Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 43, Number 1/2 (Spring/Summer 2005) Third World Approaches to International Law After 9/ Article 4 11 Guest Editor: Obiora Okafor Assessing Claims of a New Doctrine of Pre- Emptive War under the Doctrine of Sources James Thuo Gathii Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the International Law Commons Special Issue Article Citation Information Gathii, James Thuo. "Assessing Claims of a New Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War under the Doctrine of Sources." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 43.1/2 (2005) : 67-103. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol43/iss1/4 This Special Issue Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Assessing Claims of a New Doctrine of Pre-Emptive War under the Doctrine of Sources Abstract After examining state practice and opinio juris on the preemptive use of force in the last few years, I conclude that the prohibition of preemptive war where there is no armed attack or an instant, overwhelming threat has not changed. Under customary international law, this prohibition of preemptive use of force is a customary international law norm of extremely high normativity and as such state practice inconsistent confirms the norm particularly in the absence of evidence of its widespread and representative repudiation. Second, under the doctrine of sources, state practice inconsistent with a norm of customary international law or persistent dissension from it, does not establish a new norm but is instead regarded a violation of the norm. Third, even assuming that persistent objectors to the prohibition of preemptive use of force in the absence of an armed attack or instant, overwhelming threats, regard themselves as having created a new rule binding to themselves, under the doctrine of sources a small number of states cannot within a limited time frame create a new rule without 'a very widespread and representative participation' in the practice. Finally, a small number of states cannot create a new rule of customary international law where there is practice which conflicts with the rule or where there are protests to the new rule. This is particularly so with respect to a rule relating to the prohibition of the use of force which is a 'conspicuous example of a rule of international law having the character of jus cogens' with respect to which practice inconsistent with it would be regarded as a violation of the norm rather than as establishing a new norm. Keywords International law; Jus cogens (International law); War on Terrorism, 2001-2009 This special issue article is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol43/iss1/4 ASSESSING CLAIMS OF A NEW DOCTRINE OF PRE-EMPTIVE WAR UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF SOURCES© JAMES THUO GATHII* After examining state practice and opiniojuris on Apr6s avoir examin6 ces derni~res ann6es l'usage the preemptive use of force in the last few years, I de l'tat et l'opiniojuris concernant le recours pr6ventif conclude that the prohibition of preemptive war where la force, j'en suis arriv6 A la conclusion que there is no armed attack or an instant, overwhelming linterdiction des guerres pr6ventives, lorsqu'il nexiste ni threat has not changed. Under customary international attaque arm6e, ni menace imminente et imp6rieuse, na law, this prohibition of preemptive use of force is a pas 6volu6. Aux termes du droit coutumier international, customary international law norm of extremely high cette interdiction d'un recours pr6ventif A la force normativity and as such state practice inconsistent constitue une norme du droit coutumier international confirms the norm particularly in the absence of d'une normativit6 extr6mement 6lev6e et un tel usage evidence of its widespread and representative incoh6rent de l'Etat confirme la norme, particuli~rement repudiation. Second, under the doctrine of sources, state s'il n'existe aucune preuve de son rejet g6n6ralis6 et practice inconsistent with a norm of customary repr6sentatif. Deuxi~mement, scion la doctrine des international law or persistent dissension from it, does sources, un usage pratique incoh6rent de l'Etat avec une not establish a new norm but is instead regarded a norme de droit coutumier international, ou la violation of the norm. Third, even assuming that non-observation constante d'une telle norme, n'6tablit persistent objectors to the prohibition of preemptive use aucunement une nouvelle norme, mais est plut6t of force in the absence of an armed attack or instant, consid6r6e comme une violation de la norme. overwhelming threats, regard themselves as having Troisi~mement, m~me si l'on assume que les opposants created a new rule binding to themselves, under the obstin6s A l'interdiction du recours pr6ventif Ala force, doctrine of sources a small number of states cannot lorsqu'il nexiste ni attaque arm6e, ni menace imminente within a limited time frame create a new rule without 'a et imp6rieuse, consid~rent avoir cre6 une nouvelle rigle very widespread and representative participation' in the qui les contraint eux-m&mes, selon la doctrine de practice. Finally, a small number of states cannot create sources, un petit nombre dAtats ne saurait, dans un d6lai a new rule of customary international law where there is donn6, cr6er une nouvelle r~gle sans , une participation practice which conflicts with the rule or where there are trs 6tendue et repr6sentative . A la pratique. Enfrn, un protests to the new rule. This is particularly so with petit nombre dAtats ne peut pas cr6er une nouvelle r~gle respect to a rule relating to the prohibition of the use of de droit coutumier international lorsqu'une pratique est force which is a 'conspicuous example of a rule of en conflit avec la r~gle, ou lorsque qu'il existe des international law having the character ofjus cogens' with contestations de la nouvelle r~gle. Cela est respect to which practice inconsistent with it would be particuliirement vrai d'une r~gle lie Al'interdiction du regarded as a violation of the norm rather than as recours Ala force qui est un . exemple manifeste d'une establishing a new norm. r~gle de droit international revtant le caract~re de jus cogens -, pour laquelle une pratique qui lui est incoh6rente serait consid6r6e comme une violation de la norme plut6t que comme r'tablissement d'une nouvelle norme. © 2005, James Thuo Gathii. Associate Professor, Albany Law School. SJD Harvard; LL.B. (Hons.) Nairobi. I would like to thank Sergio Simoes for the excellent research assistance. I am also indebted to Antony Anghie and Obiora Okafor for their insightful comments. All errors are mine. 68 OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL [VOL. 43, NO. 1 & 2 I. INTRO DUCTION ................................................. 68 II. THE LAW GOVERNING THE USE OF FORCE ...................... 71 A. The Prohibitionof the Use of Force ................................. 71 B. Use of Force in Self-Defense Under InternationalLaw ................. 73 C. Anticipatory Self-defence: An Extremely Limited and ControversialDoctrine ....................................... 74 D. Pre-emptive Use of Force:A Clear Violation of InternationalLaw ........ 77 E. Has the Law of Self-defence Embodied in article 51 Collapsed? .......... 78 III. CRITERIA FOR THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW NORM UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF SOURCES ......................................... 79 A. The HigherNormativity of the Norm Against the Use of Force ........... 79 B. Dissenters to Customary IntemationalLaw Norms Are Bound ........... 80 C. Dissenters of Customary InternationalLaw Norms Are Bound if they Did Not Object During the Formation of the Norm .............. 80 D. Persistent Objection to a Jus Cogens Norm is Impermissible and a Violation of the Norm ...................................... 81 IV. WHAT STATE PRACTICE AND OPINIO JURIS CONFIRM ............ 82 A . Israel ......................................................... 83 B . Russia ........................................................ 85 C . A ustralia ...................................................... 88 D . The United States ............................................... 91 E. Japan and Taiwan .............................................. 93 F. Division Within Europe:But Overwhelming Opposition Nevertheless ...... 94 G. An Overwhelming Number of States From All Regions of the World Oppose Pre-emption .................................... 95 H . The United Nations ............................................. 99 V. CONCLU SION .................................................. 100 I. INTRODUCTION The prohibition of the use of force under international law has been criticized for restricting the pre-emptive use of force after recent terrorist attacks on the United States. Under the Bush doctrine, the United States has been the most vocal exponent of this critique, and its 2003 war against Iraq is the most conspicuous application of the doctrine of pre-emption. Russian President Vladimir Putin, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and Australian Prime Minister John Howard have also emphasized the importance of the pre-emptive strike doctrine in defending their countries against gathering threats of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in the hands of leaders such as Saddam Hussein. These states have in one way or another advocated a new rule