Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence

  • 1218 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces the subject and main research questions of this book. First, a succinct presentation of the concept of self-defence and the controversies surrounding its anticipatory aspect is given. Secondly, the debate concerning the elements and temporal dimension of self-defence is elaborated and the different opinion groups regarding the legality of anticipatory action are described. Thirdly, the structure of the book and the research methods employed are portrayed. The last paragraphs of this chapter elaborate on the envisaged contribution of the present work to the debate regarding the temporality of self-defence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bush (1 June 2002) Graduation Speech at West Point.

  2. 2.

    Interview With Jacques Chirac (9 September 2002).

  3. 3.

    The Bush Administration Preemption Doctrine and the Future of World 2004, pp. 325–337.

  4. 4.

    Zoller 2004, pp. 334–335.

  5. 5.

    UN High-Level Panel 2004, para 188, p. 54.

  6. 6.

    Ibid., para 188.

  7. 7.

    Ibid., paras 190–191. For criticism of the findings of the panel, see Corten 2007, 217–232.

  8. 8.

    The Chatham House Principles 2006, p. 964.

  9. 9.

    Armed Activities in Congo 2005, para 143. Some authors maintain, however, that the ICJ has implicitly rejected anticipatory action in self-defence. Détais 2007, pp. 164–166.

  10. 10.

    See, for instance, Brownlie 1963, p. 265; Dixon 2000, p. 297; Neff 2005, pp. 316–317, Simma 1995, p. 663.

  11. 11.

    According to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the other main exception to the general prohibition to use force is the Security Council-controlled collective enforcement action. Also, there is a growing literature discussing humanitarian intervention as a possible third exception to the prohibition. See, for instance, Evans 2008; Lillich 1986; Tesón 2005.

  12. 12.

    Nicaragua 1986, paras 185–186, 188, 292(4). See infra 11.4.4 for main discussion. The major part of the literature agrees with the interpretation of the Court: Dixon 2000, pp. 296–297; Dinstein 2005, p. 92; Gray 2008, p. 30; Schachter 1991, pp. 130–131.

  13. 13.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 176.

  14. 14.

    Dixon 2000, p. 300; Gardam 1993, p. 391; Gardam 2004; Malanczuk 1997, pp. 316–317; Simma 1995, p. 677. Some authors have rejected these limitations: Kunz 1947, p. 872.

  15. 15.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 187–188; Higgins 1963, pp. 204–205; Malanczuk 1987, pp. 243–244; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 238–240; Alexandrov 1996, pp. 96–101; Lubell 2010, p. 50; Ruys 2010, pp. 53–68.

  16. 16.

    For instance, the Tokyo Tribunal held that the Netherlands was entitled to defend itself against a Japanese war of aggression (see infra 7.5). In the Nicaragua case, the ICJ used Article 3 of GA Res. 3314, Definition of Aggression to elucidate on the meaning of ‘armed attack’. Nicaragua 1986, para 195. For main discussion see infra 11.1. See also: Alexandrov 1996, pp. 105–120; Constantinou 2000, pp. 57–62; Malanczuk 1987, p. 244; Ruys 2010, pp. 127–139.

  17. 17.

    See, for instance: Constantinou 2000, pp. 63–64, 74–75; Green 2009, pp. 41–42; Lubell 2010, pp. 48–55.

  18. 18.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 187–188; McDougal 1963, pp. 599–600; Waldock 1962, pp. 233–235.

  19. 19.

    Cassese 2005, p. 354; Corten 2008, pp. 619–620; Higgins 1963, pp. 204–205; Gray 2008, pp. 147–148; Kunz 1947, p. 878.

  20. 20.

    See, for instance: Lubell 2010, pp. 30–36; Ruys 2010, pp. 485–489.

  21. 21.

    Cassese 2001, p. 997. He later changed his opinion: Cassese 2005, p. 355; Kunz 1947, p. 878.

  22. 22.

    Franck 2002, p. 67; Higgins 1963, pp. 204–205; Kooijmans 2009, p. 465; Lubell 2010, p. 31; Schwebel 1972, p. 482.

  23. 23.

    Gardam 1993, p. 404; Gardam 2004, pp. 149, 155; Green 2009, p. 75; Higgins 1963, pp. 198–199; Schachter 1992, p. 39; Ruys 2010, pp. 110–116.

