Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-6rxlm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T03:29:15.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - The ‘armed attack’ requirement ratione temporis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

Tom Ruys
Tom Ruys
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Get access

Summary

Alas, the controversy continues. Indeed, although Article 51 UN Charter permits the exercise of self-defence ‘if an armed attack occurs’, a number of authors were quick to point out that the provision did not abrogate the pre-existing customary right of anticipatory self-defence. In addition, they stressed that, in a world gone nuclear, it would be absurd to expect States to await the first – and potentially devastating – blow. In accordance with the famous Webster formula, legacy of the 1837 Caroline incident, States should be allowed to resort to armed force when faced with an imminent threat of attack giving rise to a ‘necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation’. For most of the Charter era, however, a majority of legal doctrine has cautioned against such broad reading of self-defence, allegedly incompatible with the text and aim of Article 51. More importantly, absent an unequivocal precedent receiving broad international support, it arguably did not experience a breakthrough of any sort. Rather, it kept a slumbering existence, fuelling a never-ending doctrinal debate, and dangling over the Ius ad Bellum like the Sword of Damocles.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks the Sword of Damocles came down hard and unexpectedly. The unprecedented attacks against United States territory led US officials and policy-makers to engage in a fundamental reappraisal of the global security environment, culminating in the adoption by the Bush administration of the US National Security Strategy (NSS) in September 2002.

Type
Chapter
Information
'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter
Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice
 , pp. 250 - 367
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Jennings, R., ‘The Caroline and McLeod cases’, (1938) 32 American Journal of International Law82–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, W.M. and Armstrong, A., ‘The past and future of the claim of preemptive self-defense’, (2006) 100 American Journal of International Law525–50Google Scholar
Kolb, R., ‘Self-defence and preventive war at the beginning of the millennium’, (2004) 59 ZÖR111–34, at 122–4Google Scholar
Christakis, T., ‘Vers une reconnaissance de la notion de guerre préventive?’, in Bannelier, K., Christakis, T., Corten, O. and Klein, P. (eds.), L'intervention en Irak et le droit international (Paris: Pedone, 2004), pp. 9–45Google Scholar
Greenwood, C., ‘International law and the pre-emptive use of force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida, and Iraq’, (2003) 4 San Diego ILJ7–37, at 9Google Scholar
Gill, T. D., ‘The temporal dimension of self-defense: anticipation, pre-emption, prevention and immediacy’, in Schmitt, M. N. and Pejic, J. (eds.), International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines: essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff) (2007), pp. 113–55, at 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwehm, J., ‘Präventive Selbstverteidigung: eine vergleichende Analyse der völkerrechtlichen Debatte’, (2008) 46 Archiv des Völkerrechts368–406, at 369–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahier, P., ‘Changements et continuité du droit international’, (1985-VI) 195 Recueil des Cours9–374, at 73Google Scholar
Schachter, O., ‘The lawful resort to unilateral use of force’, (1985) 10 Yale Journal of International Law291–4, at 293Google Scholar
Combaceau, J. and Sur, S., Droit international public, 6th edn. (Paris: Montchrestien, 2004), p. 628Google Scholar
Verdross, A. and Simma, B., Universelles Völkerrecht: Theorie und Praxis, 3rd edn. (Berlin: Dunker un Humblot, 1984), p. 288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmon, S., ‘Changing views on the use of force: the German position’, (2005) 5 Baltic YBIL41–76, at 61Google Scholar
Dinstein, Y., War, aggression and self-defence, 4th edn. (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corten, O., Le droit contre la guerre; l'interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain (Paris: Pedone, 2008), p. 626Google Scholar
Constantinou, A., The right of self-defence under customary international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter (Brussels: Bruylant, 2000), p. 125Google Scholar
Gazzini, T., The changing rules on the use of force in international law (Manchester University Press, 2005), p. 151Google Scholar
Schwebel, S. M., ‘Aggression, intervention and self-defence in modern international law’, (1972-II) 136 Recueil des Cours411–97, at 479–82Google Scholar
Hole, L., ‘Anticipatory self-defence under international law’, (2003) 19 American Un ILRev69–106Google Scholar
Waldock, C.H.M., ‘The regulation of the use of force by individual states in international law’, (1952-II) 81 Recueil des Cours451–517, at 496–9Google Scholar
Bowett, D.W., Self-defence in international law (Manchester University Press, 1958), pp. 178–93Google Scholar
