Introduction
The event of 9/11 changed the way people viewed terrorism from 'an issue over there ' to the sudden realization that terrorist organizations now have the ability to attack globally and are no longer restricted to their region. Although national terrorism is not a new phenomenon given the Munich Olympic incident (Miller 1990, p.12) and several embassy bombings in the decade leading up to 9/11(Hoffman, 2002, p.305), it did directly lead to what we now call the Bush Doctrine. In short, this doctrine is the new U.S. foreign military policy where it gave the president can send military personnel into another sovereign state for the purpose of self-defense through preemptive strikes (Kelnner, 2004, p.422). In other words, removing the threat before the threat materializes. This doctrine ignores the advice of not just several high-end generals (Kellner, 2004, p.418), but also ignors a worldwide protest of over eight million people which at the time was "unprecedented in size, scope, and scale" (Kellner, 2004, p.424). As well, the international commutniy, including US alies further criticiszes the doctrine for being unethical (Winright, 2006, p.169) This led to an international debate of whether a preemptive strike is legal and ethical. Wishing to join this debate, this research paper will attempt to answer the question of whether a preemptive strike would be justifiable against a non-state agent such as a terrorist group. By doing so, I would like to highlight several criticisms that anti-preemptive strike scholars have vaulted towards the defense of necessity, how preemptive strike is unethics, and how preemptive strike does not comply with the U.N. Charter. By answering to these three areas of criticisms, I will attempt to defend states who would like to use preemptive strikes to ensure their territorial integrity and the safety of its citizens by providing them with justifications for using preemptive strikes against a non-state actor such as a terrorist group. Definition Before continuing on my path to defend states using preemptive strikes, I would like to first define certain terms and certain concepts to avoid any confusion later on. The first term that will be used heavily throughout this paper is a preemptive strike. Studies found that people use preemptive strike as a means of self-defense because they are afraid of the potential attack (Simunovic, Dora, Nobuhiro Mifune, and Toshio Yamagishi, 2003, p.1122). This is similar to the principle that it is better to deal with the threat that is still in the development stage rather than dealing with the threat when it is at its peak (Freedom, 2003, p.105) The second concept is a shift in the way people view weapons of mass destruction. During the cold war, states used the weapons of mass destruction as tools of containment and deterrence (Kellner, 2004, p.417). This is crucial to remember since a state would use a nuclear weapon not to harm or attack attack another country, rather containment and deterrence means that the state would use the weapons to prevent other countries from using their weapons of mass destruction. This is what people refer to as the concept of mutually assured destruction (Freedman, 2003, p.109). After the cold war, though, the idea of weapons of mass destruction shifted into weapons of fear, which is one of the reasons why the U.S. invaded Iraq (Kellner, 2004, p.417). The last concept is a change in the way the terrorist group operates and the new threats that resulted from this. No longer are terrorists geographically limited and …show more content…
As well, even pro-preemptive strike scholars would agree that preemptive strike is only legal and ethical if certain conditions outlined in the Carolina test are met. One of the conditions is that they know that there is a credible threat that is incoming (Case). This is reasonable since if there is no concrete evidence, then it is not necessary to act as the state should probably do more research first. Therefore, considering these two factors, anti-preemptive strike scholars can argue that if a state wants to launch a preemptive strikes against a terrorist group or a state hosting a terrorist group, they should ask for permission first from the (UNSC). This is an approach that Michael W. Doyle, a renowned scholar on international law argues for (Doyle,
The event of 9/11 changed the way people viewed terrorism from 'an issue over there ' to the sudden realization that terrorist organizations now have the ability to attack globally and are no longer restricted to their region. Although national terrorism is not a new phenomenon given the Munich Olympic incident (Miller 1990, p.12) and several embassy bombings in the decade leading up to 9/11(Hoffman, 2002, p.305), it did directly lead to what we now call the Bush Doctrine. In short, this doctrine is the new U.S. foreign military policy where it gave the president can send military personnel into another sovereign state for the purpose of self-defense through preemptive strikes (Kelnner, 2004, p.422). In other words, removing the threat before the threat materializes. This doctrine ignores the advice of not just several high-end generals (Kellner, 2004, p.418), but also ignors a worldwide protest of over eight million people which at the time was "unprecedented in size, scope, and scale" (Kellner, 2004, p.424). As well, the international commutniy, including US alies further criticiszes the doctrine for being unethical (Winright, 2006, p.169) This led to an international debate of whether a preemptive strike is legal and ethical. Wishing to join this debate, this research paper will attempt to answer the question of whether a preemptive strike would be justifiable against a non-state agent such as a terrorist group. By doing so, I would like to highlight several criticisms that anti-preemptive strike scholars have vaulted towards the defense of necessity, how preemptive strike is unethics, and how preemptive strike does not comply with the U.N. Charter. By answering to these three areas of criticisms, I will attempt to defend states who would like to use preemptive strikes to ensure their territorial integrity and the safety of its citizens by providing them with justifications for using preemptive strikes against a non-state actor such as a terrorist group. Definition Before continuing on my path to defend states using preemptive strikes, I would like to first define certain terms and certain concepts to avoid any confusion later on. The first term that will be used heavily throughout this paper is a preemptive strike. Studies found that people use preemptive strike as a means of self-defense because they are afraid of the potential attack (Simunovic, Dora, Nobuhiro Mifune, and Toshio Yamagishi, 2003, p.1122). This is similar to the principle that it is better to deal with the threat that is still in the development stage rather than dealing with the threat when it is at its peak (Freedom, 2003, p.105) The second concept is a shift in the way people view weapons of mass destruction. During the cold war, states used the weapons of mass destruction as tools of containment and deterrence (Kellner, 2004, p.417). This is crucial to remember since a state would use a nuclear weapon not to harm or attack attack another country, rather containment and deterrence means that the state would use the weapons to prevent other countries from using their weapons of mass destruction. This is what people refer to as the concept of mutually assured destruction (Freedman, 2003, p.109). After the cold war, though, the idea of weapons of mass destruction shifted into weapons of fear, which is one of the reasons why the U.S. invaded Iraq (Kellner, 2004, p.417). The last concept is a change in the way the terrorist group operates and the new threats that resulted from this. No longer are terrorists geographically limited and …show more content…
As well, even pro-preemptive strike scholars would agree that preemptive strike is only legal and ethical if certain conditions outlined in the Carolina test are met. One of the conditions is that they know that there is a credible threat that is incoming (Case). This is reasonable since if there is no concrete evidence, then it is not necessary to act as the state should probably do more research first. Therefore, considering these two factors, anti-preemptive strike scholars can argue that if a state wants to launch a preemptive strikes against a terrorist group or a state hosting a terrorist group, they should ask for permission first from the (UNSC). This is an approach that Michael W. Doyle, a renowned scholar on international law argues for (Doyle,