  24. 24.

    Gardam 2004, p. 149.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., pp. 149–153.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., pp. 156–159; Gray 2004, p. 121; Henkin 1995, p. 121; Higgins 1963, p. 201; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, p. 242; Schachter 1991, pp. 153–155; Waldock 1952, p. 464.

  27. 27.

    Abi Saab 1987, p. 371; Badr 1980, p. 25; Brownlie 1963, pp. 275–278; Cassese 2005, pp. 361–362 (Cassese offers de lege ferenda proposal for a possible future regulation of ‘anticipatory self-defence’, ibid., pp. 362–363); Constantinou 2000, pp. 120–121; Corten 2008, p. 619; Gray 2004, pp. 98–99; Henkin 1991; Jessup 1948, p. 166; Kolesnik 1989, p. 154; Kunz 1947, p. 878; Ruys 2010, pp. 259–262.

  28. 28.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 188–189; Fleck 1988, pp. 176–177; Higgins 1963, p. 199; Malanczuk 1987, pp. 247–248; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 231–236; Schachter 1991, pp. 150–152; Schwebel 1972, p. 481; Waldock 1952, pp. 497–499.

  29. 29.

    Hill 2004, pp. 329–331; Pierson 2004, pp. 154–155; Taft and Buchwald 2003, pp. 557–563; Wedgwood 2003, pp. 584; Yoo 2003, pp. 571–574.

  30. 30.

    Badr 1980, p. 25; Badr Myjer and White 2002, p. 7. Abi Saab contends that if the armed attack is instant (such as a bombardment or short incursion), self-defence cannot be exercised after the attack finishes. Self-defence against occupation, however, can be exercised, because that constitutes an attack extended in time. Abi Saab 1987, p. 373.

  31. 31.

    Gill 2007, pp. 152–154; Schachter 1991, p. 153.

  32. 32.

    Abi Saab 1987, p. 371; Badr 1980, p. 25; Brownlie 1963, pp. 275–278; Cahier 1985, p. 73; Cassese 2005, pp. 361–362; Corten 2008, p. 619; Gray 2004, pp. 98–99; Henkin 1991, pp. 44–46; Jessup 1948, p. 166; Kunz, p. 878; Lachs 1980, pp. 162–164; Ruys 2010, p. 259; Wright 1963, pp. 560–561.

  33. 33.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 275; Corten 2008, pp. 619–624; Christakis 2005, pp. 208–212; Gray 2004, p. 98; Kunz 1947, pp. 877–878; Ruys 2010, p. 260; Wright 1963, p. 560.

  34. 34.

    Brownlie 1963, pp. 257–261; Christakis 2005, pp. 201–207; Gray 2004, p. 98.

  35. 35.

    See infra 11.2.1. Summary Record of the 1627th ILC meeting, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.1627 (1980) para 3 (comment by Tsuruoka)..

  36. 36.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 260; Christakis 2005, pp. 215–219; Gazzini 2005, p. 151; Gray 2004, p. 130; Henkin 1995, pp. 121–122.

  37. 37.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 260; Corten 2008, pp. 630–631; Gray 2004, pp. 98, 130; Zoller 2004, pp. 333–337.

  38. 38.

    Dinstein 2005, pp. 190–192; Gazzini 2005, pp. 151–153. See also: Abi Saab 1987, p. 371; Christakis 2005, pp. 211–212; Constantinou 2000, pp. 125–126; Corten 2008, pp. 626–627; Kolb 2004, pp. 123–125; Lachs 1980, p. 164; Ruys 2010, p. 266.

  39. 39.

    Dinstein 2005, p. 191.

  40. 40.

    Ruys 2010, p. 253.

  41. 41.

    Dinstein 2005, p. 191; Ruys 2010, p. 266.

  42. 42.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 188–189; Fleck 1988, pp. 176–177; Higgins 1963, p. 199; Malanczuk 1987, pp. 247–248; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 231–236; Schachter 1991, pp. 150–152; Schwebel 1972, p. 481; Waldock 1952, pp. 497–499. In a series of correspondence between the US and Britain, then US Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, called upon the British government to show ‘a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation’ in order to justify the exercise of self-defence in the Caroline incident of 1837. Webster 1841, p. 1138.

