The Strategic and Legal Dimensions of Preemptive Force: Global Paradigms and the Mitigation of Emergent Threats

Full report

On this page

Introduction

The architecture of international security, established in the aftermath of the Second World War, has traditionally been predicated on the inviolability of state sovereignty and the strict prohibition of the use of force, save for stringent exceptions surrounding self-defense. However, the proliferation of asymmetric threats, the rise of transnational non-state armed groups, and the covert pursuit of weapons of mass destruction by adversarial actors have fundamentally disrupted this Westphalian paradigm. Faced with adversaries who operate outside conventional state apparatuses, or rogue states that obfuscate their strategic capabilities, victim states increasingly argue that waiting to absorb a first strike is strategically untenable and morally indefensible. Consequently, the calculus of national defense has expanded significantly to include preemptive military action—the use of force to neutralize an imminent threat before it materializes into a kinetic reality. The justification for preemptive attacks relies on a complex, often highly contested synthesis of evolving legal doctrines, strategic deterrence theories, and the pragmatic necessities of threat mitigation. While historically scrutinized and often conflated with illegal wars of aggression, anticipatory military action is increasingly invoked by states across the globe—from the Middle East and South Asia to Latin America—as a necessary, albeit extreme, mechanism for state survival. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the strategic and legal arguments underpinning preemptive force against known threats. By examining the doctrinal shifts in customary international law, the emergence of the "unwilling or unable" standard, and the contextual redefinition of "imminence," the analysis demonstrates how a diverse array of states justifies preemptive actions. Furthermore, by evaluating the state practice of nations such as India, Israel, Turkey, and Colombia, this report identifies the second and third-order implications of normalizing preemptive force within the contemporary global order, assessing how these actions reshape the fundamental boundaries of sovereignty and international law.

The Jurisprudential Architecture of Anticipatory Self-Defense

The modern framework governing the use of military force is deeply anchored in the United Nations Charter, which was designed primarily to prevent a recurrence of the devastating state-on-state conflicts that characterized the early twentieth century. Article 2(4) of the Charter establishes a foundational, nearly absolute prohibition against the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state1. The primary exception to this overarching prohibition is codified in Article 51, which explicitly preserves the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations"1. The critical jurisprudential tension that animates the debate over preemptive strikes lies in the phrase "if an armed attack occurs." A strict, literal interpretation of this language suggests that a target state must physically absorb a kinetic blow before it can lawfully respond with military force2. However, customary international law has long recognized that a state need not wait to be catastrophically struck if a devastating attack is demonstrably imminent and unavoidable. This recognition stems from the 1837 Caroline incident, which established the foundational legal test for anticipatory self-defense. Following a preemptive British attack on an American vessel that was supplying Canadian rebels, United States Secretary of State Daniel Webster articulated that preemptive force is justified only when the necessity of self-defense is "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation"1. This formulation established that the necessity of self-defense must be driven by an immediate peril, demanding a proportionate response tightly limited by that necessity. While the Caroline test codified the theoretical right to strike preemptively, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has historically maintained a high, state-centric threshold for what constitutes an actionable "armed attack," particularly regarding the actions of non-state actors. In the seminal 1986 Nicaragua case, the ICJ ruled that self-defense against a non-state actor operating from a host state is only lawful if the non-state actor's actions can be directly attributed to the host state through "effective control," or if the host state has explicitly "sent" the armed group on its behalf3. The Court reaffirmed this rigid position in both the Palestinian Wall advisory opinion and the Democratic Republic of the Congo vs. Uganda case, consistently holding that Article 51 limits self-defensive acts to situations where the armed attacks are imputable to the state whose territorial sovereignty is being violated10. This rigid requirement for state attribution presents a severe, often insurmountable operational dilemma in the modern era. When transnational terrorist organizations plan attacks from the ungoverned spaces of a fractured or failing state, the host state often lacks "effective control" over the group, rendering the victim state theoretically powerless to respond under the strict Nicaragua paradigm10. To bridge the widening gap between this restrictive legal framework and the imperative of national survival, states have driven a rapid, practice-based evolution in international legal doctrines to justify preemptive interventions against both state and non-state threats.