McDougal, M. S., ‘The Soviet–Cuban quarantine and self-defense’, (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law597–604, at 597–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malanczuk, P., ‘Countermeasures and self-defence as circumstances precluding wrongfulness in the International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State Responsibility’, (1983) 43 German Yearbook of International Law705–812, at 764Google Scholar
Fleck, D., ‘Rules of engagement of maritime forces and the limitation of the use of force under the UN Charter’, (1989) 31 German Yearbook of International Law165–86, at 176Google Scholar
Higgins, R., Problems and process: international law and how we use it (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 242–3Google Scholar
Moore, J. N., ‘The secret war in Central America and the future world order’, (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law43–127, at 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassese, A., ‘Article 51’, in Cot, J.-P. and Pellet, A., La Charte des Nations Unies, 3rd edn. (Paris: Economica, 2005), pp. 1329–61, at 1336Google Scholar
Randelzhofer, A., ‘Article 51’, in Simma, B. in collabaration with Mosler, H., Randelzhofer, A., Tomuschat, C. and Wolfrüm, R. (eds.), The Charter of the United Nations: a commentary. Vol. I (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 788–806, at 803Google Scholar
McDougal, M.S. and Feliciano, F.P., Law and minimum world public order: the legal regulation of international coercion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961), p. 237Google Scholar
Walker, G.K., ‘Anticipatory collective self-defense in the Charter era: what the treaties have said’, (1998) 31 Cornell International Law Journal321–76, at 357–9Google Scholar
,Judgment of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), 1 October 1946, reproduced in (1947) 41 American Journal of International Law172–333CrossRef
Brownlie, I., International law and the use of force by states (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunz, J.L., ‘Individuals and collective self-defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations’, (1947) 41 American Journal of International Law872–9, at 878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessup, P. C., A modern law of nations: an introduction (New York: MacMillan, 1948), p. 166Google Scholar
Kelsen, H., The Law of the United Nations: a critical analysis of its fundamental problems (London: Stevens, 1950), pp. 797–8Google Scholar
Wehberg, H., ‘L'interdiction du recours à la force. Le principe et les problèmes qui se posent’, (1951-I) 78 Recueil des Cours1–121, at 81–2Google Scholar
Wright, Q., ‘The Cuban quarantine’, (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law546–65, at 560–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arechaga, J., ‘International law in the past third of a century’, (1978-I) 159 Recueil des Cours1–344, at 95–7Google Scholar
Henkin, L., How nations behave. Law and foreign policy, 2nd edn. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), pp. 140–4Google Scholar
Lachs, M., ‘The development and general trends of international law in our time’, (1980-IV) 169 Recueil des Cours9–377, at 164Google Scholar
D'Amato, A., ‘Israel's strike upon the Iraqi nuclear reactor’, (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law584–8, at 588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokor-Szegö, H., ‘The attitude of socialist States towards the international regulation of the use of force’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The current legal regulation of the use of force (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1986), pp. 453–77, at 465Google Scholar
Abi-Saab, G., ‘Cours général de droit international public’, (1987-III) 207 Recueil des Cours9–463, at 371Google Scholar
Kolesnik, D. N., ‘The development of the right to self-defence’, in Butler, W.E. (ed.), The non-use of force in international law (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989), pp. 153–9, at 154–5Google Scholar
Sicilianos, L.-A., Les réactions décentralisées à l'illicité: des contre-mesures à la légitime défense (Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1990), pp. 395Google Scholar
Ago, R., ‘Addendum to the 8th Report on State Responsibility’, (1980-II) 32 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Part One, 65–6Google Scholar
Bothe, M., ‘Terrorism and the legality of pre-emptive force’, (2003) 14 European Journal of International Law227–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapira, A., ‘The Six-Day War and the right of self-defence’, (1971) 6 Israeli LRev 65–80, at 71.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M., Recourse to force: State action against threats and armed attacks (Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malanczuk, P. and Akehurst, M., Akehurst's modern introduction to international law, 7th edn. (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 312Google Scholar
,International Law Commission, ‘Commentary on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’, (2001-II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission128Google Scholar
