preventive war

The majority view is that a preventive war undertaken without the approval of the United Nations is illegal under the modern framework of international law.{{Cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/north-korea-preventive-war/523833/|title=How America Shed the Taboo Against Preventive War|last=Beinart|first=Peter|date=2017-04-21|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US|access-date=2019-03-13}}{{Citation|last1=Warren|first1=Aiden|title=Self-Defense in International Law: Preemptive/Preventive Requisites|date=2014|work=Governing the Use-of-Force in International Relations: The Post 9/11 US Challenge on International Law|pages=23–45|editor-last=Warren|editor-first=Aiden|series=New Security Challenges Series|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|language=en|doi=10.1057/9781137411440_3|isbn=9781137411440|last2=Bode|first2=Ingvild|editor2-last=Bode|editor2-first=Ingvild}}{{citation |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UQajT7Bqf-MC&q=un+charter&pg=PT97 |publisher = Oxford UP |editor1 = Henry Shue |editor2 = David Rodin |title=Preemption: military action and moral justification |chapter=The False Promise of Preventive War |author=Suzanne Uniacke |year=2007 |page=88|isbn = 9780199233137 }} The consensus is that preventive war "goes beyond what is acceptable in international law"{{cite book|title=International Law (6th edn)|last=Shaw|first=Malcolm|author-link=Malcolm Shaw (academic)|year=2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0-521-72814-0|page=1140}} and lacks legal basis.{{cite book|title=Principles of Public International Law|last=Brownlie|first=Ian|author-link=Ian Brownlie|year=2008|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0-19-921176-0|page=734}} The UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change stopped short of rejecting the concept outright but suggested that there is no right to preventive war. If there are good grounds for initiating preventive war, the matter should be put to the UN Security Council, which can authorize such action,https://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/C9B1B6D819968E83C1256F5E00597208/$file/Report+of+the+High-level+Panel+on+Threats+Challenges+and+Change.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210123052413/https://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/C9B1B6D819968E83C1256F5E00597208/$file/Report+of+the+High-level+Panel+on+Threats+Challenges+and+Change.pdf |date=2021-01-23 }} p.54 given that one of the Council's main functions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression") is to enforce the obligation of member states under Article 4, Paragraph 2 to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state . . .{{cite web | url=https://un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text | title=United Nations Charter (Full text) }} The Charter's drafters assumed that the Council might need to employ preventive force to forestall aggression such as initiated by Nazi Germany in the 1930s."One of the fundamental purposes of the Charter is to provide forces which will be immediately available to the Security Council to take action to prevent a breach of the peace."Senate Executive Report No. 8, "to Accompany Executive F," 79th Cong. (1945).

The Axis powers in World War II routinely invaded neutral countries on grounds of prevention and began the invasion of Poland in 1939 by claiming the Poles had attacked a border outpost first. In 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway and argued that Britain might have used them as launching points for an attack or prevented supply of strategic materials to Germany. In the summer of 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, inaugurating the bloody and brutal land war by claiming that a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy threatened the Reich. In late 1941, the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran was carried out to secure a supply corridor of petrol to the Soviet Union. Iranian Shah Rezā Shāh appealed to US President Franklin Roosevelt for help but was rebuffed on the grounds that "movements of conquest by Germany will continue and will extend beyond Europe to Asia, Africa, and even to the Americas, unless they are stopped by military force."Sunrise at Abadan, Stewart Richard pp 94–108

{{Main|Attack on Pearl Harbor|Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor}}

Perhaps the most famous example of preventive war is the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941.J. Barnes, R. Stoll, "PREEMPTIVE AND PREVENTIVE WAR: A PRELIMINARY TAXONOMY", p.15, THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY, [http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/Preemptive%20and%20Preventive%20War-1.pdf URL] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101123064942/http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/Preemptive%20and%20Preventive%20War-1.pdf |date=2010-11-23 }} Many in the US and Japan believed war to be inevitable. Coupled to the crippling US economic embargo that was rapidly degrading the Japanese military capability, that led the Japanese leadership to believe it was better to have the war as soon as possible.

