| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
090716
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Eight years have past since the devastating September 11 attacks, and the USA has engaged in two wars in the name of uprooting global 'terrorism' and providing security to American citizens. The Bush administration bequeathed a legacy of two ongoing wars and growing threats emerging from 'terrorist' acts. This article analyses the future of the preventive war doctrine, formulated by the Bush administration, under international law. The article thus explores whether the preventive war doctrine has the potential to set a customary precedence, or whether it merely constitutes a breach of international law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
137554
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Anticipatory attacks come in two forms. Preemptive attacks are first strikes based on the assumption that the opponent has already set an attack in motion or is about to, and the purpose of the preemption is to mitigate or neutralize the effect of the enemy’s move. Preventive wars, on the other hand, are undertaken to preclude a threatening power from increasing its capabilities relative to ours, assuming that smaller differences in power will lead the challenger to become more risk acceptant. With respect to nuclear weapons, deterrence is intended to preclude both preemptive and preventive attacks, although the former is judged to be more likely than the latter. Leaders authorizing a nuclear preemption would need to have high confidence about the intentions as well as the capabilities of the other state, and the requirements for fine-grained intelligence would be considerable, prior to any actual launch of delivery systems. Seeing into the other side’s world view, regardless of its apparent rationality or lack thereof, would also be prudent before undertaking a decision of such magnitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
148137
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
ROBERT JERVIS argues that the Bush doctrine presents a highly ambitious conception of U.S. foreign policy. Based on the premise that this is a period of great threat and great opportunity, the doctrine calls for the assertion and expansion of American power in service of hegemony. He concludes that this assertion and expansion is not likely to succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|