  43. 43.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 188–189; Higgins 1963, p. 199; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 231–236; Schachter 1991, pp. 150–152; Schwebel 1972, p. 481; Waldock 1952, pp. 497–499.

  44. 44.

    Bowett 1958, p. 188; Dixon 2000, p. 301; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 234-235; Waldock 1952, p. 497.

  45. 45.

    Higgins 1963, p. 199; Waldock 1952, p. 497.

  46. 46.

    Fleck 1988, pp. 176–177; Franck 2002, pp. 107–108; Higgins 1963, pp. 199–203; Malanczuk 1987, pp. 247–248.

  47. 47.

    Malanczuk 1987, pp. 247–248; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, p. 238; McDougal 1963, p. 601; Schwebel 1972, p. 481.

  48. 48.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 188–189; Gazzini 2005, pp. 149–152; Greenwood 2003, pp. 12–16; Higgins 1963, pp. 199–200; Lubell 2010, pp. 43–44; McDougal and Feliciano 1961, pp. 231–240; Waldock 1952, p. 498; Schachter 1991, pp. 150–152.

  49. 49.

    Hill 2004, pp. 329–331; Pierson 2004, pp. 154–155; Taft and Buchwald 2003, pp. 557–563. Wedgwood 2003, pp. 584; Yoo 2003, pp. 571–574.

  50. 50.

    US National Security Strategy 2002, Part V.

  51. 51.

    Dinstein 2005, p. 191; Gazzini 2005, pp. 151–153; Ruys 2010, p. 266.

  52. 52.

    See supra 1.2.

  53. 53.

    Hill 2004, pp. 329–331; Pierson 2004, pp. 154–155; Taft and Buchwald 2003, pp. 557–563. Wedgwood 2003, pp. 584; Yoo 2003, pp. 571–574.

  54. 54.

    Bowett 1958, pp. 3–4; Twiss 1860, p. 11.

  55. 55.

    For the nature and origins of self-defence, see Bowett 1958, pp. 4–8. See also Schachter for a succinct portrayal of the historical schools of thought regarding self-defence. Schachter 1991, pp. 135–136.

  56. 56.

    This assertion can be deduced from the materialistic approach to customary law. For criticism of this school of thought, see Koskenniemi 1989, pp. 401–402.

  57. 57.

    Waldock 1962, p. 44. See also D’Amato 1971, pp. 57–59; Tunkin 1958, pp. 9–10.

  58. 58.

    Brownlie 1963, pp. 1–2.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., p. 265; Simma 1995, p. 663; Neff 2005, pp. 316–317; Dixon 2000, p. 297.

  60. 60.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 176.

  61. 61.

    Classification put forward by Koskenniemi 2001, pp. 61–66. On the state of methodology in the history of international law, see Hueck 2001, pp. 194–217.

  62. 62.

    Koskenniemi mentions: Grewe 2000; Schmitt 1995; Ziegler 1994. For an appraisal of Ziegler’s book, see Roelofsen 1993–1994, pp. 52–58. Roelofsen contends that it would have been desirable that Ziegler’s excellent manual devoted more attention to international relations theory. Ibid., pp. 55–56.

  63. 63.

    See for instance: Redslob 1923.

  64. 64.

    See for instance: de la Pradelle 1950.

  65. 65.

    Koskenniemi 2001, p. 65.

  66. 66.

    Hueck 2001, pp. 198–199.

  67. 67.

    Walzer 2006, pp. 44 et seq.

  68. 68.

    Bellamy 2006, pp. 2 et seq.

  69. 69.

    Neff 2005, pp. 2 et seq.

  70. 70.

    Bellamy 2006, pp. 8 et seq.

  71. 71.

    Neff 2005, pp. 3 et seq.

  72. 72.

    For different historical phases of ‘international law’, see Steiger 2001, pp. 180–193. For another classification, see Neff 2005, pp. 3–5.

  73. 73.

    See infra 1.4 for details on the understanding given to the term.

  74. 74.

    For elaboration on the difficulties and controversies surrounding customary international law, see Byers 1999, pp. 129–146; D’Amato 1971, pp. 47–72; Koskenniemi 1989, pp. 342–410.

  75. 75.

    Byers 1999, pp. 130–142.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., pp. 133–136.

  77. 77.

    D’Amato 1971, pp. 88; Wolfke 1993, pp. 41–44.

  78. 78.