Taxonomy of Anticipatory Force: Preemption vs. Prevention

To rigorously analyze the justifications for striking first, it is necessary to delineate the operational and legal distinctions between preemptive strikes and preventive wars. While both involve anticipatory violence designed to mitigate future threats, they are fundamentally separated by the temporal proximity of the threat, their standing in international law, and the strategic rationale driving the decision to use force1. A preemptive strike is defined as a military operation or series of operations launched in anticipation of immediate aggression by another party1. It is essentially a violent interception. The strategic assumption is that the decision for war has already been made by the adversary, and the preempting state is acting rapidly to mitigate the damage of the incoming blow, upset the adversary's schedule, or repel an unavoidable invasion1. Because preemptive strikes are responsive to an imminent, materializing threat, they generally carry less diplomatic stigma and are often viewed as a legitimate, albeit extreme, measure of self-preservation under customary international law1. In contrast, a preventive war is initiated based on a long-term strategic forecast. A preventive war is a military, diplomatic, and strategic endeavor aimed at an enemy whom one expects to grow so strong that delay would inevitably cause defeat5. The defining characteristic of a preventive war is that the targeted attack is not imminent or known to be specifically planned; rather, the war is initiated in the belief that military conflict is inevitable, and that to delay would involve unacceptable risk1. Most contemporary scholarship equates preventive war with unprovoked aggression, and it is therefore widely considered illegitimate and illegal under the United Nations Charter1.

History provides extensive context for these distinctions. The Peloponnesian War offers an early example, where Sparta's ally, Thebes, launched a preemptive strike on Plataea before a formal battle could begin13. In the modern era, the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is widely considered a preventive war launched to destroy the potential threat of the United States Pacific Fleet before the U.S. could intervene in the Far East, though Japan might argue that American economic embargoes constituted prior acts of war13. Following World War II, international courts hanged German and Japanese officials for engaging in, among other crimes, unprovoked preventive wars, cementing the profound legal stigma attached to such actions14. The second-order insight drawn from this taxonomy is the phenomenon of terminological manipulation. Because preventive wars carry heavy diplomatic and legal stigmas, states routinely describe preventive actions using the vocabulary of preemption. By claiming that a long-term, gathering threat is actually "imminent," states attempt to shield themselves from accusations of aggression and harness the legal protections afforded by Article 5114. The conflation of these terms is not merely a semantic error; it is a deliberate strategic communications mechanism designed to legitimize the use of force in the eyes of the domestic populace and the international community. This was notably evident in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where the United States framed a preventive regime change operation as a preemptive strike against the long-term threat of weapons of mass destruction1.

The Threat of Non-State Actors and the "Unwilling or Unable" Doctrine

The proliferation of armed non-state actors (NSAs)—such as transnational terrorist networks, powerful insurgencies, and heavily armed cartels—has forced a fundamental reevaluation of anticipatory self-defense. NSAs frequently operate from "safe havens" within sovereign states, exploiting porous borders, difficult terrain, or sympathetic local governments. If a victim state detects that an NSA is planning an attack from a neighboring territory, it faces a profound strategic trilemma: it must choose between respecting the territorial sovereignty of the host state (thereby absorbing the attack), relying on a host state that may be complicit, or violating that sovereignty to neutralize the threat unilaterally12. To resolve this operational deadlock, an increasing number of states have adopted and promoted the "Unwilling or Unable" doctrine. This doctrine posits that a threatened state may lawfully use preemptive force against an NSA located in a third state without that state's consent, or the authorization of the UN Security Council, provided that the host state is either unwilling or unable to suppress the threat itself3.

Deconstructing the Doctrine

The doctrine systematically dismantles the traditional shield of absolute territorial sovereignty under specific conditions, operating on two distinct prongs:

1. Unwillingness: The host state possesses the capacity to neutralize the NSA but refuses to do so. This often implies that the state is actively colluding with, harboring, or turning a blind eye to the non-state actor. In this context, the state fails its due diligence obligations, derived from extensive international counter-terrorism treaties, to ensure its territory is not used as a staging ground for transnational violence10.

2. Inability: The host state lacks the institutional capacity, military reach, or political coherence to neutralize the NSA. This frequently occurs in failed states, "grey zones," or regions embroiled in civil war where the central government has lost a monopoly on the legitimate use of force4.

