CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the
time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by
our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. 182
Mindful, perhaps, of international concern expressed in response to the President’s
words at West Point, the National Security Strategy does offer a slightly more
conciliatory tone, recognizing the dangers inherent in promoting preventive war:
The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor
should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where
the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive
technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will
always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To
support preemptive options, we will:
build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely,
accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most
dangerous threats; and
continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct
rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the
United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear,
the force measured, and the cause just. 183
Although the term ‘pre-emptive’ is used, there seemed to many to be an implication, at
least, in the context of the term’s use that what was meant was ‘preventive’ in the sense
of the distinction established above. (See p221). It is worth, then, revisiting that
distinction and considering it in greater depth.
As we have already seen (specifically at Section 1.2.4 ) the UN Charter limits states’
right to use force to cases of self defence, and even then only ‘until the Security Council
has taken the measures necessary to re-establish international peace and security.’ 184
Moreover, the Charter appears to restrict acts of self defence to reaction to hostilities
already committed: ‘Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs …’ 185 (Emphasis added).
However, weight of opinion favours the argument expressed as follows by Hugh Beach:
‘It is clear that the term ‘inherent’ establishes that the right of self-defence has a basis in
customary international law preceding the UN Charter and in no way dependent upon
it.’ 186 Furthermore, that ‘inherent’ right is generally taken to include a right to take
225