    Akehurst 1976, pp. 2–3; Brownlie 1986, p. 156. Brownlie warned against what he called ‘Rambo positivism’: the view that it is only actual action or reaction that constitutes state practice; Villiger 1997, pp. 16–17.

  79. 79.

    Kelsen 1939, pp. 264–265; Kelsen 1966, pp. 450–451. For criticism of this approach, see Koskenniemi 1989, pp. 401–402.

  80. 80.

    For instance, Kelsen 1939, p. 262.

  81. 81.

    D’Amato 1971, pp. 97–98; Koskenniemi 1989, p. 403; Tunkin 1958, p. 10; Tunkin 1961, pp. 420–421.

  82. 82.

    Tunkin 1958, p. 10.

  83. 83.

    Tunkin 1961, p. 420.

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    D’Amato 1971, pp. 97–98.

  86. 86.

    Koskenniemi 1989, p. 403.

  87. 87.

    Byers 1999, pp. 136–141; Koskenniemi 1989, pp. 362–363.

  88. 88.

    Anzilotti 1928, pp. 73–76; Strupp 1934, p. 263. For criticism of this approach, see Koskenniemi 1989, pp. 401–402.

  89. 89.

    See, for instance, Cheng 1965, pp. 35–36.

  90. 90.

    Byers 1999, pp. 136–140; Koskenniemi 1989, pp. 362–363.

  91. 91.

    Koskenniemi1989, p. 363.

  92. 92.

    The Nicaragua case offered, inter alia, an elaborate analysis of the theory of customary international law. It discussed the relationship between treaty and custom, as well as the elements of a customary rule. For the purpose of this section, only the assertion regarding the elements of customary law will be discussed. Nicaragua 1986, paras 183–186. See infra 11.4.4, for the discussion regarding the relationship between treaty and customary law as well as self-defence.

  93. 93.

    Akehurst 1976, pp. 2–3; Brownlie 1986, p. 156; Tunkin 1961, pp. 421–422; Villiger 1997, pp. 16–17.

  94. 94.

    D’Amato 1971, pp. 97–98; Koskenniemi 1989, p. 40; Tunkin 1961, pp. 420–421.

  95. 95.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 186.

  96. 96.

    Ibid.

  97. 97.

    Ibid.

  98. 98.

    Schachter 1989, pp. 730–734. Schachter discusses the various sources from which opinio juris can be inferred, such as UN General Assembly resolutions, records of discussions, expert opinions as well as decisions of the ICJ and some treaty provisions can all contribute, under certain conditions, to infer opinio juris.

  99. 99.

    GA Res. 2625, Friendly Relations Declaration.

  100. 100.

    Nicaragua 1986, para 188.

  101. 101.

    For a thorough analysis of the ‘just war’ tradition and the significance of ‘just causes’, see Vanderpol 1919; Bellamy 2006, pp. 5–8, 15–29, 39–40, 126–134; Christopher 2004; Neff 2005, pp. 29–30, 49–57.

  102. 102.

    Reichberg et al. 2006, pp. 288, 339–340, 371–372, 385–386.

  103. 103.

    Franck 2002, p. 52.

  104. 104.

    See, for instance: Green 2009; Lubell 2010; Ruys 2010.

References

  • Abi Saab G (1987) Cours general du droit public. Recueil des Cours 207(1987-VII):9–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Akehurst M (1976) Custom as a source of international law. British Year b Int Law 47:1–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexandrov S (1996) Self-defense against the use of force in international law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Anzilotti D (1928) Corso di diritto internationale. Atheneum, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, ICJ Rep. (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Badr GM (1980) The exculpatory effect of self-defence in state responsibility. Ga J Int Comp Law 10:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy AJ (2006) Just wars: from Cicero to Iraq. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowett DW (1958) Self-defense in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1963) International law and the use of force by states. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1986) Comparative approaches to the theory of international law: remarks. Am Soc Int Law Proc 80:154–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush GW (1 June 2002) Graduation Speech at West Point. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html. Accessed 21 January 2010