The sneak attack was partly motivated by a desire to destroy the US Pacific Fleet to allow Japan to advance with reduced opposition from the US when it secured Japanese oil supplies by fighting against the British Empire and the Dutch Empire for control over the rich East Indian (Dutch East Indies, Malay Peninsula) oil-fields.Keith Crane, Imported oil and US national security, p. 26, Rand Environment, Energy, and Economic Development (Program), International Security and Defense Policy Center In 1940, American policies and tension toward Japanese military actions and Japanese expansionism in the Far East increased. For example, in May 1940, the base of the US Pacific Fleet that was stationed on the West Coast was forwarded to an "advanced" position at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The move was opposed by some US Navy officials, including their commander, Admiral James Otto Richardson, who was relieved by Roosevelt.{{citation needed|date=July 2010}} Even so, the Far East Fleet was not significantly reinforced. Another ineffective plan to reinforce the Pacific was a rather late relocation of fighter planes to bases located on the Pacific islands like Wake Island, Guam, and the Philippines. For a long time, Japanese leaders, especially leaders of the Imperial Japanese Navy, had known that the large US military strength and production capacity posed a long-term threat to Japan's imperialist desires, especially if hostilities broke out in the Pacific.{{citation needed|date=April 2008}} War games on both sides had long reflected those expectations.

{{Main|Criticism of the Iraq War|Rationale for the Iraq War}}

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was framed primarily as a preemptive war by the George W. Bush administration,David E. Sanger, "Bush's Doctrine for War," N.Y. Times, March 18, 2003 at A1 although President Bush also argued it was supported by Security Council Resolutions: "Under Resolutions 678 and 687—both still in effect—the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.""Bush's Speech on Iraq: 'Saddam Hussein and His Sons Must Leave,'" N.Y. Times, March 18, 2003 at A 10. At the time, the US public and its allies were led to believe that Ba'athist Iraq might have restarted its nuclear weapons program or been "cheating" on its obligations to dispose of its large stockpile of chemical weapons dating from the Iran–Iraq War. Supporters of the war have argued it to be justified, as Iraq both harbored Islamic terrorist groups sharing a common hatred of the United States and was suspected to be developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Iraq's history of noncompliance of international security matters and its history of both developing and using such weapons were factors in the public perception of Iraq's having weapons of mass destruction.

In support of an attack on Iraq, US President George W. Bush stated in an address to the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002 that the Iraqi "regime is a grave and gathering danger."[https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002] However, despite extensive searches during the several years of occupation, the suspected weapons of mass destruction or weapons program infrastructure alleged by the Bush administration were not found to be functional or even known to most Iraqi leaders.{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7634313|title=CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq|website=NBC News |date=25 April 2005 |access-date=2009-05-24}} Coalition forces instead found dispersed and sometimes-buried and partially dismantled stockpiles of abandoned and functionally expired chemical weapons. Some of the caches had been dangerously stored and were leaking, and many were then disposed of hastily and in secret, leading to secondary exposure from improper handling. Allegations of mismanagement and information suppression followed.{{cite news |last1=Ford |first1=Dana |title=Report: United States kept secret its chemical weapons finds in Iraq |url=https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/us/iraq-chemical-weapons/index.html |access-date=18 September 2019 |agency=Turner Broadcasting System, Inc |publisher=CNN |date=October 15, 2014}}{{cite news |last1=Chivers |first1=CJ |title=The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=279797D532B892B5066743757602314B&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL |access-date=18 September 2019 |work=New York Times |date=14 October 2014}}

{{See also|First strike (nuclear strategy)}}

Since 1945, World War III between the US and the USSR was perceived by many as inevitable and imminent. Many high officials in the US military sector and some renowned luminaries in non-military fields advocated preventive war. According to their rationale, total war is inevitable, and it was senseless to permit the Russians to develop a nuclear parity with the United States. Hence the sooner the preventive war come the better, because the first strike is almost surely decisive and less devastating.Brodie, Bernard (1959). Strategy in the Missile Age, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press), p 229.Kaku, Michio & Axelrod, Daniel (1987). To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon Secret War Plans, (Boston: South End Press), p 314.

