution of individuals by the state; by weakening those protections, the government has opened the doors to new encroachments on the liberties that all residents of the United States rightfully enjoy.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
The Use of Force, written by William Carlos Williams is a story about a conflicted unnamed doctor using physical force to determine a diagnosis. The question that is brought up is whether or not the doctor’s use of force was one of ethical duty or infuriating violence. The doctor makes it his duty to save the patient, Mathilda as she does not cooperate he makes a choice to go on and use force to open her mouth to determine her diagnosis. The choice of using force isn’t necessarily the questionable part, the motive on using physical force is debatable. The ultimate question that the short story, the Use of Force asks is whether or not the doctor’s motives become one of dutiful compassion or desirable violence.
The art of war has been a vital aspect of state-making throughout history. Max Weber contends in his essay, Politics as a Vocation, that the State is a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber, 77), a definition that political experts cite to this day. However, many scholars today believe that we have created a new type of warfare, one that questions the validity of the statehood of current international powers as well as Weber’s own precedent for identifying States.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
the sovereign immunity cannot be plead in case of violation of fundamental rights and the state is bound by the duties of a bailee in such cases where if an ordinary person is put into the shoes of the state would have same liabilities and duties as of a bailee.