By invoking this doctrine, the victim state bypasses the strict ICJ requirement to attribute the NSA's actions to the host state via "effective control"3. The analytical justification is deeply rooted in the principle of necessity. If the host state cannot or will not remove the imminent threat, the victim state is forced, by sheer operational necessity, to intervene to protect its own population and territorial integrity12. This relies on the premise that sovereignty is not merely an inviolable right, but a condition that carries the responsibility of preventing cross-border harm. When a state fails in that responsibility, it temporarily forfeits its right to territorial immunity12.

Global Reactions and Second-Order Implications

The application of the unwilling or unable standard has garnered explicit endorsement from a growing coalition of states, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Russia, and Turkey, who have utilized the doctrine to justify operations against groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the PKK10. However, the doctrine remains highly controversial and faces fierce opposition from states that perceive it as a neo-imperial tool designed to circumvent international law. States such as Mexico, Brazil, Iraq, and Syria have consistently opposed the doctrine, rejecting its legality under Article 51 and framing it as a violation of sovereignty that threatens the global order12. Opponents argue that the doctrine is dangerously subjective. The determination of whether a host state is "unwilling" or "unable" is almost always made unilaterally by the attacking state, governed only by a low threshold of self-judged "reasonableness"12. This unilateral assessment acts as a legal loophole that allows militarily superior states to bypass the UN Security Council. Critics argue that deploying the doctrine in this manner reverses the logic of the UN Charter, allowing "necessity to generate legality rather than legality to constrain necessity"3. Furthermore, legal scholars point out that applying the doctrine effectively imports the domestic law concept of strict liability into public international law, shifting the burden onto the host state regardless of its complicity22.

Redefining "Imminence": The Bethlehem Principles

For a preemptive strike to be justified under customary international law, the threat must be demonstrably "imminent." Historically, as defined by the Caroline test, imminence was strictly temporal—meaning an attack was hours or minutes away, leaving no moment for deliberation2. Yet, the nature of modern asymmetric threats renders a strictly temporal definition strategically obsolete. Terrorist networks do not mobilize massed armies on a visible border; they operate clandestinely, communicating in dark networks, and planning attacks that can be executed rapidly, often triggered remotely from abroad7. If a state must wait until a terrorist has crossed a border or armed a device, the window for interception is likely already closed. To address this friction between the law and the operational environment, international legal scholars and state practitioners have sought to expand the definition of imminence. The most prominent, comprehensive articulation of this effort is the "Bethlehem Principles," formulated in 2012 by Sir Daniel Bethlehem, former Legal Adviser to the United Kingdom's Foreign and Commonwealth Office7.

Contextual Imminence vs. Temporal Imminence

The Bethlehem Principles argue that imminence is not solely a question of timing. Instead, whether an attack is imminent must be assessed contextually, utilizing a "reasonable and objective basis" by analyzing several converging factors7. These principles stipulate that the absence of specific evidence regarding precisely where or when an attack will take place does not preclude a conclusion that an armed attack is imminent25. The factors for assessment include:

1. The Nature and Immediacy of the Threat: Evaluating the specific capabilities of the group, their historical behavior, and the lethality of the proposed attack7.

2. Probability of an Attack: The likelihood that the attack will occur if proactive mitigating action is not taken by the defending state7.

3. A Concerted Pattern of Continuing Armed Activity: If a non-state actor is engaged in an ongoing, overarching campaign of violence against the state, isolated planning events are viewed as part of a continuous, rolling threat rather than discrete, disconnected incidents. This allows states to view periods of apparent calm as merely the preparation phase of a broader attack cycle7.

4. The Scale of Anticipated Harm: The projected injury, loss, or damage that will likely result if the defending state fails to act7.

Third-Order Insights on Contextual Imminence

The transition from temporal imminence to contextual imminence fundamentally alters the burden of proof required for a state to initiate armed force. Under the Bethlehem framework, a state does not need to prove that a specific attack is about to happen tomorrow; it only needs to prove that a hostile group possesses the intent and capability to attack, and that striking now represents the last viable window of opportunity to prevent future harm8. This conceptual shift effectively blurs the line between legitimate preemptive strikes and illegal preventive wars. By stretching the definition of imminence to include "patterns of continuing activity," states can legally rationalize striking dormant terrorist camps, logistics nodes, or financial facilitators long before a specific plot matures8. While this affords states the operational flexibility necessary to combat shadowy networks, legal scholars like Dapo Akande and Thomas Liefländer note that accepting vague general principles, rather than precise temporal standards, weakens the law's power to impose meaningful restraints27. It potentially enables endless, low-intensity conflict, as a state can perpetually claim that an adversary represents a continuous, contextual threat that must be periodically degraded through preemptive force.

