Bibliography: Just Societies and War Initiation

Resolved: Just societies should never deliberately initiate war.




Arend, A.C. (2003). International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force.…/03spring_arend.pdf‎

Oscar Schachter, The Right of States to Use Armed Force, 82 MICH. L. REV. 1620, 1634-36


Trumball, Charles. (2012). The Basis of Unit Self-Defense and the Implications for Use of Force. Duke Journal of International & Comparative Law.

M. Baker, ‘Terrorism and the Inherent Right of Self-Defence: A Call to Amend Article 51 of the United Nations Charter’, (1987) 10 Hous. J. Intl. L.  Note: NFL members have access to Hein Online through their membership

Banjaree, Debadyu. (2008).  De-tangling the Myth of Pre-emptive Self-Defence— A Look at the Contemporary Scenario of State Action in the Wake of the “War Against Terrorism”

Paiolletti, Flavio. (2011). The 21st Century Challenges to Article 51.

Travalio, ‘Terrorism, International Law, and the Use of Military Force’, (2000) 18 Wisc. Intl. L.J. 145; T.

M. Nabati, ‘International Law at a Crossroads: Self- Defence, Global Terrorism, and Pre-emption: A Call to Rethink the Self-Defence Normative Framework’, (2003)  Journal of Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems.

M. W. Reisman and A. Armstrong, ‘The Past and Future Claim of Pre-emptive Self-Defence’, (2006) 100 AJIL 525;

N. Ochoa-Ruiz and E. Salamanca-Aguado, ‘Exploring the Limits of International Law Relating to the Use of Force in Self-Defence’, 16 EJIL 499 (2005);

A. E. Eckert and M. Mofidi, ‘Doctrine of Doctrinarie—The First Strike Doctrine and Pre-emptive Self-Defence Under International Law’, (2004) 12 Tul. J. Intl. & Comp. L. 117;

Roberts, Patricia. (2005). The Doctrine of Preemptive Self-Defense. Villanova Law Review.

D. B. Rivkin Jr., A. L. Casey and M. DeLaquil, ‘Pre-emption and Law in the Twenty-First Century’,

(2004) 5 Chi. J. Intl. L 467;

M. N. Schmit, ‘Pre-emptive Strategies in International Law’, (2003) 24 Mich. J. Intl. L. 513;

M. E. O’Connell, ‘American Exceptionalism and the International Law of Self-Defence’, (2002) 31 Denv. J. Intl. L. & Poly. 43;

A. C. Arend, ‘International Law and the Recourse to Force: A Shift in Paradigms’, (1990) 27 Stan. J. Int’l. L. 1. Specifically focusing on self-defence to fight terrorism,

J. E. Kastenberg, ‘The Use of Conventional International Law in Combating Terrorism: A Maginot Line for Modern Civilization Employing the Principles of Anticipatory Self-Defence & Pre-emption’, (2004) 55 A.F. L Rev. 87;

N. A. Shah, ‘Self-Defence, Anticipatory Self-Defence and Pre-emption: International Law’s Response to Terrorism’, (2007) 12 JCSL 95;

Barnes, Joe. (2007). Preemptive and Preventive War: A Preliminary Taxonomy.

Dan Reiter, “Exploding the Powder Keg Myth: Preemptive Wars Almost

Never Happen,” International Security, Vol. 20, Fall 1995, pp. 5-34

Meiertöns, Heiko. (2010). The Doctrines of US Security Policy – An Evaluation under International Law.

Green, James. ( ). The threat of force as an action of self-defense under international law. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.


Hertz, Eli. (2000). The Right to Self-Defense: The United Nations and the International Court of Justice.


  1. Sofaer, ‘On the Necessity of Pre-emption’, (2003) 14 EJIL 209;

M. Glennon, ‘Pre-empting Terrorism: The Case for Anticipatory Self-Defence’, Wkly.

Standard, 28 January 2002

J. Beard, ‘America’s New War on Terror: The Case for Self-Defence Under International Law’, (2002) 25 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Poly. 559;

E. Gross, ‘Thwarting Terrorist Acts by Attacking the Perpetrators or Their Commanders as an Act of Self-Defence’, (2001) 15 Temp. Intl & Comp. L. J. 195.

