Abstract
The debate triggered by the new Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive action lies in the amalgamation between pre-emptive (i.e. anticipatory) and preventive self-defense. While the former finds legal and political basis, the latter is, so far, hardly distinguished from outright aggression. The Bush Doctrine aims at a shift from pre-emption to prevention for the United States to have at its disposal this new tool it stands for: a right to preventive action. Since the 9/11 attacks, the US has exposed its new concerns with respect to security: weapons of mass destruction, terrorist organizations and rogue states. The Doctrine is the response the US opposes to these new threats. This dissertation will try to demonstrate that, so far, Bush's notion of pre-emption finds no clear support either in international law or in the political field, but rather fuels a strong controversy, be it about pure legality or general acceptability. Meanwhile, the need for an answer to these new concerns is real and this dissertation will conclude with some suggestions as how to refine this concept to make it escape a too great controversy and subsequently appear as the useful tool the US intended it to be.
The Bush Doctrine has fueled a very sensitive debate about pre-emptive and preventive war. In the definition of the Pentagon itself, pre-emption is
"an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent" whereas prevention refers to "a war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve great risk."
