Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.
Unsaved Work Found!
It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?
Total Categories: 6
Preemptive war is defined as a conflict initiated to repel or defeat a perceived offensive or invasion that is considered imminent.
Answer: True
Preemptive war is initiated to counter a threat that is imminent, meaning it is expected to occur very soon, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending, allegedly unavoidable war shortly before that attack materializes.
Preventive war is launched to counter a threat that is already underway, while preemptive war addresses potential future threats.
Answer: False
Preventive war is initiated to neutralize a potential threat that is not yet imminent, whereas preemptive war is launched in response to a threat that is imminent. The statement incorrectly describes preventive war as addressing a threat already underway.
Preventive war generally carries more social and legal stigma than preemptive war, with many scholars considering it illegitimate aggression.
Answer: True
Many contemporary scholars consider preventive war to be illegitimate aggression due to its initiation against a non-imminent threat, thus carrying greater social and legal stigma compared to preemptive war.
What is the primary distinction between preemptive war and preventive war?
Answer: Preemptive war targets an imminent threat, while preventive war targets a non-imminent threat.
The fundamental temporal difference is that preemptive war is initiated against an imminent threat, whereas preventive war is launched against a potential threat that is not yet immediate.
According to the source, which type of anticipatory war generally carries less stigma?
Answer: Preemptive war
The waging of a preemptive war generally carries less social and legal stigma than a preventive war, which many scholars consider illegitimate aggression.
According to the source, what is the primary intention behind launching a preemptive strike?
Answer: To gain the advantage of initiative and harm an adversary at a minimally protected moment.
The primary intention behind a preemptive strike is to secure the advantage of initiative and inflict harm upon an adversary when it is least prepared or most vulnerable.
What is the fundamental temporal difference between preemptive and preventive war?
Answer: Preemptive war addresses an imminent threat, while preventive war addresses a potential threat that is not yet immediate.
The primary temporal distinction lies in the immediacy of the threat: preemptive war targets an imminent threat, while preventive war targets a potential threat that has not yet materialized.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly permits states to initiate armed conflict if they believe it is necessary for self-defense, even without UN Security Council authorization.
Answer: False
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against a state's territorial integrity or political independence, requiring UN Security Council authorization for initiating armed conflict, except in cases of self-defense under Article 51.
The phrase 'if an armed attack occurs' in Article 51 of the UN Charter is interpreted by some scholars to mean that preemptive self-defense is not legally justified under the Charter without an actual armed attack.
Answer: True
Some scholars interpret Article 51's stipulation of 'if an armed attack occurs' to mean that preemptive self-defense is not legally permissible under the UN Charter unless an actual armed attack has already commenced.
Hugo Grotius, in the 17th century, argued against the concept of preemptive self-defense, stating that a state must wait for an attack to materialize before acting.
Answer: False
Contrary to the statement, Hugo Grotius, as early as 1625, established that a state's right of self-defense could encompass the right to forestall an attack by using force preemptively.
The *Caroline* affair in 1837 involved a diplomatic dispute over the seizure and burning of a ship, leading to the definition of conditions for preemptive action.
Answer: True
The *Caroline* affair, involving the seizure and burning of the ship *Caroline* by an Anglo-Canadian force within U.S. territory, resulted in a diplomatic exchange that helped define the conditions under which preemptive action might be considered justifiable.
Daniel Webster argued that preemptive force was justified if the threat was merely probable and allowed for deliberation on the best course of action.
Answer: False
Daniel Webster articulated that preemptive force was only justifiable if the necessity was 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,' indicating a requirement for more than mere probability or the opportunity for deliberation.
The *Caroline* test's formulation regarding the necessity of force being 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation' is considered a standard for preemptive action in customary international law.
Answer: True
The standard articulated in the *Caroline* affair, emphasizing the necessity of force being 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,' is widely recognized as a key benchmark for preemptive action within customary international law.
Which legal standard, established during the *Caroline* affair, defines the necessary conditions for preemptive force?
Answer: The necessity for force must be 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.'
The *Caroline* test established the standard that the necessity for preemptive force must be 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'.
What does Article 2(4) of the UN Charter primarily stipulate regarding the initiation of armed conflict?
Answer: States must refrain from initiating armed conflict unless authorized by the UN Security Council.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, meaning states should not initiate armed conflict without UN Security Council authorization.
What is the significance of the phrase 'if an armed attack occurs' in Article 51 of the UN Charter regarding preemptive war?
Answer: It is interpreted by some scholars to mean preemptive self-defense requires an actual armed attack.
The phrase 'if an armed attack occurs' in Article 51 is interpreted by some scholars to signify that preemptive self-defense is not legally justified under the UN Charter without a preceding armed attack.
Which of the following is considered a necessary condition for an act to be legally justified as self-defense under international law, according to the source?
Answer: The force used must be proportional to the harm threatened.
Proportionality, meaning the force used must be commensurate with the harm threatened, is considered a necessary condition for an act to be legally justified as self-defense under international law.
Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, the Austro-Hungarian Chief of the General Staff, consistently advocated for a preemptive war against Serbia starting in 1909.
Answer: True
Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf, the Austro-Hungarian Chief of the General Staff, repeatedly advocated for preemptive or preventive military action against Serbia, viewing it as a significant threat to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was seen by Austria-Hungary as a justification for a preemptive strike against Russia, not Serbia.
Answer: False
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 served as the immediate pretext for Austria-Hungary to initiate military action against Serbia, not Russia.
The League of Nations' effectiveness began to be questioned in the 1930s due to its inability to stop Japanese aggression in Manchuria.
Answer: True
The League of Nations faced significant challenges to its credibility in the 1930s, particularly when it failed to take decisive action against Japan's invasion of Manchuria.
Japan justified its actions during the Mukden Incident in 1931 by claiming it was a preemptive strike against an imminent Chinese invasion.
Answer: True
Japan claimed its actions during the Mukden Incident were a 'defensive war,' asserting it was preempting supposed aggressive Chinese intentions by staging an incident and framing it as a response to an imminent threat.
Evidence later confirmed that the Mukden Incident was indeed caused by Chinese sabotage, validating Japan's justification.
Answer: False
Subsequent evidence revealed that the railway line near Mukden was sabotaged by Japanese operatives, contradicting Japan's official justification of self-defense against Chinese aggression.
Germany fabricated the Gleiwitz incident to justify its invasion of Poland in 1939, falsely claiming Polish saboteurs initiated hostilities.
Answer: True
Germany staged the Gleiwitz incident, falsely claiming Polish saboteurs had initiated hostilities, as a pretext to justify its invasion of Poland in 1939.
How did Japan justify its actions during the Mukden Incident in 1931?
Answer: As a defensive war preempting supposed aggressive Chinese intentions.
Japan justified its actions during the Mukden Incident by claiming it was a 'defensive war,' asserting it was preempting supposed aggressive Chinese intentions by staging an incident.
What was Germany's fabricated justification for invading Poland in 1939?
Answer: Polish saboteurs initiated hostilities as part of a planned invasion of Germany.
Germany fabricated the Gleiwitz incident, claiming Polish saboteurs initiated hostilities as part of a planned invasion, to justify its invasion of Poland in 1939.
What was Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf's stance on Serbia prior to World War I?
Answer: He viewed Serbia as a threat and argued for preemptive war against it.
Franz Conrad von Hötzendorf viewed Serbia as a threat to Austria-Hungary and consistently advocated for preemptive military action against it prior to World War I.
What did subsequent evidence reveal about the cause of the Mukden Incident in 1931?
Answer: It was a planned provocation by Japanese operatives.
Subsequent evidence indicated that the Mukden Incident was orchestrated by Japanese operatives who sabotaged the railway line, contradicting Japan's claim of self-defense against Chinese aggression.
Following World War I, the concept of establishing international bodies to prevent future conflicts, like the League of Nations, gained prominence.
Answer: True
The devastating experience of World War I spurred the development of international cooperation aimed at preventing future conflicts, most notably leading to the establishment of the League of Nations.
The League of Nations' primary objective was to facilitate preemptive wars under specific circumstances to maintain peace.
Answer: False
The primary objective of the League of Nations was to prevent war altogether by promoting collective security and diplomacy, not to facilitate preemptive wars.
The devastation of World War II led to the creation of the United Nations, aiming to prevent wars, including preemptive ones.