Dugard, J., International law: a South African perspective, 3rd edn. (Cape Town: Juta, 2005), p. 508Google Scholar
Macdonald, R.S.J., ‘The Nicaragua case: new answers to old question?’, (1986) 24 Can YBIL127–60, at 154Google Scholar
Zoller, E., ‘The law applicable to the preemption doctrine’, (2004) 98 American Society of International Law Proc 333–7, at 335Google Scholar
Dinstein, Y., War, aggression and self-defence, 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, M.N., International law, 5th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,US President, Proclamation 3504, Interdiction of the delivery of offensive weapons to Cuba, 23 October 1962, reprinted in (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law512–13CrossRef
Christol, C.Q. and Davis, C.R., ‘Maritime quarantine: the naval interdiction of offensive weapons and associated materiel to Cuba, 1962’, (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law525–43, at 543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenwick, G.G., ‘The quarantine against Cuba: legal or illegal?’, (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law588–92, at 592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McChesney, B., ‘Some comments on the “Quarantine of Cuba”’, (1963) 57 American Journal of International Law592–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chayes, A., ‘Law and the quarantine of Cuba’, (1962–3) 41 Foreign Affairs550–7, at 554–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chayes, A., The Cuban missile crisis (Oxford University Press, 1974), 65–6Google Scholar
Gray, C., International law and the use of force, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 161Google Scholar
O'Brien, W.V., The conduct of just and limited war (New York: Praeger, 1981), p. 133Google Scholar
Lapidoth, R., ‘The Security Council in the May 1967 crisis: a study in frustration’, (1969) 4 Israeli LRev534–50Google Scholar
Quigley, J., ‘The United Nations action against Iraq: a precedent for Israel's Arab territories?’, (1992) 2 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law195–228, at 203–13Google Scholar
Yost, C. W., ‘How it began’, (1967–8) 46 Foreign Affairs304–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maogoto, J. N., ‘New frontiers, old problems: the war on terror and the notion of anticipating the enemy’, (2004) 51 Netherlands International Law Review1–39, at 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E., ‘Self-defence, international law, and the Six Day War’, (1985) 20 Israeli L Rev49–73, at 61–5Google Scholar
Ferencz, B. B., Defining international aggression. The search for world peace: a documentary history and analysis. Vol. II (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1975), p. 35Google Scholar
Broms, B., ‘The definition of aggression’, (1977-I) 154 Recueil des Cours299–400, at 349–50Google Scholar
Zourek, J., ‘La définition de l'agression et le droit international: développements récents de la question’, (1958) 92 Recueil des Cours755–855, at 826–7Google Scholar
Roberts, A. and Guelff, R. (eds.), Documents on the laws of war, 3rd edn (Oxford University Press, 2000Google Scholar
Mearsheimer, J. J. and Walt, S. M., The Israel lobby and US foreign policy (London: Penguin Books, 2007), p. 85Google Scholar
Fischer, G., ‘Le bombardement par Israël d'un réacteur nucléaire irakien’, (1981) 27 Annuaire français de Droit International147–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallison, W.T. and Mallison, S. V., ‘The Israeli attack on June 7, 1981, upon the Iraqi nuclear reactor: aggression or self-defense?’, (1982) 15 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law417–46Google Scholar
Nydell, M. S., ‘Tensions between international law and strategic security: implications of Israel's preemptive raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor’, (1983–4) 24 Virginia Journal of International Law459–92Google Scholar
D'Amato, A., ‘Israel's air strike against the Osiraq reactor: a retrospective’, (1996) 10 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal259–64Google Scholar
Quigley, J., ‘Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor: a reply’, (1995) 9 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal441–4, at 441Google Scholar
Beres, L. R., ‘Preserving the third temple: Israel's right of anticipatory self-defense under international law’, (1993–4) 26 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law111–48, at 118–22Google Scholar
Beres, L. R. and Tsiddon-Chatto, Y., ‘Reconsidering Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor’, (1995) 9 Temple International and Comparative Law Journal437–40Google Scholar
O'Connell, D. P., International law. Vol. I, 2nd edn (London: Stevens, 1970), p. 317Google Scholar
Brownlie, I., ‘The use of force in self-defence’, (1961) 37 British Yearbook of International Law183–268, at 228.Google Scholar
Cohan, J.A., ‘The Bush doctrine and the emerging norm of anticipatory self-defense in customary international law’, (2003) 15 Pace ILRev283–358Google Scholar
Gray, C., ‘The US National Security Strategy and the new “Bush doctrine” on preemptive self-defense’, (2002) 1 Chinese Journal of International Law437–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, C., ‘The Bush doctrine: from theory to practice’, (2004) 9 J.C.S.L. 3–24Google Scholar