Global Manifestations: State Practice and Justifications

The discourse surrounding preemptive strikes is often heavily skewed toward the United States and the post-9/11 "Bush Doctrine," which controversially advocated for a "one percent doctrine"—suggesting that even a one percent chance of an attack with WMDs justified preemptive action15. However, the utilization and sophisticated justification of preemptive force have been widely integrated into the strategic doctrines of numerous states facing chronic, diverse security threats. An analysis of state practice across different geographic theaters demonstrates how nations contextualize and execute these operations to reduce known threats.

India and Pakistan: The Balakot Strikes and "Non-Military Preemptive Action"

The strategic environment in South Asia is characterized by a nuclear overhang, historical animosity, and a deep history of asymmetric warfare. In February 2019, a devastating suicide attack was carried out by the Pakistan-based non-state actor Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) against Indian paramilitary forces in Pulwama, Kashmir33. In response, India executed deep-penetration airstrikes against a JeM training facility in Balakot, situated inside undisputed Pakistani territory16. The official justification provided by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs represents a masterclass in modern international legal framing. India explicitly categorized the operation not as an act of war, but as a "non-military preemptive action"16.

1. "Non-Military": By targeting a terrorist camp situated in a remote "thick forest on a hilltop" and intentionally avoiding Pakistani military installations or civilian infrastructure, India sought to signal that its actions were strictly counter-terrorism operations, not an act of aggression against the State of Pakistan16. This framing was an attempt to fulfill the proportionality requirement of self-defense34.

2. "Preemptive": Relying on the evolving interpretation of Article 51, India claimed to have "credible intelligence" that JeM was actively planning another wave of imminent suicide attacks across India. Because Pakistan was allegedly failing to dismantle these camps—embodying the "unwilling or unable" standard—India argued that the necessity for self-defense was instant, overwhelming, and left no moment for deliberation16.

Strategic Insight: The Balakot strikes signify a paradigm shift in Indian strategic doctrine—moving definitively away from "strategic restraint" toward "deterrence by punishment"33. By conducting kinetic operations 80 kilometers inside Pakistani territory, India demonstrated its willingness to call Pakistan's nuclear bluff, exorcising the ghost of self-deterrence33. India established a new regional threshold: cross-border terrorism will now be met with conventional preemptive force33. However, the immediate consequence was a conventional dogfight between the two air forces the following day—Operation Swift Retort—which resulted in the downing and capture of an Indian fighter pilot35. This highlights the severe escalatory risks of cross-border preemption between nuclear-armed neighbors; once the threshold is crossed, the preempting state loses control over the adversary's escalatory choices35.

Israel: The Begin Doctrine and Existential Counter-Proliferation

Israel's geopolitical environment—surrounded by adversarial state and non-state actors explicitly committed to its destruction—has birthed one of the most aggressive and formalized doctrines of anticipatory self-defense: the Begin Doctrine39. Named after Prime Minister Menachem Begin, the doctrine is a preventive strike, counter-proliferation policy that stipulates Israel will never allow an enemy state committed to its destruction to acquire weapons of mass destruction39. The doctrine has been kinetically applied in highly publicized, paradigm-shifting operations:

1. Operation Opera (1981): The preemptive destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. Two days after the attack, Begin justified the strike as "anticipatory self-defense at its best," famously arguing that waiting for Saddam Hussein to acquire a nuclear bomb would invite "another Holocaust"39. Despite Israel's claims of preemption under Article 51, the international community, including the UN Security Council (via Resolution 487\) and the United States, unanimously condemned the attack as a flagrant violation of international law, viewing it as an illegal preventive war39.

2. Operation Outside the Box (2007): The destruction of the Al Kibar graphite-moderated nuclear facility in Syria, which was being built with North Korean assistance39.

