Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.


Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "PREVENTIVE WAR VS. PREEMPTIVE ACTION."— Presentation transcript:


2 I- Origins of the Concept (1/2)
9/11 Attacks on the World Trade Center : Global War On Terror President Bush Jr. Speech at the West Point Military Academy, June 1st 2002 : « If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long… We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge… 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. » National Security Strategy, September 2002 : « We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or our allies and friends… The greater the theat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking 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. »

3 I- Source of the Debate (2/2)
To « PRE-EMPT » : 3 meanings in English To « Prevent » : prévenir To « Forestall » : anticiper To « Preclude » : empêcher « Pre-empt » and to « Prevent » can be used interchangeably : « acting first » ≠ retaliation « Preemption » used repeatedly by US Officials but never explicitely defined in any speech : confusion fueled and manipulated by supporters of the « preemptive action » strategy « Pre-emption » used in a specific juridical context in French : transposed from English directly to the strategic field

Concepts : Definitions PREEMPTIVE ACTION PREVENTIVE WAR DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT : « Incontrovertible evidence » « Imminent attacks ». ACADEMIC COMMUNITY : Seize the initiative : « the first mover gains an important advantage » First move by the opponent is imminent. Incentive is two-sided : win-win Evidence of an attack in the short term. DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENT : Inevitable military conflict (not imminent) Delay involves great risk. ACADEMIC COMMUNITY : Favorable conditions : « Engage an opponent before it gains relative strength » Incentive is one-sided : « the declining state wants immediate war ». Perception of an attack in the longer term. Evidence Perception TEMPORAL PROXIMITY OF THE THREAT Preventive war : « Action based on foresight and free choice » Spectrum of Anticipation Preemptive Action : « Reflex action » 4

5 Objective : making a preventive war look like a preemptive action.
Preemptive or preventive in international law ? Preemptive action: Goal : Preventive self defense Legality : Yes if imminent threat Logic : defensive Ie : Caroline Affair 1837. Ie : Israeli attacks against the Egyptian Air Force in 1967. Preventive war : Goal : Preventive self defense Legality : No, distant and uncertain threat Logic : Offensive Ie : Destruction of the Iraqi powerplant in Osiraq (June 1981). Ie : Iraqi Freedom 2003. Objective : making a preventive war look like a preemptive action.

6 Side Effects to public discussion of pre-emption
Issues Definition problems Difficulty in defining the « imminence » of a threat : « Convergent Threat » : accuracy of estimations? Possibility of defining trigger points for action? Side Effects to public discussion of pre-emption Effects on potential adversaries : Goal : sending a deterrent message to rogue states regarding WMD proliferation and terrorist support. Risks : warning enemies and making rogue states more determined to acquire or maintain WMD. Effects on friends and allies : Goal : creating a consensus and preparing the public for « pre-emptive » use of force. Risks : alienating friends and allies.

7 Grey Zone = Converged threat
New Threats : Development of a « Grey Zone » Extension of the concept of « preemption ». Grey Zone = Converged threat 3 threats components : Rogue States Terrorists WMD Sources : FISH J.M., McCRAW S.J., REDDISH C.J., Fighting in the Gray zone: a strategy to close the preemption gap, Strategic Studies Institute Home, septembre 2004

8 Bibliography BOOKS BANNELIER K. et CHRISTAKIS T. dir., « L’intervention en Irak et le droit international », Colloque des 17 et 18 octobre 2003, CEDIN-Paris I, éd. Pedone, 2004  BATTISTELLA Dario, Retour à l’état de guerre, Armand Colin, Paris, 2006. BETTS Richard K., “Surprise Attack and Preemption,” in ALLISON Graham T., CARNESALE Albert, and NYE Joseph S., S.W.W. Joseph, eds. in Hawks, Doves, and Owls: An Agenda for Avoiding Nuclear War, Norton & Company, New York, 1985.  BLOKKER Niels & SCHRIJVER Nico, The Security Council and the use of force : theory and reality--a need for change ?, Leiden, Boston, 2005. CIMBALA Stephen J., Military Persuasion: Deterrence and Provocation in Crisis and War, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.  COUTEAU-BEGARIE Hervé, Traité de stratégie, Economica, Paris, 1999.  CORTEN Olivier, Le retour des guerres préventives : le droit international menacé, Labor, Bruxelles, 2003. DAVID Dominique, « Penser la sécurité dans un monde fluide », dans l’Annuaire français des Relations internationales, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2003.  Dictionary of Military Terms, Oxford, 2003.  FREEDMAN Lawrence, Deterrence, Cambridge Polity Press, 2004.  GADDIS John Lewis, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 2004. GROTIUS Hugo, Le droit de la guerre et de la paix, Caen, Centre de philosophie politique et juridique, 1984.  HAASS Richard N., Intervention: The Use of Military Force in the Post-Cold War World, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1994.  HARKAVY Robert E., Pre-emption and Two-Front Conventional Warfare: A Comparison of 1967 Israeli Strategy with the Pre-World War One German Schlieffen Plan Jerusalem Papers on Peace Problems no.23. Jerusalem, Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, 1977.