Langille, B., ‘It's ‘instant custom’: how the Bush doctrine became law after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001’, (2003) 26 Boston College ICLRev145–56Google Scholar
Nagan, W.P. and Hammer, C., ‘The new Bush National Security doctrine and the rule of law’, (2004) 22 Berkeley Journal of International Law375–438Google Scholar
Paul, J. R., ‘The Bush doctrine: making or breaking customary international law’, (2004) 27 Hastings ICLRev457–79Google Scholar
Gonzalez, M. Pérez, ‘La legítima defensa puesta en su sitio: observaciones críticas sobre la doctrina Bush de la accíon preventia’, (2003) 55 Revista Española de Derecho Internacional187–204Google Scholar
Rezac, D., ‘President Bush's Security Strategy and its “pre-emptive strikes doctrine”: a legal basis for the war in Iraq’, (2004) 7 Austrian Review of International and European Law223–42Google Scholar
Sharma, P. S., ‘The American doctrine of ‘pre-emptive’ self-defence’, (2003) 43 Indian Journal of International Law215–30Google Scholar
Greenwood, C., ‘Legality of the use of force: Iraq in 2003’, in Bothe, M., O'Connell, M. E. and Ronzitti, N. (eds.), Redefining sovereignty: the use of force after the Cold War (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2005), pp. 387–415Google Scholar
‘Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself …’. Reprinted in (2002) 40 International Legal Materials1282.
Brunnée, J. and Toope, S., ‘The use of force: international law after Iraq’, (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly785–806, at 794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corten, O., ‘Opération Iraqi Freedom: peut-on admettre l'argument de “l'autorisation implicite” du Conseil de Sécurité?’, (2003) 36 Revue Belge de Droit International205–43, at 207Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., ‘Assessing the legality of invading Iraq’, (2003–04) 92 Georgetown L. J. 173–257, at 174–6.Google Scholar
Taft, W.H. and Buchwald, T.F., ‘Preemption, Iraq, and international law’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law557–63Google Scholar
Dinstein, Y., ‘Remarks’, (2003) 97 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law147–9, at 147–8Google Scholar
Roberts, G.B., ‘The UN Charter paradigm on the brink: the legal and policy predicates for use of force against Iraq’, (2003) 42 Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre441–58, at 446–7Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R., ‘The military action in Iraq and international law’, in Schmitt, M.N. and Pejic, J. (eds.), International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines: essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 229–40, at 229–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, R., ‘The fall of Saddam Hussein: Security Council mandates and preemptive self-defense’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law576–85, at 582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, J., ‘International law and the war in Iraq’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law563–76, at 567–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellamy, A.J., ‘International law and the war with Iraq’, (2003) 4 Melbourne Journal of International Law497–520, at 501–11Google Scholar
Wet, E., ‘The illegality of the use of force against Iraq subsequent to the adoption of Resolution 687 (1991)’, (2003) 16 Humanitäres Völkerrecht125–32Google Scholar
Franck, T. M., ‘What happens now? The United Nations after Iraq’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law607–20, at 611–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilaire, M., ‘International law and the United States invasion of Iraq’, (2005) 44 Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre85–137, at 114Google Scholar
Iovane, M. and Vittor, F., ‘La doctrine européenne et l'intervention en Iraq’, (2003) 49 Annuaire français de Droit International17–31, at 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, V., ‘The Iraq crisis: what now?’, (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly859–71, at 865–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen-Rouault, F., ‘L'intervention armée en Irak et son occupation au regard du droit international’, (2003) 107 Revue Générale de Droit International Public835–64Google Scholar
O'Connell, M. E., ‘La doctrine américaine et l'intervention en Iraq’, (2003) 49 Annuaire français de Droit International3–16, at 7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, C., ‘Massenvernichtungswaffen und Präventivkrieg – Möglichkeiten der Rechtfertigung einer militärischen Intervention im Irak aus völkerrechtlicher Sicht’, (2002) 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht641–68, at 644–56Google Scholar
Stein, T., ‘The war against Iraq and the “Ius ad Bellum”’, (2003) 42 Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre459–65, at 462–3Google Scholar
Weisburd, A. M., ‘The war in Iraq and the dilemma of controlling the international use of force’, (2004) 39 Texas ILJ522–60, at 538Google Scholar
‘Statement by Japanese international law scholars on the Iraqi issue’, 18 March 2003, reproduced in (2003) 36 Revue Belge de Droit International293–8.