Dean AchesonTrachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 12-13.

and James BurnhamBurnham, James (1947). Struggle for the World, (New York: The John Day Company), p 248, https://ia800504.us.archive.org/25/items/struggleforworld00burn/struggleforworld00burn.pdf adhered to the version that the war is not inevitable but is already going on, although the American people still do not realize it.

The US military sector widely and wholeheartedly shared the idea of preventive war.Baldwin, Hanson W. (October 1, 1950). “Hans Baldwin on preventive war,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 6/10, October 1: p 318, https://books.google.com/books?id=_Q0AAAAAMBAJ Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 10-11. Most prominent proponents included Defense Secretary Louis A. Johnson, JCS Chairman Admiral Arthur W. Radford, Navy Secretary Francis P. Matthews, Admiral Ralph A. Ofstie, Air Force Secretary W. Stuart Symington, Air Force Chiefs Curtis LeMay and Nathan F. Twining, Air Force Generals George Kenney and Orvil A. Anderson, General Leslie Groves (the wartime commander of the Manhattan Project) and CIA Director Walter Bedell Smith.Baldwin, Hanson W. (October 1, 1950). “Hans Baldwin on preventive war,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 6/10, October 1: p 318, https://books.google.com/books?id=_Q0AAAAAMBAJ LeMay, Curtis & Kantor, MacKinlay (1965). Mission with LeMay: My Story, (New York: Doubleday & Company), p 481-482, 485.Twining, Nathan (1966). Neither Liberty nor Safety: A Hard Look at US Military Policy and Strategy, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p 19.Ball, Desmond (1982/83). “US strategic forces: How would they be used?” International Security, vol 7 (3): p 42.Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 5, 19-20, 41.Dingman, Roger (1988/89). “Atomic diplomacy during the Korean War,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 69.Gentile, Gian P. (Spring 2000). “Planning for preventive war, 1945 – 1950,” Joint Forces Quarterly, vol 24: p 70. Mueller, Karl P. & Castillo, Jasen J. & Morgan, Forrest E. & Pegahi, Negeen & Rosen, Brian (2006). “Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy,” Project Air Force, (RAND Corporation), p 131-132, 136, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdfMeilinger, Phillip S. (2012). Bomber: The Formation and Early History of Strategic Air Command, (Alabama: Air University Press), p 290. NSC-100 and several studies by SAC and JCS during the Korean War advocated preventive war too.Rosenberg, David Alan (1983). “The origins of Overkill: Nuclear weapons and American strategy, 1945-1960,” International Security, vol 7 (4): p 33-34.

In Congress, preventive warriors counted Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Nitze,Later, Nitze distanced himself from a “small group” of believers in preventive war. Nitze, Paul H. (1976). “Assuring strategic stability in an era of Détente,” Foreign Affairs, vol 54 (2): p 212. expert on the Soviet Union Charles E. Bohlen of the State Department, Senators John L. McClellan, Paul H. Douglas, Eugene D. Millikin, Brien McMahon (Chairman of the Atomic Energy Committee), William Knowland and Congressman Henry M. Jackson. The diplomatic circle included distinguished diplomats like George Kennan, William C. Bullitt (US Ambassador to Moscow), and John Paton Davies (from the same embassy).FRUS (1949), vol I: p 284. Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 8-9, 20, 47.Trachtenberg, Marc. (2007). “Preventive war and US foreign policy,” Security Studies, vol 16 (1): p 4-5.Mueller, Karl P. & Castillo, Jasen J. & Morgan, Forrest E. & Pegahi, Negeen & Rosen, Brian (2006). “Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy,” Project Air Force, (RAND Corporation), p 127, 131-132, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdfAlbertson, Trevor D., (2015). “Ready for the worst: Preemption, prevention and American nuclear policy,” Air Power History, vol 62 (1): p 32.

