Self-defence, Anticipatory Self-defence and Pre-emption: International Law's Response to Terrorism

Abstract

This article makes the distinction between self-defence, anticipatory self-defence and pre-emption. It argues against pre-emption. In the presence of article 39 of the Charter the case for pre-emption is not convincing and the current international legal order can deal effectively with the threat of terrorism. The article argues that certain acts of terrorism may amount to an armed attack, hence necessary and proportionate force may be used after meeting the outlined criteria.