Defending humanity.
Its action would be morally defensible if its best information confirmed that these three conditions were satisfied, even if it later turned out that the information was inaccurate about one or all of them. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. In contemporary discussions it is often said that Just War theory limits lawful, or legitimate, military action to that which is strictly defensive. However, since we can rarely discern the intention of an enemy with complete confidence, the tradition adds further qualifications.Specifically, the threatening nation must actually possess the capacity to inflict a grave injury, it must, as far as can be determined, actively intend to do this injury (as opposed, say, to posturing in order to gain leverage in bargaining), and it must be making progress in a series of steps aimed at doing this harm. The term 'preemptive war' is sometimes confused with the term 'preventive war'. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. The danger that enemy actions pose must be imminent. Such questions began to arise when it first became apparent in 1931 that it was incapable of halting aggression by Japan in Manchuria, starting with the In 1933 the impotency of the LON became more pronounced when notices were provided by Japan and Germany that they would be terminating their memberships in the League of Nations. 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. That is, to threaten to attack another nation unjustly is to injure that nation even if no shots have been fired. 2, 2003, p.220 Col Guy Roberts, USMC (Ret) 27 Denv. While there is a solemn responsibility to corroborate information in a situation like this, there is inevitably an element of uncertainty in times of conflict.Partly for this reason, the tradition adds one further qualification. When it is well conceived and well articulated, the classic Just War tradition offers sound moral principles for guiding choices in very difficult and uncertain circumstances.In this tradition, three criteria must each be satisfied if the use of military force is to be justified. "COMMAND DECISIONS", CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 2000.
And other forms of aggression, such as cyber-attacks, might be virtually instantaneous.As a consequence, we should probably now define imminence not in terms of a period of time but rather as a stage in a process. Topic: That the preemptive initiation of war is, on balance, morally justified. Practically speaking, this means that other courses of action—diplomacy, arbitration, sanctions, and so on—are reasonably judged to have failed or to be impractical. It is not too difficult to imagine another land war on the Korean peninsula, perhaps drawing China into the struggle, or another conflict in the Middle East, as wounded regimes lash out. The nations concerned, which would include the United States and Israel, but also probably South Korea, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, must have a plan for dealing with the possibility of attack.Such a plan, of course, would include diplomatic efforts, perhaps economic sanctions, or even efforts at regime change.
The matter of imminence marks the difference between preemptive military action, which may be morally justified, and preventive war, which is not justified. Henry Shue, David Rodin "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 “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 "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. Assuming there is just cause, the morally sound intention of the statesman, and the citizen, must be the preservation or restoration of an enduring peace. On the Necessity of Pre-emption. My opponent’s job is to say that preemptive war is morally justified, and my stance is that you can’t agree with that statement. It has also prompted conversations about whether vulnerable nations ought to take military action to in advance to protect their populations.These concerns are not unreasonable. Just to complicate things further, the confidence we have in our defensive measures, and our ability to defend our allies, will affect the calculation about means. Insults and exaggerated threats are irritating but do not rise to the level of serious prior wrongs.
Even then, the criterion of imminence must be defined and satisfied in the circumstances.Finally, we must be sure of right intention, which is the most complicated and perhaps the most important in determining the choice of means. The matter of imminence marks the difference between We should add, though, that the definition of imminence must be adapted to the reality of military technology. For other uses, see Pre September 11, 2001 United Nations period (1945 - 2001)Post September 11, 2001 Bush administration period (2002 - 2008)Arguments for preemptive war made during the Bush administrationMyres Smith McDougal, Florentino P. Feliciano, "The international law of war: transnational coercion and world public order" p 211, 212"COMMAND DECISIONS", CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 2000. First, since the use of such force is the act of a society, not the act of a group of private citizens, it must be approved and directed by a legitimate political authority.