ABSTRACT
The right to use force in self-defence has been described as a ‘fundamental principle’ of international law and is also the bedrock of the natural law tradition's just causes for war (Schwarzenberger 1955: 195). Traditionally, Just War scholars have admitted that the right to self-defence comprises a right to respond with force to both actual and imminent attacks. The ambiguous place of pre-emptive self-defence in Article 51 of the UN Charter gave rise to a debate between ‘restrictionists’ who call for a literal interpretation of the Charter (thus ruling out the use of force prior to an armed attack) and ‘counter-restrictionists’ who argue that the UN Charter does not override a state's inherent right of pre-emptive self-defence. Since 9/11, these debates have become more pointed. Many scholars and policy-makers began to insist that the ability of terrorists and ‘rogue states’ to inflict mass casualties at short notice required a less restrictive way of thinking about self-defence. The so-called ‘Bush doctrine’ (National Security Council (NSC) 2002), described by one leading writer as the new American ‘grand strategy’ (Ikenberry 2004: 44), claimed a right for the US to act pre-emptively against terrorists, states harbouring terrorists and other ‘rogue’ regimes. According to at least two commentators, it amounts to claiming an ‘unlimited’ right of self-defence (Myjer and White 2002: 5).
