Preemptive war
Part of a series on |
War |
---|
A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war shortly before that attack materializes.[1] It is a war that preemptively 'breaks the peace' before an impending attack occurs.
The term 'preemptive war' is sometimes confused with the term '
Article 2 (4) of the
Theory and practice
Prior to World War I
As early as 1625, Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius characterized a state's right of self-defense to include the right to forestall an attack forcibly.[8] In 1685, the Scottish government conducted a preemptive military strike against Clan Campbell.[9] In 1837, a certain legal precedent regarding preemptive wars was established in the Caroline affair, during which an Anglo-Canadian force from Upper Canada crossed the Niagara River into the United States and captured and burnt the Caroline, a ship owned by Reformist rebels. During the affair, an American citizen was killed by a Canadian sheriff.
The British asserted that their actions were permissible under the international law of self-defense. The United States did not deny that preemptive force might be lawful under some circumstances but claimed the facts did not support its use in this case.
World War I (1914–1918)
The
During the course of the destructive and costly World War I, for the first time in history, the concept of "the war to end war" began to be seriously considered.[15] As a further expression of that hope, upon the conclusion of the war, the League of Nations was formed. Its primary aim was to prevent war, as all signatories to the League of Nations Covenant were required to agree to desist from the initiation of all wars, preemptive or otherwise. All of the victorious nations emerging out of World War I eventually signed the agreement, with the notable exception of the United States.[16]
League of Nations period (1919–1939)
In the 1920s, the League peaceably settled numerous international disputes and was generally perceived as succeeding in its primary purpose. It was only in the 1930s that its effectiveness in preventing wars began to come into question. Such questions began to arise when it first became apparent in 1931 that it was incapable of halting aggression by
In 1933, the impotency of the League became more pronounced when notices were provided by Japan and
World War II period (1939–1945)
Once again, during the course of the even more widespread and lethal World War II, the hope of somehow definitively ending all war, including preemptive war, was seriously discussed. That dialogue ultimately resulted in the establishment of the successor organization to the League, the United Nations (UN). As with the League, the primary aim and hope of the UN was to prevent all wars, including preemptive wars. Unlike the League, the UN had the United States as a member.
In analyzing the many components of World War II, which one might consider as separate individual wars, the various attacks on previously-neutral countries, and the attacks against Iran and Norway might be considered to have been preemptive wars.
As for the 1940
The new Allied plans were
In the case of Iran, in which Soviet and British forces preemptively invaded this country, see Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran.
Six Day War (1967)
Israel incorporates preemptive war in its strategic doctrine to maintain a credible deterrent posture, based on its lack of strategic depth.
Invasion of Iraq (2003)
The doctrine of preemption gained renewed interest following the
Arguments for preemptive war during Bush administration
Sofaer's four elements
The scholar Abraham David Sofaer identified four key elements for justification of preemption:[39]
- The nature and magnitude of the threat involved;
- The likelihood that the threat will be realized unless preemptive action is taken;
- The availability and exhaustion of alternatives to using force;
- Whether using preemptive force is consistent with the terms and purposes of the UN Charter and other applicable international agreements.
Walzer's three elements
Professor Mark R. Amstutz, citing Michael Walzer, adopted a similar but slightly-varied set of criteria and noted three factors to evaluate the justification of a preemptive strike.[40]
- The existence of an intention to injure;
- The undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger; and
- The need to act immediately because of a higher degree of risk.
Counter proliferation self-help paradigm
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by
Post–Bush administration period (2009–present)
After the departure of the Bush administration, the Obama administration adopted and continued many policies of the Bush Doctrine.[47]
Intention
This section needs additional citations for verification. (July 2017) |
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.
In his "Rationalist Explanations for War," James Fearon attributes the use of preemptive strikes by rational states to both offensive advantages and commitment problems between states.[48] When a nation possesses a first strike advantage and believes itself to have a high probability of winning a war, there is a narrower de facto bargaining range between it and an opposing country for peaceful settlements. In extreme cases, if the probability of winning minus the probable costs of war is high enough, no self-enforcing peaceful outcome exists. In his discussion of preventative war arising from a commitment problem, Fearon builds an infinite-horizon model expected payoffs from period t on are (pt/(l - δ)) - Ca for state A and ((1 -pt)/(l - δ)) - Cb for state B, where Ca and Cb are costs incurred the respective states and δ is the state discount of the future period payoffs.
