Does the United States have the right to defend itself by
striking first, or must it wait until an attack is in progress? Is
the Bush Doctrine of aggressive preventive action a justified and
legal recourse against threats posed by terrorists and rogue
states? Tackling one of the most controversial policy issues of the
post-September 11 world, Michael Doyle argues that neither the Bush
Doctrine nor customary international law is capable of adequately
responding to the pressing security threats of our times.
In "Striking First," Doyle shows how the Bush Doctrine has
consistently disregarded a vital distinction in international law
between acts of preemption in the face of imminent threats and
those of prevention in the face of the growing offensive capability
of an enemy. Taking a close look at the Iraq war, the 1998 attack
against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the Cuban Missile Crisis,
among other conflicts, he contends that international law must rely
more completely on United Nations Charter procedures and develop
clearer standards for dealing with lethal but not immediate
threats.
After explaining how the UN can again play an important role in
enforcing international law and strengthening international
guidelines for responding to threats, he describes the rare
circumstances when unilateral action is indeed necessary. Based on
the 2006 Tanner Lectures at Princeton University, "Striking First"
includes responses by distinguished political theorists Richard
Tuck and Jeffrey McMahan and international law scholar Harold Koh,
yielding a lively debate that will redefine how--and for what
reasons--tomorrow's wars are fought.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!