Answer: True
The immense destruction caused by World War II reinforced the global imperative to prevent future conflicts, leading to the establishment of the United Nations as a successor to the League of Nations with the core mission of maintaining international peace and security.
Germany's defense at the Nuremberg trials for invading Norway was based on the claim that it was preempting an imminent Allied invasion.
Answer: True
At the Nuremberg trials, Germany argued that its invasion of Norway was a preemptive measure to forestall an imminent Allied invasion, citing Allied plans to occupy Norwegian territory.
The Nuremberg trials accepted Germany's justification for invading Norway, finding that an Allied invasion was indeed imminent.
Answer: False
The Nuremberg trials rejected Germany's justification for invading Norway, concluding that no Allied invasion was imminent at the time of the German attack.
The joint Soviet and British invasion of Iran in 1941 was justified as a preemptive measure to prevent an Axis coup in the region.
Answer: True
The invasion of Iran by the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom in August 1941 was conducted with the stated objective of preempting a potential Axis-backed coup within the country.
What was Germany's defense at the Nuremberg trials for invading Norway?
Answer: Germany was preempting an imminent Allied invasion of Norway.
Germany's defense at the Nuremberg trials for invading Norway was based on the claim that it was preempting an imminent Allied invasion of the country.
What was the stated objective of the joint Soviet and British invasion of Iran in August 1941?
Answer: To preempt an Axis coup in the region.
The joint invasion of Iran by the Soviet Union and Great Britain in August 1941 was officially justified as a preemptive measure to prevent an Axis-backed coup within the country.
What concept emerged after World War I aimed at preventing future conflicts?
Answer: The establishment of the League of Nations.
Following World War I, the concept of establishing international bodies to prevent future conflicts gained prominence, leading to the creation of the League of Nations.
The Nuremberg trials rejected Germany's justification for invading Norway because:
Answer: The trials found no Allied invasion of Norway was imminent at the time.
The Nuremberg trials rejected Germany's defense for invading Norway because they determined that no Allied invasion was imminent, thus invalidating the claim of preemptive necessity.
Israel's strategic doctrine incorporates preemptive war primarily due to its extensive strategic depth and secure borders.
Answer: False
Israel's strategic doctrine incorporates preemptive war primarily as a necessity stemming from its lack of strategic depth, rather than due to extensive strategic depth and secure borders.
The Six-Day War of 1967 is often cited as a prime example of preemptive war by the U.S. State Department.
Answer: True
The Six-Day War, initiated by Israel's preemptive strikes against Egypt, is frequently cited by the U.S. State Department as a significant example of preemptive warfare.
Academic criticism suggests Israel's preemptive attack in the Six-Day War met the *Caroline* test's criteria for necessity.
Answer: False
Academic criticism has argued that Israel's preemptive attack in the Six-Day War did not meet the *Caroline* test's criteria, contending that the threat was not sufficiently overwhelming or immediate.
The counter-proliferation self-help paradigm suggests that preemptive force may be justified by the proliferation of WMDs, even if the threat is not strictly imminent.
Answer: True
The counter-proliferation self-help paradigm posits that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction can create a threat sufficient to justify preemptive force, even if that threat is not strictly imminent, due to the potential for catastrophic consequences.
The counter-proliferation self-help paradigm suggests that preemptive force may be justified by the proliferation of WMDs, even if the threat is not strictly:
Answer: Imminent
The counter-proliferation self-help paradigm argues that preemptive force can be justified by the proliferation of WMDs, even when the threat is not strictly imminent, due to the potentially catastrophic nature of such weapons.
Which historical event is cited as a prime example of preemptive war by the U.S. State Department?
Answer: The Six-Day War of 1967.
The Six-Day War of 1967, which began with Israel's preemptive strikes, is frequently cited by the U.S. State Department as a prime example of preemptive war.
What criticism has been raised regarding Israel's preemptive attack in the Six-Day War in relation to the *Caroline* test?
Answer: It did not meet the *Caroline* test's criteria, as there was no overwhelming threat.
Academic criticism suggests that Israel's preemptive attack during the Six-Day War did not satisfy the *Caroline* test's requirement for necessity, arguing that the threat was not sufficiently overwhelming at the time.