Turner, R. F., ‘Military action against Iraq is justified’, (2002) 55 Naval War College Review72–5Google Scholar
Pierson, C., ‘Preemptive self-defense in an age of weapons of mass destruction: Operation Iraqi Freedom’, (2004–5) 33 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy150–78, at 177Google Scholar
Rockefeller, M. L., ‘The “imminent threat” requirement for the use of preemptive military force: is it time for a non-temporal standard?’, (2004–5) 33 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy131–49Google Scholar
Occelli, M. B., ‘“Sinking” the Caroline: Why the Caroline doctrine's restrictions on self-defense should not be regarded as customary international law’, (2003) 4 San Diego International Law Journal467–90Google Scholar
Hofmeister, H., ‘Preemptive strikes – a new normative framework’, (2006) 44 Archiv des Völkerrechts187–200, at 191–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘The Australian Section of the ICJ questions the proposed attack on Iraq’, reproduced in (2003) 36 Revue Belge de Droit International286–7
‘Military action in Iraq without Security Council authorization would be illegal’, reprinted in (2002–03) 34 Ottawa Law Review1–3, at 2
‘Statement by Japanese international law scholars on the Iraqi issue’, 18 March 2003, reproduced in (2003) 36 Revue Belge de Droit International293–8.
‘Appel de juristes de droit international concernant le recours à la force contre l'Irak’, reproduced in (2003) 36 Revue Belge de Droit International266–86, at 272.
Anghie, A., ‘The Bush administration preemption doctrine and the United Nations’, (2004) 98 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law326–9Google Scholar
Hofmann, R., ‘International law and the use of military force against Iraq’, (2003) 45 German Yearbook of International Law9–34, at 31–3Google Scholar
Ramírez, J. A., ‘Iraq War: anticipatory self-defense or unlawful unilateralism?’, (2003) 34 California Western International Law Journal1–27, at 25Google Scholar
Sapiro, M., ‘Iraq: the shifting sands of preemptive self-defense’, (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law599–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaughter, A.-M., ‘The use of force in Iraq: illegal and illegitimate’, (2004) 98 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law262–3Google Scholar
Wolfrüm, R., ‘The attack of September 11, 2001, the wars against the Taliban and Iraq: is there a need to reconsider international law on the recourse to force and the rules in armed conflict?’, (2004) 7 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law1–78, at 30–5.Google Scholar
Taft, W.H. IV, ‘Preemptive action in self-defense’, (2004) 98 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law331–3Google Scholar
Verhoeven, J., Droit international public (Brussels: Larcier, 2000), p. 684Google Scholar
Wouters, J., Internationaal recht in kort bestek (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2006), p. 209Google Scholar
Bothe, M., ‘Der Irak-Krieg und das völkerrechtliche Gewaltverbot (2003) 41 Archiv des Völkerrechts272–94, at 261–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brotons, A. Remiro, Cortado, R. Riquelme, Hochleitner, J. D., Calatayud, E. O. and Durban, L. P., Derecho internacional (Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch, 2007), pp. 1067–9Google Scholar
Evans, M. D., International Law, 2nd edn. (Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 601Google Scholar
Schweisfurth, T., Völkerrecht (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 364–5Google Scholar
Campos, J. D. González, Rodriguez, L. Sanchez and Maria, P. A. Saenz de Santa, Curso de derecho internacional público, 3rd ed (Madrid: Thomson, 2003), p. 926.Google Scholar
Chazournes, L. Boisson de, ‘Rien ne change, tout bouge, ou le dilemme des Nations Unies’, (2005) 109 Revue Générale de Droit International Public147–61.Google Scholar
