The Position of Pre-emptive Defense from the Perspective of International Law with Emphasis on Explaining International Legal Barriers to Its Application to Protect Civilians

Reviewing the events that took place in international wars such as World War II, we find that the leaders of countries with advanced military fleets do not hesitate to kill civilians and violate the principle of segregation. The United States has gone further and has made new alterations to article 51 of the Charter by creating new norms, such as the preemptive defense. Based on these norms, the US and the other countries that follow its military doctrine have allowed themselves to resort to force against their enemies, simply on the premise of detecting imminent threats from them, without being attacked first. The main question of the current study is to what extent is the preemptive defense acceptable in international law, and what legal and military measures should countries take when protecting civilians against imminent threats of enemies when the threatening party does not hesitate to realize their threats. The research hypothesis is that resorting to preemptive defense is not acceptable in international law; however, doing it when protecting civilians seems rational. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the authors have concluded that despite being rational, resorting arbitrarily to preemptive defense against imminent threats to protect civilians is not acceptable in current international law.