Would the United States Doctrine of Preventative War Be Justified as a United Nations Doctrine?
The Bush doctrine of preventive war aims at meeting weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threats posed by rogue states and global terrorism. Some objections to the doctrine are that it violates international law, destabilizes international relations, and invites aggression. These objections would be less weighty once the authority to initiate preventive war would be limited to the Security Council of the United Nations. Even in this form, however, the doctrine is unacceptable because it would lead to selective and disproportionate resort to force decisions. Moreover, the preventive war doctrine in this collective form fails because it wrongly assumes that reliable future WMD threat assessments are possible and neglects the effectiveness of deterrence. The very notion of WMD in its current use must be questioned. Instead of seeking to articulate its own doctrine of preventive war, the United Nations would do better to focus on the problem of how to promote global peace in the face of US military hegemony.
Harry van der Linden. "Would the United States Doctrine of Preventative War Be Justified as a United Nations Doctrine?" Philosophical Reflections on the 'War on Terrorism'. Ed. Gail M. Presbey. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi Press, 2007. 141-160.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/harry_vanderlinden/18