In 2002 the Bush Administration published The National Security Strategy for the United States, in which it articulated the doctrine of preventive war. In a departure from international law as outlined in the UN Charter, which permits the use of force only in self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack, the Administration asserted that it would act against “emerging threats before they are fully formed.”
PROS
The UN Charter and international law have to catch up with today’s reality. Nations and nonstate groups have vastly more sophisticated ways of attacking a country than they did in the 1940s. The development of weap- ons of mass destruction (WMD) has changed the way we must look at security. The UN Charter should be amended to reflect this. Until it is, states have a right to defend themselves, even if it means engaging in preven- tive war.
History has shown that the UN and diplomacy in gen- eral are often ineffective. When its security is endangered and diplomatic means have been exhausted, a state has to the right to act unilaterally. Article 51 of the UN Charter preserves the “inherent right of individual or collective
CONS
The Bush Doctrine of preventive war creates a precedent that seriously threatens the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the World War II.
The US doctrine of preventive self-defense contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II: the prohibition of the unilat- eral use of force to settle disputes. The doctrine of pre-
1|The Debatabase Book
self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The US has the military might and economic power to prevent its enemies from building up the strength to attack. Acting when the threat is still small and man- ageable is more rational then dealing with it after it has become serious. Preventing the proliferation of WMD is much more efficient than waiting until they have been deployed.
The US is a superpower and should act like one when global stability is at stake. As the world’s only superpower, the US is responsible for maintaining global stability. It does not have to resort to war if diplomacy proves suc- cessful; however, war must be an option if diplomacy fails.
The US has the duty to protect its citizens. The world order established by the UN in 1945 could not protect the US from terrorist attacks in 2001. Terrorists are not concerned with international law or morality. The pri- mary responsibility of the US government is to prevent future attacks on its people.
ventive war is a recipe for conflict, precipitating wars that might never otherwise have begun.
The Bush Doctrine contributes to global tension. Some states will arm to defend themselves from a preventive war, while others will arm because they want to attack an aggressor who has killed innocent civilians. Some rogue nations will determine that they can avoid a preventive war by acquiring nuclear weapons. Thus, the doctrine of preventive war will stimulate nuclear proliferation. The Bush Doctrine does not achieve the purpose for which it was originally articulated.
The UN was established with the supreme purpose of taking collective action to remove threats to peace. Moreover, the UN Charter requires that all members settle their international disputes by peaceful means. By initiating a preventive war without the UN’s consent, the US has the potential to destabilize the global politi- cal situation and put in danger the peace, security, and justice that states have tried to preserve since the UN was established.
A preventive war lacks any moral justification because it runs counter to the UN Charter, which stipulates that violence is permissible only in response to an imminent threat or open aggression. As we have seen, US devia- tion from international law in this regard has had serious consequences, creating instability in the Muslim world, isolating the US from its allies, and contributing to the growth of terrorism.
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House believes that the US should not engage in preventive war without the consent of the UN. This House believes that the Bush Doctrine guarantees security from future attacks.
This House believes that states should pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multilateral solutions cannot be found.
Web Links:
• The Defense Strategy Review Page. <http://www.comw.org/qdr/preventivewar.html> Articles supporting and condemning pre- ventive war.
• The National Security Strategy of the United States. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf> Document outlining the secu- rity strategy of the Bush Administration.
• “Preventive War” and International Law after Iraq. <http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm#_ Toc41379606> Article presenting the legal position for opposing preventive war.
• U.S. Department of State. <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/ijpe1202.htm> Elaboration on the Bush Administra- tion’s national security strategy by high administration officials.