humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <39c6c33e-17d6-415f-9f79-dee454619f76
@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, cbell97@bellsouth.net says...

> = The doctrine of anticipatory self-defense is very old
> For the ancient Greeks, notably Sparta, it was common.

Try to keep up with the reading, Charles. I have already cited the
Caroline Doctrine.
...
> Remarks made by Charles Hill, Diplomat in Residence and Lecturer in
> International Studies, Yale University; Research Fellow, the Hoover
> Institution, Stanford University.
>
> THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PREEMPTION DOCTRINE AND THE FUTURE OF WORLD
> ORDER January 2004 . . .

This is much the same argument made by Taft and Buchwald in their
"Preemption, Iraq, and International Law". It's bogus. As I have
argued:

The "all necessary means" language of UN 678 that is so heavily relied
upon by Taft clearly refers to no more than the upholding of UN 660 "and
all subsequent resolutions". Now 660 simply called for Iraq to withdraw
from Kuwait, and all resolutions "subsequent" to 678 were variations on
that theme. Now, I assume as a matter of construction that
"subsequent" in UN 678 cannot refer to resolutions passed *after* 678
itself, so that is no help to Taft. Then comes UN 687, but now
"necessary" refers to (1) the integrity of the Iraq/Kuwait border, and
(2) the ensuring of compliance that the nationals of no State supply
Iraq with nuclear materials or components. This, too, is no help to
Taft, whether or not there have been any "material breaches". Then
comes UN 1441, but it is predicated on determinations in 660, 678, and
687 which, as we have seen, are of no help. What, then, about
the text of 1441 itself? Despite the finding of "material breach" in
paragraph one, Taft's interpretation leaves the other paragraphs
unexplained, especially the "final opportunity" language of paragraph 2,
which does not, so far as I can determine, contain an expiration date
(unlike 678), but sets up a bunch of stuff to determine compliance. Why
even bother with all of this if the language in paragraph one authorizes
an invasion at this point?

Or you can read Franck's "Who Killed Article 2(4) Again", which wipes
the floor with the argument you cited.
...
> The Bush doctrine is one of reserving the ancient right to
> anticipatory self-defense through preemption.

The Bush Doctrine is a clear departure from the Caroline Doctrine. Even
Bush's apologists recognize this.

> This *would* be
> contrary to international law as formulated since 1945 *except* for
> the presumption encompassed by the phrase in Article 51 concerning
> "the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries"...

Here is Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence
shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in
any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council
under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems
necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and
security.

Your ability to find the phrase "the capabilities and objectives of
today's adversaries" in that text goes well with your inability to find
the phrase "impose no obligations...except of a negative kind" in "Man's
Rights". One argument where you have a pet theory that is immune from
refutation is enough for me.

--
Gordon