The model shows that a peaceful settlement can be reached at any period that both states prefer, but strategic issues arise when there is no credible third-party guaranteer of the two states committing to a peaceful foreign policy. If there is going to be a shift in the military power between states in the future, and no credible restraint is placed on the rising military power not to exploit its future advantage, it is rational for the state with declining military power to use a preventative attack while it has a higher chance of winning the war. Fearon points out that the declining state attacks are caused not by fear of a future attack but because the future peace settlement would be worse for it than in the current period. The lack of trust that leads to a declining power's preemptive strike stems not from uncertainty about intentions of different nations but from "the situation, the structure of preferences and opportunities, that gives one party incentive to renege" on its peaceful cooperation and exploit its increased military potential in the future to win a more profitable peace settlement for itself. Thus, Fearon shows that preemptive military action is taken by nations when there is an unfavorable shift in military potential in the future that leads to a shrinking bargain range for a peaceful settlement in the current period but with no credible commitment by the other party to avoid exploiting its improved military potential in the future.
Legality
See also
- Controversies relating to the Six-Day War
- A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
- Battleplan (documentary TV series)
- Bush Doctrine
- Caroline affair
- Dwight D. Eisenhower statements on 'preventive war' in WikiQuote
- Jus ad bellum
- War of aggression
- Pre-emptive nuclear strike (counterforce)
- Soviet offensive plans controversy
- Hobbesian trap
- The best defense is a good offense
References
- ISBN 9780850451634.
- ^ Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. 2002. p. 413.
- ^ Beres, Louis Rene (1991–1992), On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: The Case of Israel, vol. 20, Hofstra L. Rev., p. 321
- ISBN 978-0-19-923313-7
- ^ Shue and Rodin 2007, p. 118.
- ^ "The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: a Reconsideration" (PDF). 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-02-16. Retrieved 2010-12-02. A US Army sponsored discussion of various justifications for preemptive, preventive and 'precautionary' war.
- ^ "Adoption of Policy of Pre-emption Could Result in Proliferation of Uniliteral, Lawless Use of Force: By Kofi Annan". 2003. Retrieved 2010-12-02. Kofi Annan discusses his unwillingness to accept proposed new changes in UN policy towards the use of preemptive force, and why.
- ^ Beres, Louis R. (1991), Permissibility of State-Sponsored Assassination during Peace and War, The, vol. 5, Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J., p. 231
- ISBN 978-1-134-41521-2.
- ^ "The Diplomatic and Official Papers of Daniel Webster While Secretary of State" pp. 105, 110 (Harper & Bros. 1848).
- ISBN 978-0521547352
- ^ ISBN 978-1-4408-0093-1.
- ^ Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification, OUP 2007, p. 31
- ISBN 978-0-8147-5832-8.
- ^ "United States History: Woodrow Wilson". 2010. Discussion of Woodrow Wilson's desire to make World War I the War to End All Wars.
- ^ "Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site: League of Nations article". 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-30. Article summarizing the primary objective of the League of Nations.
- ^ "Mukden Incident and Manchukuo: C. Peter Chen". 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-30. Details of the Mukden Incident
- ^ a b "League of Nations Timeline". 2006. Archived from the original on 2016-08-27. Retrieved 2010-11-30. A timeline of all major League events.
- ^ "Factmonster Encyclopedia— League of Nations: Successes and Failures". 2010. Retrieved 2010-11-30. Description of the demise of the League of Nations.
- ^ Myres Smith McDougal, Florentino P. Feliciano, The International Law of War: Transnational Coercion and World Public Order" pp. 211, 212
- ^ "COMMAND DECISIONS", CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 2000. URL Archived 2007-12-30 at the Wayback Machine p. 59 "The British plan which was adopted was more modest. While ostensibly intended to bring Allied troops to the Finnish front, it laid its main emphasis on operations in northern Norway and Sweden. The main striking force was to land at Narvik and advance along the railroad to its eastern terminus at Lulea, occupying Kiruna and Gallivare along the way. By late April two Allied brigades were to be established along that line."
- ^ "COMMAND DECISIONS", CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 2000. URL Archived 2007-12-30 at the Wayback Machine p. 66, 67 "The British held back two divisions from France, intending to put them into the field in Norway, and planned to expand their force eventually to 100,000 men. The French intended to commit about 50,000. The British and French staffs agreed that the latter half of March would be the best time for going into Norway;"
- ^ "COMMAND DECISIONS", CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 2000. URL Archived 2007-12-30 at the Wayback Machine p.67,68 "The objectives were to take Narvik, the railroad, and the Swedish ore fields;" "an intercepted radio message setting 14 March as the deadline for preparation of transport groups indicated that the Allied operation was getting under way. But another message, intercepted on the 15th, ordering the submarines to disperse revealed that the peace [in Finland] had disrupted the Allied plan."
