ABSTRACT
The doctrine of anticipatory self-defense allows a state to “beat his opponent to the draw,” attacking before a declaration of hostility under certain clearly defined circumstances. For such an action to qualify as preemption, the overriding concern is immediacy: preemptive self-defense is military action in the face of an immediate threat of attack. This immediate threat provides the justifying cause. Lacking it, the use of armed force in anticipatory self-defense is preventive, not preemptive, and is both morally and legally of a different character. New developments including the development of jus ad vim, or actions short of war, as well as the involvement of non-state actors in conflict, present new challenges to an understanding of anticipatory self-defense. In particular, post-9/11 applications of the Bush Doctrine have led to increasing claims for anticipatory self-defense, leading some to conclude that the principle has created more ethical problems than it solves, including the increased prevalence of warfare and a less robust understanding of when attacking first is appropriate or morally justified.
