CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

Geoff Hoon argued that ‘… there was a threat, if not to the United Kingdom in the short
term, then to our friends and allies in the Gulf region, as well as to the wider stability of
the world if we had not intervened to deal with weapons of mass destruction in the
hands of a regime like Saddam Hussein's. To that extent it was just.’ 179
Earlier, in 2002, US President George W Bush expounded what has widely been
deemed a doctrine of preventive war, in an address at a US Military Academy
Graduation Parade 180 :
For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War
doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still
apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of
massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist
networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when
unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those
weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot
put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties,
and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we
will have waited too long.
….. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and
resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty
and to defend our lives. (Emphasis added)
The speech at West Point trailed ideas that were to be formally articulated in the US
2002 National Security Strategy 181 :
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack
before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that
present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists
often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent
threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces
preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives
of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using
conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on
acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons
that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.
… ….
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the
greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking
224