John von Neumann of the Manhattan Project and later a consultant for the RAND Corporation expressed: "With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when… If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today?"Blair, Clay (February 25, 1957). “Passing of a great mind: John von Neumann, a brilliant, jovial Mathematician, was a prodigious servant of science and his country,” Life: p 96, https://books.google.com/books?id=rEEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA89Chen, Janet & Lu, Su-I & Vekhter, Dan (1999). "Von Neumann and the development of game theory," (Stanford University), https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1998-99/game-theory/neumann.html Other renowned scientists and thinkers, such as Leo Szilard, William L. Laurence,Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 7-8. James Burnham,Burnham, James (1947). Struggle for the World, (New York: The John Day Company), p 248, https://ia800504.us.archive.org/25/items/struggleforworld00burn/struggleforworld00burn.pdf and Bertrand Russell.Perkins, Ray (Winter 1994/95). "Bertrand Russell and preventive war," Journal of the Bertrand Russell Archives, vol 14: p 135-153.

joined the preventive effort. The preventive war in the late 1940s was argued by “some very dedicated Americans.”Twining, Nathan (1966). Neither Liberty nor Safety: A Hard Look at US Military Policy and Strategy, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), p 49.Meilinger, Phillip S. (2012). Bomber: The Formation and Early History of Strategic Air Command, (Alabama: Air University Press), p 314. “Realists” repeatedly proposed the preventive war.Oppenheimer, Ernest (December 1, 1947). “The challenge of our time,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, vol 3 (12): p 370, https://books.google.com/books?id=pA0AAAAAMBAJ "The argument—prevent before it is too late—was quite common in the early atomic age and by no way limited to “the lunatic fringe.”Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 7-8. A famous atomic scientist expressed a concern: In 1946, public discussion of international problems, in the United States at least, "has moved dangerously towards a consideration of so-called preventive war. One sees this tendency perhaps most markedly in the trend of news in Americans newspapers."Urey, Harold C. (November 1, 1946a). “Atomic energy and world peace,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, vol 2 (9-10): p 2, https://books.google.com/books?id=WgwAAAAAMBAJ

Bernard Brodie noted that at least prior to 1950, preventive war was a “live issue … among a very small but earnest minority of American citizens.”Brodie, Bernard (1959). Strategy in the Missile Age, (New Jersey: Princeton University Press), p 227-228. The dating of Brodie is too short, as the preventive war doctrine has had increasing support since the Korean War started.FRUS (1950), vol III: p 197-204. The late summer 1950 saw “a flurry of articles” in the public press dealing with preventive war. One of them in Time magazine (September 18, 1950) called for a buildup, followed by a “showdown” with the Russians by 1953.Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 21. “1950 may have marked the high tide of ‘preventive war’ agitation…”Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 24. According to Gallup poll of July 1950, right after the outbreak of the War, 14% of the polled opined for the immediate declaration of war on the USSR, the percentage which only slightly declined by the end of the War.Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 5.Mueller, Karl P. & Castillo, Jasen J. & Morgan, Forrest E. & Pegahi, Negeen & Rosen, Brian (2006). “Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy,” Project Air Force, (RAND Corporation), p 149-150, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdf “So preventive war thinking was surprisingly widespread in the early nuclear age, the period from mid-1945 through late 1954.”Trachtenberg, Marc (2007). “Preventive war and US foreign policy,” Security Studies, vol 16 (1): p 5.

The preventive warriors remained minority in America’s postwar political arena, and Washington’s elder statesmen soundly rejected their arguments.Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 11.Mueller, Karl P. & Castillo, Jasen J. & Morgan, Forrest E. & Pegahi, Negeen & Rosen, Brian (2006). “Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy,” Project Air Force, (RAND Corporation), p 121, 127-128, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdf However, during several of the East-West confrontations that marked the first decade of the Cold War, well-placed officials in both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations urged their Presidents to launch preventive strikes on the Soviet Union.Mueller, Karl P. & Castillo, Jasen J. & Morgan, Forrest E. & Pegahi, Negeen & Rosen, Brian (2006). “Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy,” Project Air Force, (RAND Corporation), p 121, 127-128, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdf Entry in Truman’s secret personal journal on January 27, 1952 tells:

{{Blockquote|

It seems to me that the proper approach now would be an ultimatum with a ten-days expiration limit informing Moscow that we intend to blockade the China coast … and that we intend to destroy every military base in Manchuria … by means now at our control and if there is any further interference we shall eliminate any ports or cities necessary to accomplish our peaceful purposes. This means all-out war. It means Moscow, St. Petersburg, Mukden, Vladivostok, Beijing… and every manufacturing plant in China and the Soviet Union will be eliminated. This is the final chance for the Soviet Government to decide whether it desires to survive or not.Kaku, Michio & Axelrod, Daniel (1987). To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon Secret War Plans, (Boston: South End Press), p 73. }}

