What is the definition of a preemptive war?

A preemptive war is a conflict initiated 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. It is a war commenced in anticipation of immediate aggression.

How does preemptive war differ from preventive war?

Preemptive war is launched in response to a threat that is imminent, meaning it is expected to occur very soon. Preventive war, conversely, is initiated to neutralize a potential threat that is not yet imminent, aiming to prevent a future conflict altogether.

Which type of anticipatory war generally carries less stigma, preemptive or preventive?

The waging of a preemptive war generally carries less stigma than the waging of a preventive war. Many contemporary scholars consider preventive war to be aggression and therefore illegitimate.

What does Article 2(4) of the UN Charter stipulate regarding the initiation of armed conflict?

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires that states refrain from the initiation of armed conflict, meaning they should not be the first to 'break the peace,' unless authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action.

How is the phrase 'if an armed attack occurs' in Article 51 of the UN Charter interpreted in relation to preemptive war?

The phrase 'if an armed attack occurs' in Article 51 of the UN Charter is seen as drawing the line between legitimate and illegitimate military force. Some scholars argue that without an actual armed attack, preemptive 'self-defense' is not legally justified under the Charter, while others contend that Article 51's inherent right of self-defense includes anticipatory self-defense recognized in customary international law.

What was Hugo Grotius's early perspective on a state's right to self-defense concerning preemptive action?

As early as 1625, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius established that a state's right of self-defense could encompass the right to forestall an attack by using force preemptively.

What legal precedent regarding preemptive wars was established by the *Caroline* affair?

The *Caroline* affair in 1837 set a legal precedent by involving an Anglo-Canadian force crossing into the United States to seize and burn the ship *Caroline*, owned by rebels. This incident led to a diplomatic exchange defining conditions for preemptive action.

What was Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf's stance on Serbia prior to World War I?

Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, the Austro-Hungarian Chief of the General Staff, argued for a preemptive war against Serbia in 1913. Some historians also note he proposed a preventive war against Serbia numerous times starting in 1909, viewing Serbia as a threat to Austria-Hungary.

How did the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand relate to the outbreak of World War I and preemptive war concepts?

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 served as the immediate pretext for Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia, triggering the events that led to World War I. While preemptive or preventive actions against Serbia had been discussed, the assassination provided the catalyst.

What significant concept regarding the prevention of future wars emerged after World War I?

Following the destructive experience of World War I, the concept of 'the war to end war' gained traction, leading to the establishment of the League of Nations with the primary goal of preventing future conflicts.

What was the primary objective of the League of Nations concerning the initiation of war?

The primary objective of the League of Nations was to prevent war. Its member states agreed to desist from initiating any wars, whether preemptive or otherwise.

When did the League of Nations' effectiveness in preventing wars begin to be questioned, and why?

The League of Nations' effectiveness started to be questioned in the 1930s when it proved incapable of halting aggression by Imperial Japan in Manchuria, highlighting its limitations.

How did Japan justify its actions during the Mukden Incident in Manchuria?

During the Mukden Incident in 1931, Japan claimed its actions in Manchuria were a 'defensive war,' asserting it was preempting supposed aggressive Chinese intentions by blowing up a railway line, thereby defending itself.

What did evidence later reveal about the Mukden Incident's cause?

Subsequent evidence indicated that the railway line near Mukden was actually sabotaged by Japanese operatives, contradicting Japan's official justification of self-defense against Chinese aggression.

What justification did Germany provide for its invasion of Poland in 1939?

Germany claimed its invasion of Poland was a 'defensive war,' alleging that Polish saboteurs had initiated hostilities as part of a larger planned invasion of Germany. This claim was later found to be fabricated as part of the Gleiwitz incident.

How did the experience of World War II influence the establishment of the United Nations?

The widespread devastation of World War II reinforced the desire to end all war, leading to the creation of the United Nations as a successor to the League of Nations, with the core mission of preventing wars, including preemptive ones.

What was Germany's defense at the Nuremberg trials concerning its invasion of Norway?

At the Nuremberg trials, Germany argued that its invasion of Norway was preemptive, stating it was compelled to act to forestall an imminent Allied invasion of the country.

What was the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials regarding Germany's justification for invading Norway?

