Abstract:
Preemptive self-defense has found a special place in the doctrine of Western countries after the attacks of September 11th. These countries, due to their military and financial power, are trying to make this doctrine acceptable. This type of defense is explicitly contrary to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which itself defines self-defense. In this article, the authors seek to examine this doctrine and prove that this doctrine has not yet been able to find a place in the legal belief of member states of the international community. Reports of the UN Secretary-General and the opinions of the International Court of Justice also support this conclusion. It seems that analyzing and examining this doctrine can identify the flaws it contains.
Machine summary:
" The Secretary-General continues his opinion in paragraph 125, stating that wherever threats are not imminent but potential, the Charter gives the Security Council full authority to use military forces, including preventively, to maintain international peace and security.
267) Supporters of the theory of preemptive self-defense have addressed case law regarding the formation of an instant custom, which will be briefly mentioned: 1-In 1956 The Soviet Union attacked American sabotage bases in Hungary, which was condemned by a resolution of the Assembly.
Examining resolutions 1368 and 1373 (regarding the recognition of the inherent right of 1 self-defense of countries, which meant issuing a license to attack Afghanistan by the United States and its allies) and the atmosphere prevailing at that time requires another opportunity, but here we can point out why the Security Council did not use its powers under Chapter VII?
e. , the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under acute self-defense conditions), after examining the governing rules in the Charter and referring to the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in Nicaragua (1986) and enumerating the conditions of necessity and proportionality, which have a special place in all cases where self-defense has been raised, states in paragraph E of the opinion: “The threat or use of nuclear weapons is, in general, incompatible with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly the rules of humanitarian law.
(
, 
, 
)