In 1953, Eisenhower wrote in a summary memorandum to his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles: In present circumstances, "we would be forced to consider whether or not out duty to future generations did not require us to initiate war at the most propitious moment we could designate.”Eisenhower, Dwight, (September 8, 1953). " Memorandum by the President to the Secretary of State," Office of the Historian, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v02p1/d89 In May 1954, the JCS’s Advance Study Group proposed to Eisenhower to consider “deliberately precipitating war with the USSR in the near future,” before Soviet thermonuclear capability became a real menace.Rosenberg, David Alan (1983). “The origins of Overkill: Nuclear weapons and American strategy, 1945-1960,” International Security, vol 7 (4): p 33-34. The same year, Eisenhower asked in a meeting of National Security Council: “Should the United States now get ready to fight the Soviet Union?” and pointed out that “he had brought up this question more than once at prior Council meetings and he had never done so facetiously.”Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 39.Mueller, Karl P. & Castillo, Jasen J. & Morgan, Forrest E. & Pegahi, Negeen & Rosen, Brian (2006). “Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy,” Project Air Force, (RAND Corporation), p 137-138, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdf By the fall 1954, Eisenhower made his mind up and approved a Basic National Security Policy paper which stated unequivocally that “the United States and its allies must reject the concept of preventive war, or acts intended to provoke war.”Rosenberg, David Alan (1983). “The origins of Overkill: Nuclear weapons and American strategy, 1945-1960,” International Security, vol 7 (4): p 33-34.Mueller, Karl P. & Castillo, Jasen J. & Morgan, Forrest E. & Pegahi, Negeen & Rosen, Brian (2006). “Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy,” Project Air Force, (RAND Corporation), p 127-128, 137, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdfTrachtenberg, Marc. (2007). “Preventive war and US foreign policy,” Security Studies, vol 16 (1): p 6.

Winston Churchill was more resolved on the preventive war. He argued repeatedly in the late 1940s that matters needed to be brought to a head with the Soviets before it was too late, while the United States still enjoyed a nuclear monopoly.Kissinger, Henry A. (1961). The Necessity for Choice: Prospects of American Foreign Policy, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers), p 178-179.Trachtenberg, Marc (1988/89). “A ‘wasting asset’: American strategy and the shifting nuclear balance,” International Security, vol 13 (3): p 9-10. Trachtenberg, Marc. (2007). “Preventive war and US foreign policy,” Security Studies, vol 16 (1): p 5.Mueller, Karl P. & Castillo, Jasen J. & Morgan, Forrest E. & Pegahi, Negeen & Rosen, Brian (2006). “Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in US national security policy,” Project Air Force, (RAND Corporation), p 121, http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG403.pdf Charles de Gaulle in 1954 regretted that now it was too late.Trachtenberg, Marc. (2007). “Preventive war and US foreign policy,” Security Studies, vol 16 (1): p 5. Curtis LeMayLeMay, Curtis & Kantor, MacKinlay (1965). Mission with LeMay: My Story, (New York: Doubleday & Company), p 485. and Henry KissingerKissinger, Henry A. (1979). The White House Years, (Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown and Company), p 62. later expressed the same regret over missed opportunity.

• A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
• Command responsibility
• Caroline affair
• Pre-emptive nuclear strike
• Imperialism
• Jus ad bellum
• Kellogg–Briand Pact
• Legality of the Iraq War
• Military science
• UN Charter

{{Reflist}}

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20070311025054/http://www.uni-miskolc.hu/~wwwdrint/20042rouillard1.htm The Caroline Case : Anticipatory Self-Defence in Contemporary International Law (Miskolc Journal of International Law v.1 (2004) No. 2 pp. 104-120)]
• [https://ssrn.com/abstract=397601 The American Strategy of Preemptive War and International Law]

{{Authority control}}

Category:Counterterrorism in the United States

Category:Aggression in international law

Category:Law of war

Category:Wars by type

Category:Prevention

Category:Warfare by type