  • Byers M (1999) Custom, power and the power of rules: international relations and customary international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cahier P (1985) Changements et continuité du droit international: cours général de droit international public. Recueil des Cours 195(1985-VI):9–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2001) Terrorism is also disrupting some crucial legal categories of international law. Eur J Int Law 12:993–1001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2005) International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng B (1965) United Nations resolutions on outer space: ‘instant’ international customary law? Indian J Int Law 5:23–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2005) Existe-t-il un droit de légitime défense en cas de simple “menace”?: une réponse au “groupe des personnalités de haut niveau” de l’ONU. In: Société française pour le droit international, Les métamorphoses de la sécurité collective: droit, pratique et enjeux stratégiques. Pedone, Paris, pp 197–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher P (2004) The ethics of war and peace: an introduction to legal and moral issues. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantinou A (2000) The right of self-defence under customary international law and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Sakkoulas, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten O (2007) Le débat sur la légitime défense préventive à l’occasion des 60 ans de l’ONU: nouvelles revendications, oppositions persistantes. In: Kherad R (ed) Légitimes défenses: colloque international organisé par le Laboratoire Angevin de Recherches sur les Actes Juridiques en collab. avec le Centre d’Études sur la Coopération Juridique International. LGDJ, Paris, pp 217–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Corten O (2008) Le droit contre la guerre: l’interdiction du recours à la force en droit international contemporain. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Amato AA (1971) The concept of custom in international law. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Détais J (2007) Les critéres du droit de légitime défense dans la jurisprudence de la Cour Internationalde de Justice. In: Kherad R (ed) Légitimes défenses: colloque international organisé par le Laboratoire Angevin de Recherches sur les Actes Juridiques en collab. avec le Centre d’Études sur la Coopération Juridique International. LGDJ, Paris, pp 149–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2005) War, aggression and self-defence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon M (2000) Textbook on international law. Blackstone Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans GJ (2008) The responsibility to protect: ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck D (1988) Rules of engagement for maritime forces and the limitation of the use of force under the UN Charter. Ger Yearb Int Law 31:165–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T ((2002)) Recourse to force: state action against threats and armed attacks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • GA Res. 2625: General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970) Friendly Relations Declaration

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardam JG (1993) Proportionality and force in international law. Am J Int Law 87:391–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardam JG (2004) Necessity, proportionality and the use of force by states. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gazzini T (2005) The changing rules on the use of force in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill TD (2007) The temporal dimension of self-defence. In: Schmitt M, Pejic J (eds) International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines. Essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 113–155

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2004) International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2008) International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JA (2009) The International Court of Justice and self-defence in international law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C (2003) International law and the pre-emptive use of force: Afghanistan, Al-Qaida and Iraq. San Diego Int Law J 4:7–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewe WG (2000) The epochs of international law (trans: Byers M). De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin L (1991) The use of force: law and US policy. In: Henkin   et al (eds) Right v. Might. international law and the use of force. Council on Foreign Relations Press, New York, pp 37–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin L (1995) International law: politics and values. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1963) The development of international law through the political organs of the United Nations. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill C (2004) The Bush Administration preemption doctrine and the future of world order: remark. Am Soc Int Law Proc 98:329–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Hueck IJ (2001) The discipline of the history of international law: new trends and methods on the history of international law. J Hist Int Law 3:194–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Interview with Jacques Chirac (9 September 2002), New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/09/international/europe/09CTEX.html. Accessed 26 January 2011

  • Jessup PC (1948) A modern law of nations: an introduction. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1939) Théorie du droit international coutumier. Revue international de la theorie du droit (New Series) 1:25–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1966) Principles of international law. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2004) Self-defense and preventive war at the beginning of the millennium. Zeitschrift für öffentliches recht 59(2):111–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolesnik DN (1989) The development of the right to self-defence. In: Butler WE (ed) The non-use of force in international law. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 153–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooijmans PH (2009) The legality of the use of force in the recent case law of the International Court of Justice. In: Yee S, Morin JY (eds) Multiculturalism and international law––essays in honour of Edward McWhinney. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 455–466

