"A pre-emptive strike against a potentially belligerent nation state is a legitimate form of self-defence." Is this a sound policy for the future?

Title: "A pre-emptive strike against a potentially belligerent nation state is a legitimate form of self-defence." Is this a sound policy for the future?
Category: Law & Government / Military | Words: 2747 | Pages: 11.7 (approximately 235 words/page)

"A pre-emptive strike against a potentially belligerent nation state is a legitimate form of self-defence." Is this a sound policy for the future?

In articulating what some have described as the 'most far-reaching shift in American foreign policy for more than fifty years,' President George Bush summed up the US perception of the current strategic situation in the post 9-11 world, "We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties and then systematically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. [In defending the US …showed first 75 words of 2747 total…

You are viewing only a small portion of the paper. Please login or register to access the full copy.

…showed last 75 words of 2747 total…Law and Policy 483, 513 (1999) R.Shultz & A.Vogt, 'It's War! Fighting Post-September 11 Global Terrorism through a Doctrine of Pre-emption' in Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol 15, No1 (Spring 2003) W.Slocombe, 'Force, Pre-emption and Legitimacy' in Survival Vol 45, no.1, Spring 2003 P.Towell, 'Pre-Emptive Policy Has Congress Fretting Over Loss of Influence' in CQ Weekly June 15 2002 www.rsi.com.sg www.radanovich.house.gov/documents/CRSReportIraqInternationallaw.htm <Tab/> <Tab/>

Need a custom written paper?