Israel said it launched a pre-emptive attack, along with the US, against Iran on 28th February, starting a debate about whether this act has any acceptability under international law (IL) as it not only poses a serious threat to IL, but also to state sovereignty. A pre-emptive strike is a military action taken by a state in response to a threat from another state to stop the threatening state from carrying out its threat.

A pre-emptive strike conflicts with the “just war theory” in two ways: first, it is carried out before the other side attacks with military force, therefore making the side carrying out the strike the aggressor; and secondly, it is usually carried out before a formal declaration of war.

During the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel was the first to use military force against Egypt, so Israel appeared as an aggressor and in the wrong. However, Egypt had arguably carried out several actions before the Israeli attack, such as announcing a policy of hostility towards Israel, putting its military forces on maximum alert, and strengthening its forces on the border with Israel. It was therefore argued that this level of threat provided a moral justification for attack.

Michael Walzer has presented certain conditions that must be satisfied to justify a pre-emptive strike, such as an obvious intention to cause injury; active preparations that turn that intention into a concrete danger; and a situation in which the risk of defeat would be greatly increased if the fight were delayed.

However, Israel........

© The Friday Times