Strategic Insight: An analysis of the international reactions to these two events reveals a profound, silent shift in global norms. While the 1981 strike was universally condemned, the 2007 strike was met with a near-total news blackout by Israel and implicit acceptance—or at least a lack of significant condemnation—from the international community40. This suggests that over the intervening decades, the international community has quietly begun to accept the necessity of unilateral preventive counter-proliferation strikes against rogue actors, even if they remain technically illegal under a strict, textual reading of the UN Charter41. Furthermore, the Begin Doctrine continues to drive Israeli strategic calculus regarding Iran's nuclear program. Israel utilizes sabotage, cyber-attacks (e.g., Stuxnet targeting Natanz centrifuges), and direct, large-scale airstrikes as preemptive tools, driven by the existential belief that waiting for a threat to fully materialize is synonymous with national suicide39.

Turkey: Cross-Border Operations and the Sovereignty Dilemma

Turkey has repeatedly engaged in preemptive and continuous cross-border military operations into northern Iraq and Syria targeting the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the People's Protection Units (YPG), and the Islamic State (ISIS)11. Operations such as Operation Peace Spring in 2019 are indicative of Turkey's reliance on anticipatory force to manage its borders. In its diplomatic communications, Turkey explicitly invokes Article 51 of the UN Charter in letters to the UN Security Council, citing the necessity of individual self-defense against "imminent terrorist threats"11. Turkey's legal arguments rely heavily on the logic of the "unwilling or unable" standard, asserting that because the central governments of Syria and Iraq have lost effective control over their border regions, a power vacuum has been created. Turkey argues it has the right to preemptively neutralize the groups utilizing that vacuum to launch rockets, harassment fire, and sniper attacks into Turkish territory4. Strategic Insight: Turkey's operations vividly illustrate the friction between the right of self-defense and the prohibition on the use of force. Legal scholars and critics point out that border "harassment fire" does not meet the high gravity threshold of a large-scale "armed attack" required by international law, and that Turkey's massive conventional incursions violate the principles of necessity and proportionality24. However, Turkey's actions highlight a growing state practice: when neighboring states fracture into ungoverned "grey zones," militarily capable nations will unilaterally redraw operational borders to establish "safe zones" through preemptive force12. They effectively subordinate the de jure sovereignty of the fractured state to their own de facto domestic security imperatives.

Colombia: Operation Phoenix and the Targeting of Safe Havens

In March 2008, the Colombian military executed Operation Phoenix, a lightning cross-border raid into Ecuadorian territory. The objective was to destroy a clandestine camp belonging to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and kill its second-in-command, Luis Édgar Devia Silva, widely known as Raúl Reyes23. The camp was situated just 1,850 meters across the border, strategically placed to evade the intense military pressure of "Plan Colombia" while allowing the FARC to plan operations, manage finances, and launch attacks back into Colombia48. Colombia launched the attack without notifying the Ecuadorian government, triggering a severe regional diplomatic crisis. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa denounced the raid as an act of aggression, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez mobilized troops in solidarity, highlighting the geopolitical fragility of the region48. The Colombian justification mirrored the counter-terrorism paradigms seen globally: the NSA had established an "independent republic" in an ungoverned border space, utilizing a cross-border safe haven to pose a continuous and imminent threat to Colombian national security, necessitating an instantaneous, preemptive military incursion23. Strategic Insight: Operation Phoenix demonstrates both the high efficacy and the profound political peril of preemptive decapitation strikes. From a strict military standpoint, the strike was a resounding tactical success. It eliminated a key strategic leader, recovered intelligence documents detailing FARC's regional political support, severely degraded the group's operational capabilities, and altered the group's strategic calculus (their "best alternative to a negotiated agreement")48. This increased pressure is widely viewed as a catalyst that accelerated the peace negotiations, ultimately culminating in the historic 2016 Havana Accords50. However, the violation of Ecuadorian sovereignty exacted a heavy diplomatic toll, proving that while preemptive strikes against safe havens can break a military stalemate in a protracted insurgency, the long-term strategic viability of such actions depends heavily on managing the subsequent regional diplomatic fallout48.

Systemic Implications: The Democratization of Preemption

The aggregation of state practice—from the United States to India, Israel, Turkey, and Colombia—demonstrates that preemptive military action against known threats is no longer an anomaly restricted to superpowers; it has become a normalized, accessible instrument of global statecraft. However, the reliance on expansive legal doctrines like "unwilling or unable" and "contextual imminence" generates profound second and third-order effects on the international system.

The overarching consequence of these trends is the "democratization of preemption." If the expansive interpretations of self-defense pioneered by technologically advanced or regionally dominant powers are accepted as customary international law, those same legal precedents become universally available to all states. A legal architecture carefully designed by Western nations to justify a surgical drone strike against a remote terrorist camp can easily be repurposed by other nations to justify full-scale, devastating invasions under the guise of neutralizing an "imminent threat" or an "unwilling" neighbor. Without an objective, universally accepted institutional arbiter to verify intelligence, assess true imminence, and authorize force, the international system relies solely on the self-restraint of individual states—a mechanism that history proves is a highly unreliable safeguard against the outbreak of war.

Conclusion

The evolution of the argument for preemptive attacks reflects a deep, unresolvable systemic tension between the legacy framework of international law and the brutal operational realities of twenty-first-century threat mitigation. The stringent limitations of the United Nations Charter, designed primarily to prevent aggressive wars of conquest between recognized sovereign states, have proven insufficient to protect nations from the nebulous, rapid-onset dangers posed by transnational terrorist networks, powerful insurgencies, and the covert proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In response, states have iteratively and aggressively stretched the customary right of anticipatory self-defense. By advancing doctrines such as the "unwilling or unable" standard, states have functionally bypassed the strict legal requirement for state attribution, arguing forcefully that sovereignty cannot serve as an absolute, impenetrable shield for hostile non-state actors plotting from within porous borders. Simultaneously, by adopting frameworks akin to the Bethlehem Principles, states have expanded the temporal constraints of "imminence" into a broad, contextual window of opportunity, justifying strikes against the probability of future harm and the overarching intent of an adversary, rather than waiting for a specific, impending attack to materialize. The global nature of this doctrinal shift is undeniable. Whether it is India neutralizing terror camps deep inside Pakistan to re-establish strategic deterrence, Israel launching audacious counter-proliferation strikes against Iraq, Syria, and Iran to prevent existential annihilation, Turkey carving out military buffer zones in failing states to combat insurgencies, or Colombia raiding cross-border safe havens to break a decades-long domestic stalemate, the core justification for preemptive force remains consistent. When the existential survival of the state is perceived to be at risk, and diplomatic or collective security mechanisms fail to provide immediate relief, the strategic necessity of anticipatory violence consistently overrides the abstract preservation of territorial sovereignty. However, the widespread adoption and normalization of these expansive preemptive doctrines is not without severe strategic costs. By systematically lowering the threshold for the use of force, shifting the burden of proof away from objective immediacy toward subjective probability, and prioritizing unilateral military action over collective security, states risk eroding the very international legal norms that prevent anarchic warfare. The ultimate challenge for the international community is not to blindly prohibit preemptive action—which the pragmatic realities of modern statecraft render impossible—but to establish rigorous, objective evidentiary standards that prevent the language of anticipatory self-defense from being wielded as a convenient, sanitized cloak for unchecked aggression.

Works cited

1. Preemptive war \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive\_war

2. The Legality of Preemptive Strike in International Law \- Modern Diplomacy, https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/06/29/the-legality-of-preemptive-strike-in-international-law/

3. The U.S. Strikes Against Venezuela and the Credibility of the Anti-Aggression Norm, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-u-s-strikes-against-venezuela-and-the-credibility-of-the-anti-aggression-norm/

4. MODERN SELF-DEFENSE: THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST NON-MILITARY THREATS, https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/files/2018/09/JoseLuisAragonCardielAman-1.pdf

5. The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsideration, https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Recent-Publications/Article/3896267/the-implications-of-preemptive-and-preventive-war-doctrines-a-reconsideration/

6. Which States Support the 'Unwilling and Unable' Test? \- Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/which-states-support-unwilling-and-unable-test

7. THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST IMMINENT ARMED ATTACK IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, https://law.uq.edu.au/files/25365/2017%2004%2011%20-%20Attorney-General%20-%20Speech%20-%20The%20Right%20of%20Self-Defence%20Against%20Imminent%20Armed%20Attack%20in%20International%20Law%20-%20for%20publication.pdf

