To: Machaon who wrote (3442 ) 2/6/2003 9:59:03 AM From: Neocon Read Replies (3) | Respond to I take zonder at her word, that she is resistant to a pre- emptive war. Remember, Europe has experienced two major blood- lettings in the last hundred years, and has grasped hold of two concepts as prophylactic: international law and multilateral institutions. International law holds as a bedrock principle that aggressive war is illegal, and that the only justification is self- defense, or war waged in aid of persons being attacked. Pre- emption contravenes that, by asserting that an existential danger is sufficient reason to attack, even though the threat is inferential. Since this is, in fact, in essence defensive war, it is not clearly in violation of the spirit of the principle, but it does expand the notion of legitimate defense. The threat of unilateralism creates even more alarm, since there can be no international law without an institutional framework, and therefore a refusal to respect the existing mechanisms through which such matters would be decided seems to introduce an element of lawlessness. Of course, ultimately the United States has attempted to work with the United Nations, but without giving up the right to unilateral action.