The Nuremberg trials determined that no Allied invasion of Norway was imminent at the time of Germany's attack, and therefore rejected Germany's argument that its actions were justified as preemptive.

What was the stated objective of the joint Soviet and British invasion of Iran in August 1941?

The joint Soviet and British invasion of Iran in August 1941 was conducted with the aim of preempting an Axis coup in the region.

What is the primary reason Israel incorporates preemptive war into its strategic doctrine?

Israel incorporates preemptive war into its strategic doctrine primarily to maintain a credible deterrent posture, a necessity stemming from its lack of strategic depth.

How is the Six-Day War of 1967 commonly characterized in discussions of preemptive war?

The Six-Day War, which began with Israel's preemptive strikes against Egypt on June 5, 1967, is widely described as a preemptive war and is often cited by the U.S. State Department as a prime example.

Besides 'preemptive war,' what other terms have been used to describe the Six-Day War?

The Six-Day War has also been referred to as a preventive war by some, while others have described it as an act of 'interceptive self-defense'.

What criticism has been raised regarding Israel's actions in the Six-Day War in relation to the *Caroline* test?

An academic criticism suggests that Israel's preemptive attack in the Six-Day War did not meet the *Caroline* test's criteria, arguing that there was no overwhelming threat to Israel's survival at the time.

What was the main justification provided by the George W. Bush administration for the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

The George W. Bush administration justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq by claiming it was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from deploying Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and that these WMDs could be transferred to militant groups, posing a significant risk to national security.

What did the Iraq Intelligence Commission report in 2005 concerning Iraq's WMD capabilities?

The Iraq Intelligence Commission's 2005 report confirmed that Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons or a biological weapons capability at the time of the invasion.

What have critics questioned regarding the rationale behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Critics have questioned the administration's true intentions for invading Iraq, suggesting that retaliation for the September 11 attacks might have been a factor, rather than solely the stated WMD threat.

What are the four key elements identified by Abraham David Sofaer for justifying preemptive action?

Sofaer identified four elements: 1) the nature and magnitude of the threat, 2) the likelihood of the threat's realization without preemptive action, 3) the availability and exhaustion of alternatives to force, and 4) consistency with the UN Charter and applicable international agreements.

What three factors did Michael Walzer identify for evaluating the justification of a preemptive strike?

Michael Walzer, as cited by Mark R. Amstutz, identified three factors: the existence of an intention to injure, the undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger, and the need to act immediately due to a higher degree of risk.

What is the core argument of the 'counter-proliferation self-help paradigm' regarding preemptive war?

The counter-proliferation self-help paradigm argues that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by rogue nations creates a threat sufficient to justify preemptive force, even if the threat is not strictly 'imminent,' due to the potential for catastrophic destruction.

What examples did Guy Roberts cite to illustrate the counter-proliferation self-help paradigm?

Guy Roberts cited the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the U.S. attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant (1998), and the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak (1981) as examples of this paradigm.

How did Guy Roberts view the subsequent scholarly opinion on the Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear facility?

Roberts noted that while few legal scholars supported the Osirak attack at the time, subsequent events led some to re-evaluate it, arguing that it was justified under anticipatory self-defense.

What did captured documents reveal about Saddam Hussein's intentions concerning Israel?

Captured documents confirmed Saddam Hussein's intentions to strike at Israel, with one recorded conversation showing him stating that after a victory, 'there will not be any Israel' and acknowledging Israel's efforts to harm Iraq.

What can be said about the Obama administration's approach to the Bush Doctrine?

Following the Bush administration, the Obama administration adopted and continued many of the policies associated with the Bush Doctrine.

What is the primary intention behind launching a preemptive strike?

The primary intention behind a preemptive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm an adversary at a moment when it is minimally protected, such as during transport or mobilization.

According to James Fearon, what two factors contribute to rational states employing preemptive strikes?

James Fearon attributes the use of preemptive strikes by rational states to both offensive advantages and commitment problems between states. These factors can narrow the range for peaceful settlements and incentivize preemptive action.

How does Fearon's model explain preemptive strikes by declining powers?

Fearon's model suggests that if a state anticipates an unfavorable shift in military power in the future and lacks credible assurances from the rising power, it may rationally launch a preemptive strike to avoid a worse future peace settlement.