Why does Israel incorporate preemptive war into its strategic doctrine?
Answer: To maintain a credible deterrent posture due to its lack of strategic depth.
Israel's strategic doctrine includes preemptive war as a means to maintain a credible deterrent posture, a necessity driven by its limited strategic depth.
Which of the following is cited as an example illustrating the counter-proliferation self-help paradigm by Guy Roberts?
Answer: The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962).
Guy Roberts cited the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) as an example illustrating the counter-proliferation self-help paradigm, alongside other instances like the U.S. attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant and the Israeli attack on Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak.
The George W. Bush administration justified the 2003 invasion of Iraq primarily by the threat of Saddam Hussein transferring WMDs to militant groups.
Answer: True
The primary justification offered by the George W. Bush administration for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was the asserted threat that Saddam Hussein might transfer Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to militant groups.
The Iraq Intelligence Commission's 2005 report confirmed that Iraq possessed significant stockpiles of biological weapons at the time of the 2003 invasion.
Answer: False
The Iraq Intelligence Commission's 2005 report concluded that Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons or a biological weapons capability at the time of the 2003 invasion.
Critics questioned the Bush administration's rationale for the Iraq invasion, suggesting that retaliation for the September 11 attacks might have been a factor.
Answer: True
Critics of the Bush administration's rationale for the Iraq invasion raised questions about the stated justifications, suggesting that retaliation for the September 11 attacks might have been an underlying motive.
Abraham David Sofaer identified the exhaustion of alternatives to force as the primary element for justifying preemptive action.
Answer: False
Abraham David Sofaer identified the nature and magnitude of the threat as the primary element for justifying preemptive action, alongside other factors such as the likelihood of realization and the exhaustion of alternatives.
Michael Walzer identified the existence of an intention to injure as one of three factors for evaluating the justification of a preemptive strike.
Answer: True
Michael Walzer identified three key factors for evaluating the justification of a preemptive strike: 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.
Which of the following is NOT one of the four key elements identified by Abraham David Sofaer for justifying preemptive action?
Answer: The existence of a formal UN Security Council resolution.
Abraham David Sofaer identified the nature and magnitude of the threat, the likelihood of its realization, and the availability and exhaustion of alternatives to force as key elements. The existence of a formal UN Security Council resolution was not listed as one of his primary criteria.
Michael Walzer identified three factors for evaluating the justification of a preemptive strike. Which of the following is one of those factors?
Answer: The undertaking of military preparations that increase the level of danger.
Michael Walzer identified 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 as the three factors for evaluating preemptive strikes.
What did the Iraq Intelligence Commission report in 2005 regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities at the time of the 2003 invasion?
Answer: Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons or a biological weapons capability.
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 2003 invasion.
According to James Fearon, what two factors contribute to rational states employing preemptive strikes?
Answer: Offensive advantages and commitment problems.
James Fearon posits that rational states may employ preemptive strikes due to offensive advantages, which make war more attractive than negotiation, and commitment problems, where states fear future exploitation by adversaries.
Which of the following best describes the Obama administration's approach to the Bush Doctrine?
Answer: It adopted and continued many of the policies associated with the Bush Doctrine.
The Obama administration maintained continuity with many policies previously established under the Bush Doctrine.
How does Fearon's model suggest declining powers might rationally employ preemptive strikes?
Answer: To avoid a worse future peace settlement if they anticipate unfavorable power shifts and lack assurances.
Fearon's model suggests that declining powers may rationally choose preemptive strikes to avoid a disadvantageous future peace settlement, particularly if they anticipate unfavorable shifts in military power and lack credible assurances from rising powers.
What did captured documents reveal about Saddam Hussein's intentions concerning Israel?
Answer: He planned to strike at Israel, stating 'there will not be any Israel' after a victory.
Captured documents indicated Saddam Hussein's intention to strike at Israel, with recorded statements suggesting that 'there will not be any Israel' after a victory and acknowledging Israel's efforts to harm Iraq.
Which of the following is NOT one of the three factors Michael Walzer identified for evaluating the justification of a preemptive strike?
Answer: The approval of the action by the United Nations.
Michael Walzer identified 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 as factors for justifying preemptive strikes. UN approval was not among these factors.