Pre-emptive Action

[dimpy.handa]

Deterrence and diplomacy must be backed by the credible use of force. Without this threat of military action, dictators can ignore the diplomacy of containment and continue to pursue their nefarious aims.

Should the US adopt a foreign policy which advocates pre-emptive action?

 

[dimpy.handa]

In the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks, the American people would not forgive an administration that failed to act against a foreseeable threat which later caused serious harm to the United States. The US government has a duty to the American people; it must neutralise all future threats before they are ready to strike. The US possesses the power to take this pre-emptive action, especially the necessary military power. It should use its vast competitive advantage in this sphere before other powers catch up.

 

[swatiraohnlu]

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be 'jus cogens' (literally: "compelling law", in practice: "higher international law"), and prohibits all U.N. members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Some have argued that Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self defense, however, article 51 also stipulates that self defense by a member state is justified only if, "an armed attack occurs," against it. From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive 'self-defense' has yet been made 'legal' under the UN Charter.