PREVENTIVE FORCE, GOING A STEP FURTHER

harry borowski esq, tulane university

Abstract

The 9/11 attacks and the 2003 Iraq War have led statesmen and scholars to reconsider their positions with regards to self-defense. Rogue states and terrorist organizations armed with sophisticated weapons present challenges that were unforeseen until now. In order to meet these threats some states have resorted to use anticipatory self-defense among which we can find the hotly debated notions of preemption and prevention.

This article raises the question of whether the notion of preventive force is starting to become an accepted means of anticipatory self-defense against threats originating from rogue states or terrorist organizations. This article claims that we have entered a slow evolution that will ultimately tend towards a broader acceptance of preventive force when used against rogue states that attempt to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

This article will discuss at length the differences between preventive and preemptive force both from scholarly and practical perspectives. Political philosophers such as Emmerich de Vattel and Michael Walzer will provide us with their insights as to the legitimacy of these notions, whereas a close study of some conflicts of this past half-century will provide us with an answer to the question raised above in practical terms.