Under what conditions preventive wars are justifiable

This report explores the conditions under which preventive wars can be considered justifiable. It discusses the concept of preventive war, its controversial nature, and examples of preventive wars throughout history. The report also examines the debate over the ethical and legal acceptability of preventive war.

Introduction to Political Theory:
Fourth Essay

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................3
Under what conditions preventive wars are justifiable...............................................................3
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................6
REFRENCES ..................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Political theory is study of topics that covers politics, liberty, philosophy, justice,
property rights and enforcement of laws etc. The present report is based on political question
such as under what condition are preventive wars are justifiable.
MAIN BODY
Under what conditions preventive wars are justifiable.
Preventive war termed out as the war that is initiated to prevent another party from
acquiring the capability for attacking (O’Connell, 2020). In addition to this, power of being
attacked has either latent threat capability that can be shown through its posturing and this can
also intends to follow suit with the future attack. In addition to this, the condition of the
preventive war mainly occurs at the time when state launches the military conflict to stop another
state and other international actor from becoming a threat. It is the war that can be quite differ
from more of the typical situation in which the state use to go to war after a period of crisis. In
addition to this, it can be stated that preventive war are not those who response to the specific
crisis and this is not any kind of the reaction to the particular event. Also, this is also not direct
threat to security.
However, this can be stated that preventive war is quite different as well from the preventive war
on which a state attacks in terms to disrupt enemy about to attack first. In addition to this, the
difference among the prevention and pre-emption is often faded one, but pre-emption is mainly
occurs before the outbreaks of the hostilities and this is also directed against any of the enemy
clearly in the process of preparing an attack and this can also be stated that prevention can be
during the course of relative peace ( Mello, 2020).
In addition to this, it can be stated that one of the most controversial examples of
preventive war took place in 2003, at the time when united states led a coalition to war in against
to Iraq on the grounds that saddam Hussein regime continued to work on the developing weapon
of the mass destruction that is inclusive of the neural weapons. This decision to go to war that
was keeping with what some of the observes believe is a new America doctrine of the preventive
war. Hence, preventive war is a war that is mainly initiated to prevent another party from the
attacking ( Pfister and Fertig, 2020). This is called out as war that mainly aim to forestall the
shift in the balance of power. In addition to this, with help of strategically attacking before the
balance of power has become the chance that shifted in the direction of the adversary. Under the

modern framework of the international law, the decision in terms to the preventive war can be
taken without the approval of the united nations.
Before the world war 2, japan certainly was not looking for the undertaking the conflict
with the united states. Due to continual interference of the American, the legal authorities of the
Japan has decided to go to war when it wanted to rather than wanting for us. In addition to this,
this is stated that preventive war can be termed out as the persistent theme in the entire history of
international politics and theoretical explanation of the war (FrBanta, 2020). Also, this can be
stated that preventive motivation can be termed out as central to the ongoing concern in relation
to Iran;s nuclear programme and debate on the alternative policy option to deal with it. However,
the one of the strategic logic of the prevent war is existed in the desire to halt the erosion of the
relative power that has been risen to the adversary level and due to this the future power has been
shifted. Under the preventive war conditions, there is not any kind of the certainty that this future
war will actually be gonna fight in the future course of action.
However, this can be stated preventive war is launched in relation to head off the mere
possibility of a higher-cost future war or the potential for the reference point state to use its
improving power in a powerful way. Pre-emption, on the other hand can be termed out as to grab
the tactical advantages of striking first against that what is seen as a truly close at hand threat, at
the time when an adversary’s attack is close at hand (Wolf, 2020). In addition to this, the
concept of preventive war can be defined as an ongoing debate over its normative or ethical
acceptability, and its status under international law. It is the debate that mainly revolves around
the question of whether it should be considered lawful self-defence, or this can be taken as the
preventive war that is actually an aggressive use of force.
Hence, this can be stated that Preventive war can be called out s the controversial issue as
this leads to involves military attack in the absence of two commonly accepted justifications that
is are as self-defence and so-called pre-emption. Wars of self-defence can be termed out as the
justified because they involve countries' responding to initiations of military force. In addition to
this, this can be stated that Wars of pre-emption can be called out as justified because that is
inclusive of the countries' react to an imminent threat of an initiation of force. Therefore, the one
of the main significance of this is to wait until unjust aggressors actually initiate their attacks
before self-defence becomes permissible.