How does the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force relate to preemptive war?

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence. This general prohibition means preemptive wars must be carefully justified, often under the exception of self-defense as outlined in Article 51.

What two conditions are widely considered necessary for an act to be legally justified as self-defense under international law?

Two conditions are widely regarded as necessary: first, the actor must genuinely believe the threat is real, not merely perceived; and second, the force used in self-defense must be proportional to the harm threatened.

What is the fundamental temporal difference between preemptive and preventive war?

The fundamental temporal difference lies in the immediacy of the threat: preemptive war is launched against an imminent threat, while preventive war is launched against a potential threat that is not yet immediate.

What was the U.S. Secretary of State's stance in the *Caroline* affair regarding the justification for preemptive force?

U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster stated that preemptive force is only justifiable when the necessity is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,' and he argued these conditions were not met in the *Caroline* affair.

What perceived threat motivated Conrad von Hötzendorf's calls for war against Serbia before World War I?

Conrad von Hötzendorf viewed Serbia as an aggressive and expansionist power that posed a threat to Austria-Hungary, particularly concerning its influence in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

What major factor contributed to the outbreak of World War II, according to the text?

The perceived powerlessness of the League of Nations to prevent aggression by nations like Germany and Italy was a significant contributing factor to the outbreak of World War II.

What Allied plans did Germany cite as a reason for its invasion of Norway?

Germany cited Allied plans, such as Plan R 4 and Operation Wilfred, which involved occupying Norwegian cities and laying mines in Norwegian waters, as justification for its preemptive invasion to forestall an Allied occupation.

What was the perceived justification for Israel's preemptive strike in the Six-Day War?

Israel's preemptive strike in the Six-Day War was justified by the perception that Egypt's collective actions indicated an imminent armed attack, even if no single action constituted an immediate armed attack.

What was the specific concern regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged WMDs that fueled the Bush administration's preemptive war argument for the Iraq invasion?

The specific concern was that Saddam Hussein's WMDs could be transferred to militant groups, thereby posing a significant and immediate risk to national security.

What is the first element identified by Abraham David Sofaer as crucial for justifying preemptive war?

The first element Sofaer identified as crucial for justifying preemptive war is the nature and magnitude of the threat involved.

What is the second factor identified by Michael Walzer for evaluating the justification of preemptive strikes?

The second factor identified by Michael Walzer is the undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger.

How do 'offensive advantages' contribute to preemptive war according to James Fearon?

According to Fearon, offensive advantages contribute to preemptive war by narrowing the bargaining range for peaceful settlements. If a state believes it has a high probability of winning a war due to such advantages, it may opt for preemptive action.

What is the general scholarly view on the legality of preemptive self-defense under the UN Charter when no armed attack has yet occurred?

Some scholars believe that if no armed attack has yet occurred, there is no automatic legal justification for preemptive 'self-defense' under the UN Charter, as it requires an 'armed attack' to trigger Article 51.

Preemptive War Wiki: The Calculus of Conflict: Understanding Preemptive Warfare

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Defining Preemptive War

Core Concept

A preemptive war is initiated to counter a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to secure a strategic advantage in an impending conflict that is deemed unavoidable. It represents an action taken to 'break the peace' just prior to an anticipated hostile act.

Distinction from Preventive War

It is crucial to differentiate preemptive war from preventive war. While preemptive action addresses an immediate threat, preventive war aims to neutralize a potential future threat that is not yet imminent. The U.S. Department of Defense defines preventive war as conflict initiated when military confrontation is considered inevitable, but not immediate, and delaying action would increase risk. Preventive war generally carries a greater ethical and legal stigma, often being equated with aggression.

Historical Context

The concept of preemptive self-defense has roots in international law, notably articulated in the Caroline affair. This legal precedent established criteria for the use of force, requiring necessity to be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

Theoretical Underpinnings

Rationalist Explanations

Scholars like James Fearon suggest rational states may engage in preemptive strikes due to the interplay of offensive advantages and commitment problems. When a state perceives a future shift in military power that erodes the bargaining range for peaceful settlements, and lacks credible assurances from the adversary, it may rationally choose preemptive action to avoid a worse outcome later.