J. Yoo, ‘Using Force’, (2004) 71 U. Chi. L.R. 729;

M. Skopets, ‘Battered Nation Syndrome: Relaxing the Imminence Requirement of Self-Defence in International Law’, (2006) 55 Am. U. L. Rev. 753;

J. Rabkin, ‘American Self-Defence Shouldn’t Be too Distracted by International Law’, (2006) 30 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Poly. 31;

Y. Dinstein, War, Aggression, and Self-Defence (2nd ed., 1992) 182;

Preventive War Bad

Tucker, Robert W.; David C. Hendrickson (November/December 2004). “The Sources of American Legitimacy”Foreign Affairs: 18–32.

Reiter, Dan. (2006). Preventive War and Its Alternatives: The Lessons of History.

^ Crawford, Neta C. (2003). “Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War”.Perspectives on Politics (Cambridge University Press) 1: 5–25.doi:10.1017/S1537592703000021.

^ Record, Jeffrey (Spring 2003). “The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq” (PDF).Parameters (U.S. Army War Quarterly). XXXIII (1): 4–21.

Kolodziej, Edward A. (December 2006). “Getting Beyond the Bush Doctrine” (PDF). Center for Global Studies.

Speed, Roger; Michael May (March/April 2005). “Dangerous Doctrine”Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 61 (2)

Preventive War General

Dolan, Chris J (2005). In War We Trust: The Bush Doctrine And The Pursuit Of Just War. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 229.

Dolan, Chris J; Betty Glad (2004). Striking First: The Preventive War Doctrine and the Reshaping of U.S. Foreign Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 232.

Preventive War Good

Donnelly, Thomas The Military We Need: The Defense Requirements of the Bush Doctrine, Washington, D.C., American Enterprise Institute Press, 2005.

Criticism of preventive war to promote democracy

Tures, John A. (2005). “Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations” (PDF). The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations (Winter/Spring): 97–111..

Defense of preventive war and war to promote democracy

Kaufman, Robert G. (2007). In the defense of the Bush Doctrine

Resource control as a justification for war

Fettweis, Christopher J. (Summer 2000). “Sir Halford Mackinder, Geopolitics, and Policymaking in the 21st Century”. Parameters (U.S. Army War College Quarterly)XXX (2).

Sempa, Francis P. (2000). “Mackinder’s WORLD”. American Diplomacy V (1).. Sempa, Francis P. (December 15, 2007). Geopolitics.

Anticipatory Self-Defense — General

Gill, Terry. (2013). Anticipatory Self-Defense in the Cyber Context.  International Legal Studies.…/Anticipatory-Self-Defense-in-the-Cyber-Context.aspx‎

Mulcahy, James. (2006). Anticipatory Self-Defense: A discussion of international law.  Hansel Law Review (vol 2, no 2)

D. D. Caron, ‘The Rule-Outcome Paradox, Madness Cascades and the Fog of Preemption: Seeking the “Best Rule” for Use of Force’, (2004) 27 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 481 at 492–495;

Schildkraut, ‘Where There Are Good Arms, There Must Be Good Laws: An Empirical Assessment of Customary International Law Regarding Pre-emptive Force’, (2007) 16 Minn. J. Intl. L. 193;

J. Green, ‘Docking the Caroline: Understanding the Relevance of the Formula in Contemporary Customary International Law Concerning Self-Defence’, (2006) 14 Cardozo J. Intl. & Comp. L. 429;

Guiora, Amos N., Anticipatory Self-Defence and International Law – A Re-Evaluation (September 8, 2008). Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 2008 ; U of Utah Legal Studies Paper No. 057-08-10. Available at SSRN:

Kinnan, David. (1990).  Self-Defense, Necessity, and U.N. Collective Security: United States and Other Views. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,

Anticipatory Self Defense – Goo

Michael Franklin Lohr, Legal Analysis of US Military Responses to State-Sponsored International Terrorism, 34 NAVAL L. REV. 1, 16 (1985) (explaining that a state may only employ anticipatory self-defence when “the evidence of a threat is compelling and the necessity to act is overwhelming”).

D. Brown, Rethinking International Self-Defense: the United Nations’ EmergingRole, 45 NAVAL L. REv. 217, 234 (1998) (arguing that the customary right of anticipatory self-defence should stand).