Ruys, T., ‘Reshaping unilateral and multilateral use of force: the work of the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’, (2005) 7 International Law Forum92–100, at 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J., ‘Startling his neighbors, Australian leader favors first strikes’, New York Times 2 December 2002; (2002)Google Scholar
Wouters, J. and Ruys, T., ‘The legality of anticipatory military action after 9/11: the slippery slope of self-defense’, (2006) 59 Studia Diplomatica45–67, at 57.Google Scholar
Gray, C., ‘The Bush doctrine revisited: the 2006 National Security Strategy of the USA’, (2006) 5 Chinese Journal of International Law555–78, at 563–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, G., ‘Armed intervention in the 1956 Suez crisis: the legal advice tendered to the British government’, (1988) 37 International and Comparative Law Quarterly773–817, at 800–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, K.-G., La protection de la souveraineté aérienne (Paris: Pedone, 1991), p. 317Google Scholar
Sundberg, J., ‘Legitimate responses to aerial intruders: the view from a neutral State’, (1985) 10 Annals of Air and Space Law251–73, at 266Google Scholar
Stephens, D., ‘Rules of engagement and the concept of unit self-defense’, (1998) 45 Naval Law Review126–51Google Scholar
Hanyok, R. J., ‘Skunks, bogies, silent hounds, and the flying fish: the Gulf of Tonkin mystery, 2–4 August 1964’, (2000–1) 19 Cryptologic QuarterlyGoogle Scholar
Ratner, S R., ‘The Gulf of Sidra incident of 1981: a study of the lawfulness of peacetime aerial engagements’, (1984) 10 Yale Journal of International Law58–76, at 68.Google Scholar
‘Report of the ICAO Fact-finding Investigation on the Destruction of Iran Airbus A300’, November 1988, (1989) 28 International Legal Materials900–43, § 3.2.1.
O'Connell, M E., ‘Preserving the peace: the continuing ban on war between States’, (2007–8) 38 California Western International Law Journal41–62Google Scholar
Chazournes, L. Boisson de and Sands, P. (eds.), International law, the International Court of Justice and nuclear weapons (Cambridge University Press, 1999Google Scholar
Rice, C., ‘Promoting the national interest’, (2000) 79–1 Foreign Affairs45–62, at 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkovich, G., Mathews, J.T., Cirincione, J., Gottemoeller, R. and Wolfstahl, J. B., Universal compliance; a strategy for nuclear security (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005), p. 78Google Scholar
McNamara, R S., ‘The military role of nuclear weapons: perceptions and misperceptions’, (1983–4) 62 Foreign Affairs59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, C D. and Gray, C S., ‘The second nuclear age: nuclear weapons in the twenty-first century’, in Baylis, J., Wirtz, J., Gray, C S. and Cohen, E. (eds.), Strategy in the contemporary world, 2nd edn (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 209–27Google Scholar
Bobbitt, P., Terror and consent: the wars for the twenty-first century (London: Penguin Books, 2008), p. 8Google Scholar
Glennon, M.J., ‘Preempting terrorism: the case for anticipatory self-defense’, Weekly Standard 28 January 2002, 24Google Scholar
McLellan, S., What happened: inside the Bush White House and Washington's culture of deception (Washington, DC: Public Affairs, 2008), pp. 119–48Google Scholar
Carlson, G. S., ‘An offer they can't refuse?: the Security Council tells North Korea to re-sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’, (2007–8) 46 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law420–67Google Scholar
O'Connell, M. E. and Alevras-Chen, M., ‘The ban on the bomb – and bombing: Iran, the U.S., and the international law of self-defense’, (2006–7) 57 Syracuse LRev497–517.Google Scholar
Ntoubandi, F. Z., ‘Reflections on the USA–India Atomic Energy Cooperation’, (2008) 13 Journal of Conflict and Security Law2732–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×