Commitment Problems

A key driver for preemptive action arises when states cannot credibly commit to future peaceful behavior. If a state anticipates gaining a significant military advantage, it might be incentivized to renege on prior agreements. The state facing decline may then initiate conflict preemptively, not out of fear of an immediate attack, but to prevent a future settlement that is less favorable than one achievable in the present.

Strategic Intent

The fundamental intention behind a preemptive strike is to seize the initiative and inflict damage upon an adversary during a period of vulnerability, such as during troop mobilization or transit. This aims to neutralize a threat before it can fully materialize and potentially inflict greater harm.

Historical Precedents

Early Concepts and Pre-WWI

Jurists like Hugo Grotius recognized a state's right to forestall an attack forcibly. The Caroline affair (1837) established a legal precedent for preemptive force, requiring "instant, overwhelming necessity." Pre-WWI, figures like Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf advocated for preemptive war against Serbia, though these actions are often debated as preventive rather than strictly preemptive.

Interwar Period and WWII

The perceived failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s, exemplified by Japan's actions in Manchuria (claiming a "defensive war" after fabricating an incident) and the subsequent rise of aggressive powers like Germany and Italy, highlighted the limitations of collective security. The outbreak of World War II saw instances like the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran (preempting an Axis coup) and Germany's invasion of Norway, where preemptive justifications were later debated and often rejected.

German Invasion of Norway (1940): Germany claimed necessity to forestall an Allied invasion. The Nuremberg trials rejected this, finding no imminent Allied threat.
Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran (1941): Conducted to preempt a potential Axis coup, demonstrating a preemptive action based on strategic concerns.

The Six-Day War (1967)

Israel's preemptive strike against Egypt is frequently cited as a prime example of preemptive warfare. Israel's doctrine emphasizes preemptive action due to its lack of strategic depth. While described as preemptive, preventive, or "interceptive self-defense," its justification under the Caroline test remains a subject of academic debate, with some arguing the threat was not sufficiently imminent.

Invasion of Iraq (2003)

The doctrine of preemption gained prominence with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Bush administration cited the need to counter Saddam Hussein's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) as justification. However, subsequent intelligence reviews found no evidence of active WMD programs, leading to significant criticism regarding the administration's rationale and the application of preemptive war doctrine.

Sofaer's Elements: Abraham David Sofaer outlined four criteria: threat magnitude, likelihood of realization, exhaustion of alternatives, and consistency with the UN Charter.
Walzer's Criteria: Michael Walzer proposed three factors: intention to injure, military preparations indicating danger, and the necessity for immediate action due to heightened risk.
Counter-Proliferation Paradigm: Argues that the acquisition of WMDs by rogue states creates a sufficient threat, justifying preemptive action even if an attack is not imminent. Examples include the Osirak nuclear facility raid (1981).

Legal and Ethical Dimensions

UN Charter Framework

The UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4), prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 51 recognizes the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" if an armed attack occurs. This phrasing is central to debates on preemptive action.

Anticipatory Self-Defense

A significant legal debate centers on whether Article 51 implicitly includes the right to anticipatory self-defense, as recognized under customary international law (e.g., the Caroline test). Proponents argue that the right to self-defense extends to actions taken against an imminent threat, even before an attack has technically commenced. Critics contend that the Charter's language requires an actual armed attack.

Conditions for Justification

For preemptive action to be considered legitimate self-defense, two primary conditions are generally accepted:

The actor must genuinely believe the threat is real and imminent.
The force used must be proportional to the anticipated harm.

Failure to meet these criteria can render preemptive action unlawful aggression.

Strategic Intention

Gaining Initiative

The primary strategic intention of preemptive warfare is to secure the advantage of initiative. By striking first, a state aims to disrupt the adversary's plans and capabilities before they can be fully deployed or executed.

Minimizing Adversary's Protection

Preemptive action seeks to exploit moments when the adversary is least prepared or most vulnerable. This could involve striking during periods of mobilization, transit, or when defensive systems are not fully operational, thereby maximizing the impact of the initial strike.

Analytical Frameworks

Evaluating Preemption

Assessing the legitimacy of preemptive war involves rigorous analysis of several factors. Scholars have proposed frameworks to guide this evaluation, focusing on the nature of the threat, the certainty of its materialization, and the availability of non-violent alternatives.

Key Analytical Criteria

Prominent criteria include:

Threat Assessment: Evaluating the magnitude and likelihood of the perceived threat.
Exhaustion of Alternatives: Confirming that diplomatic and non-military options have been fully pursued and exhausted.
Proportionality: Ensuring that the military response is commensurate with the threat faced.
UN Charter Compliance: Aligning the action with the principles and provisions of international law.

WMD Proliferation Context

In the context of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), arguments for preemption have evolved. The "counter-proliferation self-help paradigm" suggests that the mere acquisition of WMDs by states deemed "rogue" can constitute a sufficient threat to justify preemptive action, even in the absence of immediate plans for their use. This perspective broadens the traditional understanding of imminence.

Related Concepts

Legal Frameworks

Explore related legal principles governing the use of force, such as jus ad bellum, the UN Charter's provisions on self-defense, and the historical Caroline test.

Strategic Doctrines

Understand various national security doctrines and strategic concepts that inform decisions regarding preemptive and preventive warfare, including deterrence theory and power projection.

Counterpoints

Consider perspectives on pacifism, anti-war movements, and the ethical arguments against preemptive and preventive warfare, which emphasize the importance of diplomacy and adherence to international law.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Preemptive War" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about preemptive_war while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

bruxism

kingdom of armenia antiquity

control and reporting centre

trials and allegations involving silvio berlusconi

2006 wnba draft

References

"The Diplomatic and Official Papers of Daniel Webster While Secretary of State" pp. 105, 110 (Harper & Bros. 1848).

Myres Smith McDougal, Florentino P. Feliciano, The International Law of War: Transnational Coercion and World Public Order" pp. 211, 212

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)

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

Steven C. Welsh, Preemptive War and International Law Center for Defense Information, 5 December 2003

David, and Henry Shue. Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

A full list of references for this article are available at the Preemptive war Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This content has been generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It is based on publicly available data and may not reflect the most current understanding or all nuances of the subject matter.

This is not professional advice. The information provided herein does not constitute legal, strategic, or military counsel. Readers should consult with qualified professionals for advice tailored to specific situations and always refer to official documentation and established legal frameworks. Reliance on this information is solely at the user's own risk.

The creators of this page are not liable for any errors, omissions, or actions taken based on the information presented.

The Calculus of Conflict

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Defining Preemptive War ❓

⚔️ Core Concept

⚖️ Distinction from Preventive War

📜 Historical Context

Theoretical Underpinnings 🧠

📊 Rationalist Explanations

🤝 Commitment Problems

🎯 Strategic Intent

Historical Precedents 📜

🏛️ Early Concepts and Pre-WWI

🌍 Interwar Period and WWII

🇮🇱 The Six-Day War (1967)

🇮🇶 Invasion of Iraq (2003)

Legal and Ethical Dimensions ⚖️

📜 UN Charter Framework

🤔 Anticipatory Self-Defense

✅ Conditions for Justification

Strategic Intention 🎯

🚀 Gaining Initiative

💥 Minimizing Adversary's Protection

Analytical Frameworks 📊

🧐 Evaluating Preemption

📚 Key Analytical Criteria

💡 WMD Proliferation Context

Related Concepts 🔗

⚖️ Legal Frameworks

🛡️ Strategic Doctrines

🕊️ Counterpoints

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Defining Preemptive War

Core Concept

Distinction from Preventive War

Historical Context

Theoretical Underpinnings

Rationalist Explanations

Commitment Problems

Strategic Intent

Historical Precedents

Early Concepts and Pre-WWI

Interwar Period and WWII

The Six-Day War (1967)

Invasion of Iraq (2003)

Legal and Ethical Dimensions

UN Charter Framework

Anticipatory Self-Defense

Conditions for Justification

Strategic Intention

Gaining Initiative

Minimizing Adversary's Protection

Analytical Frameworks

Evaluating Preemption

Key Analytical Criteria

WMD Proliferation Context

Related Concepts

Legal Frameworks

Strategic Doctrines

Counterpoints

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Disclaimer

Important Notice