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (1989) From apology to utopia: the structure of international legal argument. Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2001) Why history of international law today? Rechtsgeschichte 4:61–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz J (1947) Individual and collective self-defence in Article 51 of the Charter of the UN. Am J Int Law 41:872–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachs M (1980) The development and general trends of international law in our time. Recueil des Cours 169(1980-IV):9–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillich RB (ed) (1986) Humanitarian intervention and the United Nations. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell N (2010) Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P (1987) Countermeasures and self-defence as circumstances precluding wrongfulness in the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on States Responsibility. In: Spinedi M, Simma B (eds) United Nations codification of state responsibility. Oceana, New York, pp 197–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS (1963) The Soviet-Cuban quarantine and self-defense. Am J Int Law 57:597–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougal MS, Feliciano FP (1961) Law and minimum world public order: the legal regulation of international coercion. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Myjer PJ, White ND (2002) The twin towers attack: an unlimited right to self-defence? J Confl Secur Law 7:5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff SC (2005) War and the law of nations: general history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nicaragua 1986: Military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Rep. (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson C (2004) Preemptive self-defence in an age of weapons of mass destruction: Operation Iraqi Freedom. Denver J Int Law Policy 33:150–178

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Pradelle AG (1950) Maîtres et doctrines du droit des gens. Editions internationales, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Redslob R (1923) Histoire des grands principes du droit des gens depuis l’antiquité jusqu’à la veille de la grande guerre. Rousseau, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichberg GM, Syse H. Begby E (eds) (2006) The ethics of war: classic and contemporary readings. Blackwell, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsen CG (1993–1994) History of the law of nations. A few remarks apropos some recent and not so recent publications. Grotiana 13–14:52–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T (2010) ‘Armed attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter. Evolutions in customary law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1989) Entangled treaty and custom. In: Dinstein Y (ed) International law at a time of perplexity. Essays in honour of Shabtai Rosenne. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 717–738

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1991) International law in theory and practice. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1992) Implementing limitations on the use of force: the doctrine of proportionality and necessity. Am Soc Int Law Proc 86:39–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1995) Staat, Grossraum, Nomos. Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916–1969, Maschke G (ed), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwebel SM (1972) Aggression, intervention and self-defence in modern international law. Recueil des Cours 136(1972-II): 411–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (ed) (1995) The Charter of the United Nations, A commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger H (2001) From the international law of Christianity to the international law of the world citizen: reflections on the formation of epochs of the history of international law. J Hist Int Law 3:180–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Strupp K (1934) Les règles générales du droit de la paix. Récueil des Cours 47:259–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft WH, Buchwald TF (2003) Preemption, Iraq, and international law. Am J Int Law 97:557–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesón FR (2005) Humanitarian intervention: an inquiry into law and morality. Transnational Ardsley, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • The Bush Administration preemption doctrine and the future of world order (2004) Am Soc Int Law Proc 98:325–337

    Google Scholar 

  • The Chatham House principles of international law on the use of force in self-defence (2006) Int Comp Law Q 55: 963–972

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunkin GI (1958) Co-existence and international law. Recueil des Cours 95:1–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunkin GI (1961) Remarks on the juridical nature of customary norms of international law. Calif Law Rev 49:419–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twiss T (1860) Law of nations considered as independent political communities, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • UN high level panel: Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004). United Nations. http://www.un.org/secureworld/report2.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2011

  • US National Security Strategy (2002) The White House (2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Part V. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderpol A (1919) La doctrine scolastique du droit de guerre. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Villiger ME (1997) Customary international law and treaties. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock CHM (1952) The regulation of the use of force by individual states in international law. Recueil Des Cours 81(1952-II):451–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldock CHM (1962) General course on public international law. Recueil des Cours 106:1–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer M (2006) Just and unjust wars. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster 1841: Letter from Daniel Webster, US Secretary of State, to Henry Fox, British Minister in Washington, 24 April 1841, in British and Foreign State Papers, 1840–1841, Vol. 29 (1857). James Ridgway and Sons, London, pp. 1129–1139

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedgwood R (2003) The fall of Saddam Hussein: Security Council mandates and preemptive self-defense. Am J Int Law 97:576–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfke K (1993) Custom in present international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright Q (1963) The Cuban quarantine. Am J Int Law 57:546–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler KH (1994) Völkerrechtsgeschichte: ein Studienbuch. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo J (2003) International law and the war in Iraq. Am J Int Law 97:563–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zoller E (2004) The law applicable to the preemption doctrine. Am Soc Int Law Proc 98:333–337

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forum for the Law of Armed Conflict and Peace Operations, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Kinga Tibori Szabó (Researcher)

Authors
  1. Kinga Tibori Szabó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szabó, K.T. (2011). Introduction. In: Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-796-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation