According to the traditional view, preventive uses of force between states and preventive killings of individuals, to be legal, have one basic requirement in common, namely, the requirement of the immediacy of the threat posed. The U.S. National Security Strategy of September 2002, the so-called Bush doctrine, and the so-called Israeli policy of "targeted killing" challenge precisely this core requirement for the preventive use of force against states and against individuals. The author argues that abandonment of the traditional standard is unwarranted, even when taking into account the new kinds of threats that have arisen in recent times. Such abandonment, he argues, would risk transforming indispensable foundations of the international law on the use of force and on human rights.

Editor-in-Chief: Hannes, Sharon
2 Issues per year
Issues
Volume 14 (2013)
Volume 13 (2012)
Volume 12 (2011)
Volume 11 (2010)
Volume 10 (2009)
Volume 9 (2008)
Volume 8 (2007)
Volume 7 (2006)
Volume 6 (2005)
Volume 5 (2004)
Volume 3 (2002)
Volume 2 (2001)
Most Downloaded Articles
- On the Use and Abuse of Blackstone -- A Comment on Professor Schorr by Kreitner, Roy
- Global Investment Regulation and Sovereign Funds by Chalamish, Efraim
- Targeted Killing by Statman, Daniel
- Governments as Investors of Last Resort: Comparative Credit Crisis Case-Studies by Hertig, Gerard
- Corporate Governance under State Control: The Chinese Experience by Wang, Zhaofeng
Preventive Use of Force and Preventive Killings: Moves into a Different Legal Order
Georg Nolte1
1University of Goettingen
Citation Information: Theoretical Inquiries in Law. Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 111–129, ISSN (Online) 1565-3404, DOI: 10.2202/1565-3404.1087, February 2004
Publication History:
- Published Online:
- 2004-02-11


















Comments (0)