Pre-Emptive Force According to Michael Walzer Essay

Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). â€Å" †¦there must be shown a necessity of self defence†¦ instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.† (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex â€Å"a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute† (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not†¦show more content†¦Misunderstandings arise looking at Article 51 in international law that gives the right to self- defence. It is debatable as to whether this is an explicit right, only exercisable in response to armed attack or whether it allows force in response to potential attacks. Article 2(4) of the UN charter states that the use of force by states is banned however this has not stopped over one hundred large conflicts since 1945. States generally use international law as an excuse and form of justification for their actions (Evans, 2006: 589). Article 2(4) declares â€Å"all members shall abstain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN.† Yet the main exception is self- defence (Evans, 2006: 598). The article does not make clear what constitutes self- defence. How is a state to distinguish self-defense from hegemonic desires? The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was confronted with questions about the meaning of ‘threat of force’, it concluded that a threat of force is illegal when the actual use of force threatened would itself be unlawful; the ICJ rejected to identify that the mere possession of nuclear weapons was an unlawful threat of force. This suggests that the mere possession of nuclear weapons, despite their extremely threatening appearance, cannot be an actual pending threat, in the case of Iran,Show MoreRelated Just War and Pacifism Essay1892 Words   |  8 Pages The question Can war be justified? plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper