2, para 4. cited in Schmitt 521)
"as the events of 9/11 tragically demonstrated, domestic or international law enforcement may prove an insufficient tool in effectively defending against non-State actors, such as terrorists" (Schmitt 539).
"the attack directly against the Taliban on October 7, 2001 challenged then-existing legal understandings of the quality and quantity of support necessary to attribute an armed attack by a non-State actor to its State sponsor" Schmitt (547).
The United States approached the UN Security Council to determine the extent of military and non-military reaction to the September 11 attacks. The UN, in response, issued two new resolutions in the same month viz. Resolution 1368 and Resolution 1373. The latter explicitly declared those terrorist attacks as detrimental to international peace and security (McWhinney 280).
"the administration blurs the distinction between "rouge states" and terrorists, essentially erasing the difference between terrorists and those states in which they reside. But these distinctions do indeed make a difference" (Crawford 31)
Crawford (31) delineates four indispensable conditions in order for a pre-emptive action to be justified under international law. These conditions implicate that any country should not undertake such motives to advance their "imperial interests", they should be certain and be able to demonstrate potent evidence about the imminence of threat, pre-emptive strategies should be undertaken with sheer certainty that it would successfully reduce the threat and finally any intended military action against the threatening forces should be inevitable for a country to protect itself. Also, it is very important not to identify any state or organisation as imminent threat on the mere ground that it possesses the capability to harm another country.
"a conception of self that justifies legitimate pre-emption in self-defence must be narrowly confined to immediate risks to life and health within borders or to life and health of citizens aboard" (Crawford 32)
"not preemption, but paranoid aggression" (Crawford 32)
"a preemptive-preventive doctrine moves us closer to a state of nature than to a state of international law" (Crawford 34)
"When responding to a situation involves the use of force, it can