9 O'CONNELL Mary Ellen, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defence, Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism, 2002. PLESSIS Armand Jean Du, The Political Treatment of Cardinal Richelieu, Paris, Flammarion, 2004, Translated from Testament Politique (Amsterdam 1689). VAGTS Alfred, Defense and Diplomacy: The Soldier and the Conduct of Foreign Relations, King's Crown Press, 1956. VAN CREVELD Martin, La transformation de la guerre, Editions du Rocher, 1998. VAN EVERA Stephen, Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict, Cornell University Press, 1999.  VATTEL Emer de, The Law of Nations, Translated by Charles Fenwick, Carnegie Foundation, 1916.  VATTEL Emer de, Le Droit des Gens, Ou Principes de la Loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains, Genève, Éditions Slatkine Reprints et Institut Henry Dunant, 1983, tome II.  WALZER Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, New York, Basic Books, 1992. ARTICLES  BETTS Richard K., “A Nuclear Golden Age? The Balance before Parity,” International Security, Volume. 11, No. 3, Hivers BUHITE Russell D., & Hamel Wm. Christopher, “War for Peace: The Question of an American Preventive War Against the Soviet Union, ”, Diplomatic History, 1990.  BRODIE Bernard, “The Anatomy of Deterrence,” World Politics11.  BOOT Max, The Savage Wars of Peace, York N, Basic Books, 2002.  BUNN Elaine, “Preemptive Action: When, How, and to What Effect?,” Strategic Forum, n°200, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, July 2003. CORTEN O. & DUBUISSON F., « L’hypothèse d’une règle émergente fondant une intervention militaire sur une « autorisation implicite » du Conseil de sécurité », RGDIP, n°4, 2000.  CUMIN David, « L’ennemi dans les relations internationales. Le point de vue de Carl Schmitt », [en ligne] consulté sur : consulté le 10 février 2007.  EISEMANN P.-M., « Attaques du 11 septembre et exercice d’un droit naturel de légitime défense », in « Le droit international face au terrorisme »,  CEDIN Paris I, éd. Pedone, 2002.:// 39p.

FISH J.M., McCRAW S.J., REDDISH C.J., Fighting in the Gray zone: a strategy to close the preemption gap, Strategic Studies Institute Home, septembre 2004, 39p., consulté le 20 février 2007. GARCIA Thierry, « Recours à la force et droit international », Revue Perspectives Internationales et Européennes, Institut du Droit de la Paix et du Développement, n°1, 21 juillet 2005. GUERIN DE CHALON François, “A Work in Progress: The Bush Doctrine and Its Consequences,” International Law Quarterly, 2003. KAMPA Frank, « L’illégalité internationale des frappes préemptives et préventives », Le débat stratégique, septembre 2005. KEGLEY Charles W. Jr. & RAYMOND Gregory A., “Preventive War and Permissive Normative Order,” International Studies Perspectives4, no. 4, November 2003.  KHAN Tahir, « Doctrine Of Preemption: Analysis And Implications For South Asia », U.S. Army War College, 18 mars 2005.  LA GORCE Paul-Marie (de), « Ce dangereux concept de guerre préventive », Le Monde Diplomatique, Septembre 2002. consulté le 7 mars 2007.  MUELLER K.P., CASTILLO J.J., MORGAN F.E., PEGAHI N., ROSEN B., “Striking first Preemptive and Preventive attack in U.S. National Security Policy”, Rand Corporation, 2006, , 345p., consulté le 20 février 2007.  REITER Dan, “Exploding the Powder Keg Myth: Preemptive Wars Almost Never Happen,” International Security, 1995.  REITER Dan, “Preventing War and its Alternatives: the lessons of history”, Strategic Studies Institute Home, April 2005, 41p., consulté le 20 février 2007.  REITER Dan,”Preemptive wars”, International Security, 1995  SCHWELLER Randall L., “Domestic Structure and Preventive War: Are Democracies More Pacific?”, World Politics44 (January 1992).  WALDOCK C.H.M., “The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law”, Recueil des Cours, Académie de droit international, Paris, Sirey, 1952.  WECKEL Philippe, « Nouvelles pratiques américaines en matière de légitime défense ? », Annuaire français de relations internationales 128, 2005, p.2, en ligne : consulté le 10 février 2007.

11 SPEECHES  President BUSH George W., Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, The White House, Washington D.C., 20 septembre 2001, [en ligne] : consulté le 17 mars 2007. President BUSH George W., President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point, The White House, Washington D.C., 1er juin 2002, [en ligne] : consulté le 17 mars 2007. RICE Condoleezza, A Balance of Power That Favors Freedom, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, October 2002, [en ligne] : consulté le 15 mars 2007. WEBSITES  Charte des Nations Unies,  Organisation des Nations Unies,  Cour International de justice,  National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS),


Similar presentations

Ads by Google