PREVENTIVE vs. PREEMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE. Social Sciences Essay

PREVENTIVE vs. PREEMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE
Student’s Name
Course
Date
Self-defense in international law refers to the right of a country to apply force in defending itself from attack. It is one of the exceptions towards the prohibitions against the use of force outlined in article 2(4) of the UN Charter as well as the customary international law. There are two notable strategies that countries use in self-defense. These include the pre-emptive and the preventive approaches to defense. Preventive self-defense involves longer-range, less definitive threats, whereas preemptive self-defense involves dealing with more conscious threats that are immediate and more concrete.
Preemptive self-defense, also known as anticipatory defense, is a form of self-protection where a state prepares for an attack that has been proven to be imminent. In such a case, the aggressor country is in its final stages of preparations for the attack. The target country has concrete proof that an attack is going to happen and to protect itself, it decides to strike first.
The United Nations Charter paradigm for the use of force regards the use of unilateral preemptive force as unlawful if there is no imminent threat. Under the customary international law, the use of preemptive force was permissible for purposes of self-defense. The case in which this doctrine was applicable is in the Caroline incident. Under the Caroline case, it was agreed that “a[s] for the principle of self-defense, it has long been accepted that, for it to be invoked or justified, the necessity for action must be instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.” Thus preemptive self-defense calls for the aspect of necessity for action to be taken.[Kretzmer, David. "The inherent right to self-defence and proportionality in ...