George K. Walker, Anticipatory Collective Self-Defense in the Charter Era: What the Treaties Have Said, 31 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 321, 352 (1998) (noting that collective self-defence may occur even without a treaty)

Mark E. Newcomb, Non-Proliferation, Self-Defence, and the Korean Crisis, 27 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L. L. 603, 620 (1994) (explaining that advances in weapons technology have altered the imminence requirement of self-defence).

Michael Lacey, Self-Defence or Self-Denial: The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 10 IND. INT’L & COMP. L. REv. 293, 294 (2000) (describing how the Caroline standard still applies to issues of self defence in recent U.S. military action against Libya, Afghanistan, and Sudan).

Louis Rene Beres, “On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: The Case of Israel”, 20 Hofstra L. Rev. 321, 327 (1991)

Thomas M. Franck, Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defence, 95 AM. J. INT’L L. 839, 839-43 (2001);

Oscar Schachter, In Defense of International Rules on the Use of Force,  53 U. CHI. L. REV. 113, 135 (1986);

The Israeli Aerial Raid upon the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor and the Right of Self-Defense, 109 MIL. L. REV. 191, 198 (1985) (concluding that the right of preventative self-defence under customary law is necessary in the age of nuclear weapons);

Louis Rene Beres, On International Law and Nuclear Terrorism, 24 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 1, 32 (1994) (arguing that a narrow interpretation of Article 51 ignores the fact that international law cannot force a state to withstand a devastating first strike before taking preventative action)

Louis Rene Beres, Reconsidering Israel’s Destruction of Iraq’s Osiraq Nuclear Reactor, 9 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 437, 438 (1995) (declaring that the right of anticipatory self-defence is especially compelling in today’s age of mass destruction weaponry);

Rene Beres, Israel, Lebanon, and Hizbullah: A Jurisprudential Assessment, 14 ARIZ. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 141, 149-50 (1997) (noting Israel’s right of preemptive self-defence against terrorist attacks is assured both by Article 51 and the customary right of anticipatory self-defence);

Byard Q. Clemmons & Gary D. Brown, Rethinking International Self-Defense: The United Nations’ Emerging Role, 45 NAVAL L. REV. 217, 228 (1998) (commenting that to justify anticipatory self-defence an imminent, not remote nor constructive threat, must exist);

James C. Duncan, A Primer on the Employment of Non-Lethal Weapons, 45 NAVAL L. REV. 1, 45-47 (1998) (stating the three necessary criteria which must be met in order for a state to engage in anticipatory self-defence as imminence, necessity, and proportionality);

Louis Rene Beres, Implications of a Palestinian State for Israeli Security and Nuclear War: A Jurisprudential Assessment, 17 DICK. J. INT’L L. 229, 283 (1999) (noting that the U.N. Security Council implicitly approved of Israel’s preemptive attacks against Arab states in 1967);

John-Alex Romano, Note Combating Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Reviving the Doctrine of a State of Necessity, 87 GEO. L.J. 1023, 1036 (1999) (maintaining that the argument that Article 51 permits some form of anticipatory action is more reasonable than the contention that it does not, especially when pre-emptive action is essential for self-preservation);

For instance, “for a [s]tate such as Israel, a [s]tate less than half the size of San Bernardino County in California that is surrounded by twenty hostile Arab States, such renunciation could be tantamount .to acceptance of its own genocide.” Louis Rene Beres, A Rejoinder, 9 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 445, 445 & 449 (1995).

Michael J. Glennon, The Fog of Law: Self-Defense, Inherence, and Incoherence in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, 25 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 539, 547 (2002)

Louis Rene Beres is the author of several books and articles on international law, July 20, 2005, Anticipatory Self-Defense, Washington Times,

Anticipatory Self-Defense – Opposed

Emanuel Gross, Thwarting Terrorist Acts by Attacking the Perpetrators or Their Commanders as an Act of Self-Defense: Human Rights Versus the State’s Duty to Protect its Citizens, 15 TEMP. INT’L &

COMP. L.J. 195, 213 (2001) (asserting that the wording of Article 51 requires an armed attack using weapons and that mere threats or declarations are insufficient);

John Quigley, A Weak Defense of Anticipatory Self-Defence, 10 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 255, 257 (1996)

O’Connell, Mary (2002). The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense,

C. Bordelo, ‘The Illegality of the U.S. Policy of Pre-emptive Self-Defence Under International Law’, (2005) 9 Chap. L. Rev. 111;