8. Full article: Reconceptualising the right of self-defence against 'imminent' armed attacks, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20531702.2022.2097618

9. The Right of Self-Defence Against Imminent Armed Attack In International Law \- EJIL: Talk\!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-right-of-self-defence-against-imminent-armed-attack-in-international-law/

10. The "Unwilling or Unable" Standard for Self-Defense \- Opinio Juris, http://opiniojuris.org/2011/09/17/the-unwilling-or-unable-standard-for-self-defense-against-non-state-actors/

11. The invocation of the right to self-defence in response to armed attacks conducted by armed groups: Implications for attribution | Leiden Journal of International Law | Cambridge Core, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/invocation-of-the-right-to-selfdefence-in-response-to-armed-attacks-conducted-by-armed-groups-implications-for-attribution/940ED1D777AA475D94DEFF3589E063E0

12. Jus ad bellum series: self-defence against armed non-state actors in the MENA region, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20531702.2024.2419762

13. Preemptive Strikes and Preventive Wars: A Historian's Perspective \- Hoover Institution, https://www.hoover.org/research/preemptive-strikes-and-preventive-wars-historians-perspective

14. Preemptive Strikes: Overview | Military History and Science | Research Starters \- EBSCO, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/preemptive-strikes-overview

15. Doyle Addresses Issue of preemptive Strikes in New Book \- Columbia Law School, https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/doyle-addresses-issue-preemptive-strikes-new-book

16. Legal Implications of the Recent India-Pakistan Military Standoff \- Opinio Juris, http://opiniojuris.org/2019/03/08/legal-implications-of-the-recent-india-pakistan-military-standoff/

17. The Unable or Unwilling Doctrine: A View from Private Law, https://journals.law.harvard.edu/ilj/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/HLI102\_crop-2.pdf

18. Challenging and Refining the “Unwilling or Unable” Doctrine \- Vanderbilt University, https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wp0/wp-content/uploads/sites/78/2019/05/25133137/7.20Martin20.pdf

19. Use of Force as Self Defence against Non-State Actors and TWAIL Considerations: A Critical Analysis of India's State Practice in \- Brill, https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004437784/BP000016.xml

20. Anticipatory self-defence against terrorists (Chapter 12\) \- Counter-Terrorism Strategies in a Fragmented International Legal Order, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/counterterrorism-strategies-in-a-fragmented-international-legal-order/anticipatory-selfdefence-against-terrorists/731DCFCE135EAC94D2238927B828B8B8

21. “Unwilling or Unable” \- U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3071\&context=ils

22. The 'Unwilling or Unable' Doctrine Unmasked \- Maastricht University, https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/files/96318712/McGibbon\_2021\_The\_unwilling\_or\_unable\_doctrine.pdf

23. “Grey zones” in international law: areas controlled by the Colombian FARC-EP \- Dialnet, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6000760.pdf

24. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE APPLICATION OF THE UNWILLING OR UNABLE TEST IN THE SYRIAN CONFLICT Dr. Waseem Ahmad Qureshi\* Recently,, https://drexel.edu/\~/media/Files/law/law%20review/v11-1/Qureshi%206199.ashx

25. Chapter 102 Daniel Bethlehem, Self Defence against Non-State Actors (and Response by E Wilmshurst and M Wood), 2012 in \- Brill, https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004386242/BP000102.xml

26. How the Expansion of "Self-Defense" Has Undermined Constraints on the Use of Force, https://www.justsecurity.org/88346/the-expansion-of-self-defense/

27. notes and comments clarifying necessity, imminence, and proportionality \- in the law of self-defense \- Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/58DB932FE99BA0E097989AB277995BD9/S000293000000052Xa.pdf/clarifying-necessity-imminence-and-proportionality-in-the-law-of-self-defense.pdf

28. Daniel Bethlehem on Principles Governing Self-Defense Against Non-State Actors | Lawfare, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/readings-daniel-bethlehem-principles-governing-self-defense-against-non-state-actors

29. Chapter 102 Daniel Bethlehem, Self Defence against Non-State Actors (and Response by E Wilmshurst and M Wood), 2012 in \- Brill, https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004386242/BP000102.xml?language=en

30. Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack By Nonstate Actors | American Journal of International Law \- Cambridge University Press & Assessment, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/selfdefense-against-an-imminent-or-actual-armed-attack-by-nonstate-actors/BC9C62E3157202F50234A452A714A421

31. Pre-emptive war under international law, https://repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/Content/107827/PDF/07\_Pietkiewicz\_M\_Pre\_emptive\_war\_under\_international\_law.pdf

32. Operational Law Handbook \> Chapter 1: LEGAL BASES FOR THE USE OF FORCE, https://tjaglcs.army.mil/Periodicals/Deskbooks-Handbooks/Operational-Law-Handbook?topic=Chapter+1%3A+LEGAL+BASES+FOR+THE+USE+OF+FORCE

33. A Smoldering Volcano: Pakistan and Terrorism after Balakot, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2019/03/a-smoldering-volcano-pakistan-and-terrorism-after-balakot

34. The Balakot statement: Establishing a responsible India, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-balakot-statement-establishing-a-responsible-india-48914

35. The Pulwama Aftermath: Making Sense of India's Response \- South Asian Voices, https://southasianvoices.org/the-pulwama-aftermath-making-sense-of-indias-response-%EF%BB%BF/

36. PULWAMA-BALAKOT CRISIS & OPERATION SWIFT RETORT \- CISS Pakistan, https://ciss.org.pk/PDFs/CISS-Special-Issue-Pulwama-Balakot-Crisis.pdf

37. Possibilities of Peace: Unpacking India and Pakistan's Bilateral Relations, https://www.epw.in/engage/article/possibilities-peace-unpacking-india-and

38. Policy Roundtable: The Future of South Asia \- Texas National Security Review, https://tnsr.org/roundtable/policy-roundtable-the-future-of-south-asia/

39. Israel's Begin Doctrine drives attack on Iran's nuclear program | The Jerusalem Post, https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-857607

40. Begin Doctrine \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begin\_Doctrine

41. Armed Attacks on Nuclear Facilities: Historical Patterns, Legal Challenges, and Implications for Global Security \- VIIMES, https://viimes.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/ResearchfellowsArticlesEdited11\_26Dec2025.pdf

42. Israel's Operation Rising Lion and the Right of Self-Defense \- Lieber Institute \- West Point, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/israels-operation-rising-lion-right-of-self-defense/

43. Briefing Memo The Pre-emption against Nuclear Facilities Revisited, https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/briefing/pdf/2012/briefing\_e166.pdf

44. Israel and nuclear weapons \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel\_and\_nuclear\_weapons

45. What Factors Drive U.S.-Israeli Differences on Iran's Nuclear Challenge? \- CSIS, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-factors-drive-us-israeli-differences-irans-nuclear-challenge

46. The laws of war in self-defence operations under international law: \- arno, http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=122909

47. A Collective Failure to Prevent Turkey's Operation 'Peace Spring' and NATO's Silence on International Law \- EJIL: Talk\!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-collective-failure-to-prevent-turkeys-operation-peace-spring-and-natos-silence-on-international-law/

48. State sovereignty discourse and the Just War Tradition: Assessing Colombia's 2008 cross-border raid into Ecuador and its foreign policy \- OPUS at UTS, https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/116900/7/02whole.pdf

49. Is Ecuador facing a non-international armed conflict against organized crime groups? Reality, inconsistencies and jurisprudential developments, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-review-of-the-red-cross/article/is-ecuador-facing-a-noninternational-armed-conflict-against-organized-crime-groups-reality-inconsistencies-and-jurisprudential-developments/CF3B29C014B9816F2FD11C55B20D838B

50. Colombia: Towards Total Peace? \- Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos \- CESEDEN, https://www.ieee.es/Galerias/fichero/docs\_investig/2023/DIEEEINV01\_2023\_FEDAZN\_Colombia\_ENG.pdf

51. Images of the Colombian Armed Conflict 2002- 2010 \- UC Berkeley, https://escholarship.org/content/qt0cm960g2/qt0cm960g2.pdf

52. The larger lessons of plan Colombia: a case of innovation and success \- Semantic Scholar, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ad63/8d9f9ab9b7acc1a2eab9e2334192b00dbdd7.pdf

53. Welcome to the Jungle: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Colombia \- Modern War Institute \-, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Welcome-to-the-Jungle.pdf