However, this can be stated that preventive war and strikes relate with pre-emptive both
can be considered as to risky business. In addition to this, preventive war put their major focus
on the things such as military, diplomatic and strategic endeavour that aimed at enemy who has
one purpose to enlarge so strong so that delay would cause any kind of the defeat (Reychler, and
Langer, 2020). On the other hand, preventive strike can be termed out as military operation or
this can be called out as the series if operation to pre-empt an ability of enemy to attack over
someone. Therefore, in both of the cases the government judges the negotiation solution
infeasible.
Hence, this can be stated tat preventive strikes the risk of elicit the sleeping enemy who is
wounded and that will fight harder on the later. Therefore, this can be stated that both the
preventive strikes and preventive war can be succeed under the some of the limited
circumstances. Also, this can be stated that preventive war is a authorized and essential tool for
nations that can be use in defence against terrorists. However, this is the war that can be taken as
the morally justifiable at the time when the alternative to this is called out as the destruction to
people or their way of life. On the other hand, this can be sated that preventive military action
can be allowed to viewed as healthy skepticism and this also used as one of the measured
response to defined imminent threat.
Hence, both under the just war doctrine and common sense morality is a condition in
which preventive war can be indeed justifiable. As this is aids to satisfies the basic needs for
going to war such as necessity and proportionality. On addition to this, this is the kind of war that
is differs from the more typical situation in which states that go to war after a period of crisis or
as a reaction to a particular event. Hence, this can be stated that from the perspective of black
letter of the international law, welfare is illegal unless that can be called out as the defensive
respond to the ongoing of imminent military by a foreign power ( Schroeder, 2011). Thus,
preventive war is the kind of military tactic that works as to prevent a state or international actor
from becoming a threat. However, the strategic logic of the preventive war termed out as the
accumulation of relative war by an adversary. Thus, this also prevent the danger in the future that
might present. Also, this can be stated that preventive intervention that assist to put the major
emphasize on the requirement for the stronger and more effective international legal and political
order and that is corresponding re-evaluation of the normative status of international law.

In addition to this, the one of the usual strategies to preventive war is mainly suggested
by the political scientist and international relation experts that prevent war that is inclusive of
arms control and diplomacy. In addition to this, it can be stated that Preventive wars act to
danger of attack that may be further in the future and more uncertain. Hence, the standard view
under international law is termed out as that preventive war is illegal, unless specifically
approved by the UN Council of the Security. This is termed out as preventive war is mainly
distinct from the pre-emptive strike that is first strike when an attack is immanent. Preventive
war defined as as legitimate and this is crucial tool for nations to use the defence against the
terrorists. Therefore, this can be said that preventive use of military force is unjustified and this
both legally and morally. It has been found out that preventive war mainly aims to avert a harm
that is distant at the temporarily level.
For example- example of preventive war termed out as the attack on Pearl Harbor by the
Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941. In addition to this, the U.S. and Japan believed war was
inevitable, and this aids to belief coupled to the crippling U.S. economic trade barrier that was
rapidly harmful Japanese military capability led the Japanese leadership in order to believe it was
better to have the war as soon as possible.
In the sum up, this can be stated that preventive war and pre-emptive strikes defined as
work under the certain condition. If the attacker carrier out of the brilliant operation that has
overwhelming military superiority. This is is the condition that assist to mobilize the support of
politics at home but also at the abroad that mainly willing to pay the high amount of the price.
This is war that mainly occurs due to stabilised the conditions of states. Also, this can be stated
that preventive war is the theory in the absence of an actual or imminent attack. This is the
insufficient evidence that helps to establish a high enough probability of attack and this also
harm to make the resort to war necessary and proportionate ( Schroeder, 2011). Thus, the main
strength of the preventive motivation is hypothesized to be a function of state expectation in
relation to decline rate of military, the conditions of inferiority avail in the future, probability of
future war etc.
CONCLUSION
Hereby, this can be concluded that preventive is termed out as an action that aids to bring
out the stability and to cope up the future circumstances. Furthermore, report has covered the

depth analysis that how political question such as under what condition are preventive wars are
justifiable.

REFRENCES
Book & Journal
O’Connell, B., 2020. Underground alliances and preventive strikes: British intelligence and
secret diplomacy during the Napoleonic Wars, 1807-1810. Intelligence and national
security. 35(2). pp.179-196.
Mello, P.A., 2020. Paths towards coalition defection: Democracies and withdrawal from the Iraq
War. European Journal of International Security. 5(1). pp.45-76.
Pfister, U. and Fertig, G., 2020. From Malthusian disequilibrium to the post-Malthusian era: The
evolution of the preventive and positive checks in Germany, 1730–1870. Demography,
pp.1-26.
Banta, B.R., 2020. Grasping neither war nor peace: the folly of cosmopolitan preventive
war. Journal of Global Ethics.16(1). pp.7-25.
Wolf, A.B., 2020. Strategies of retrenchment: rethinking America’s commitments to the Middle
East. Comparative Strategy. 39(1). pp.94-100.
Reychler, L. and Langer, A., 2020. The Art of Conflict Prevention: Theory and Practice. In Luc
Reychler: A Pioneer in Sustainable Peacebuilding Architecture (pp. 159-174). Springer,
Cham.
Schroeder, P.W., 2011. Preventive Wars to Restore and Stabilize the International
System. International Interactions. 37(1). pp.96-107.