- ^ "COMMAND DECISIONS", CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 2000. URL Archived 2007-12-30 at the Wayback Machine p. 68
- ^ "Law Regulating Resort to Force". Archived from the original on 2009-10-14.
- Rand Corporation. September 1981. Archived(PDF) from the original on August 27, 2019. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
- ^ "Israel's National Security Doctrine: The Report of the Committee on the Formulation of the National Security Doctrine (Meridor Committee), Ten Years Later" (PDF). Institute for National Security Studies (Israel). February 2019. Retrieved 27 August 2019.
- ^ "Strategic Doctrine - Israel". Federation of American Scientists. 25 May 2000. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
- ^ The Six Day War is, "A classic example of preemptive war." Henry Shue, David Rodin Preemption: military action and moral justification
- ^ "Classic examples of preemptive wars include the July Crisis of 1914 and the Six Day War of 1967 in which Israel preemptively attacked Egypt...." Karl P. Mueller Striking first: preemptive and preventive attack in U.S. national security
- ^ "The Six Day War between Israel and alliance of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq was an example of preemption." And, "It exemplifies preemption." Charles W. Kegley, Gregory A. Raymond The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics
- ^ "Preemptive attack is morally justified when three conditions are fulfilled: The existence of an intention to injure, the undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger, and the need to act immediately because of a higher degree of risk. Since these conditions were met in Israel's Six Day War, Israel's preemptive attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967 was a legitimate act of self-defense." Mark R. Amstutz International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics
- ^ "The United States has often walked a fine line between preemption and prevention. In fact there have only been a handful of clear-cut cases of military preemption by any states in the last 200 years. (Israeli preemption in the Six Day War of 1967 is perhaps the most cited example)."U.S. National Security Strategy: a New Era U.S. Department of State (2002)
- ^ Choice or Necessity (New York Times, May 8, 2009)
- ^ Distein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defense p. 192, Cambridge University Press (2005)
- ^ Distein, Yoram, War, aggression and self-defense p. 192, Cambridge University Press (2005)
- ^ "The closest case that might have, but is now regarded as not having met the Caroline test, was Israel's first strike against Egypt in 1967. Few regarded it as a good example of a permissible anticipatory attack under the Caroline test, especially after it became clear following the attack that there was no overwhelming threat that justified the attack to ensure Israel's survival. Gathii, James Thuo. "Assessing Claims of a New Doctrine of Preemptive War Under the Doctrine of Sources." Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 1–34, 2005.
- ^ a b George, and Jens Ohlin. Defending Humanity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
- .
- ^ Mark R. Amstutz, International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics
- ^ Colonel Guy Roberts, USMC (Ret) 27 Denver Journal of International Law & Policyy 483
- ^ Steven C. Welsh, Preemptive War and International Law Center for Defense Information, 5 December 2003
- ^ Kacerauskis pp. 84–85
- ^ Roberts, n. 528–536
- ^ Roberts n. 530–532
- ^ a b c Gordon, Michael, R. (25 October 2011). "Papers From Iraqi Archive Reveal Conspiratorial Mind-Set of Hussein". New York Times.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Krauthammer, Charles (23 May 2011). "Obama adopts the Bush Doctrine". Chicago Tribune.
- S2CID 38573183. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2020-06-25.
- ^ "UN Charter: Article 51". Archived from the original on May 5, 2009.
- ^ David, and Henry Shue. Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.
External links
- Preemptive warfare: A viable strategic option
- Can a member of The United Nations unilaterally decide to use preemptive force against another state without violating the UN Charter? Vytautas Kacerauskis, International Journal of Baltic Law Volume 2, No. 1 (January, 2005) ISSN 1648-9349
- Washington Times
- ThoughtCast speaks with Alan Dershowitz about his book "Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways"...
- The American Strategy of Preemptive War and International Law
- The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense Mary Ellen O’Connell Professor of Law
- Pre-emptive Self-Defence, International Law and US Policy Chris Richter
- U.S. National Security Strategy: a New Era U.S. Department of State