- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
"A big subject is starkly caught in Michael Doyle's bright headlights. The remedies he proposes are among the most sensible on offer. Cleverly, the author engages in dialogue with other leading thinkers, putting his ideas to a coherent test. This book journeys into the heart of unilateralism and emerges with a plausible theory."—Thomas M. Franck, New York University School of Law
"The arguments about whether or when to strike first are passionate, dangerous, and critically necessary. Michael Doyle brings to these arguments a calm voice, vast knowledge, practical experience, and political wisdom. His book is indispensable."—Michael Walzer, Institute for Advanced Study
"Michael Doyle is one of the most lucid analysts of international relations writing today. In Striking First he provides the best account that has yet been developed of the conditions under which preemptive action against threats to American national security can be justified, and of the form such action must take if it is to garner legitimacy at home and abroad. As the commentaries from other major figures included with the text indicate, not everyone will agree with Doyle's view. But they also make it clear that Doyle's is the case to answer. At a time when preemptive action is easily dismissed because of its abuse by the Bush administration in Iraq, this is a major achievement."—Ian Shapiro, author of Containment
"Anyone who wants to understand the issues involved in the authorization of preventive war should read Striking First. Michael Doyle argues convincingly that although authorization by the United Nations Security Council is highly desirable, standards are also needed for determining when to act without its approval. The debate between Professor Doyle and Dean Harold H. Koh strikingly illuminates the differences between an essentially political and a legalist approach to this question."—Robert O. Keohane, Princeton University
"This is a serious attempt to grapple with a very important problem. Doyle has thought deeply about one of the most central problems in foreign policy today."—Marc Trachtenberg, author of The Craft of International History
"Superb and important. The writing is clear and forceful, the tone evenhanded and judicious, the scholarship excellent. The topic could not be more important in the wake of the Iraq invasion and the possibility of a preventive self-defense attack on Iran."—David Luban, author of Legal Ethics and Human Dignity
"[Doyle] points out...the Bush doctrine is not only dangerously 'subjective' and 'open-ended' but also an 'invitation to chaos' because other states may claim the right to invoke it for their own purposes...Instead of embracing the Bush administration's radical alternative, however, Doyle calls for updating the doctrine of preemption without collapsing it into prevention."—William A. Galston, American Prospect
"Striking First, which reflects both the knowledge of a distinguished scholar and the experience and judgment of a practitioner (Doyle was UN assistant secretary-general under Kofi Annan), is an indispensable book for those interested in the question of the justifiability of preventive action against future threats. Given the omnipresence of those threats, that should include all of us. Doyle's careful reasoning and balanced judgments also make this enormously thought-provoking book perfect for the classroom."—Jack S. Levy, Perspectives on Politics
"Striking First highlights the dilemma that the United States confronts. Doyle has contributed a thoughtful and significant work to the jus ad bellum conundrum that will surely fuel further useful debate."—Davis R. Robinson, American Journal of International Law
"Doyle's book is relatively short but it contains substantial power and a tremendous amount of food for thought. It leads the reader into his/her own debate on the merits of the Bush Doctrine and how the world may be fundamentally altered by it, for better or for worse."—Steve Dobransky, International Journal on World Peace
MICHAEL W. DOYLE
When should states go to war in order to protect themselves? When, that is, are they justified in employing either armed force or other warlike coercive measures, such as blockade and sanctions, for anticipatory self-defense? Must they wait, as international law currently holds, for an "armed attack" to have already taken place or to be so imminent that it is, as customary international law holds, "overwhelming" in its necessity and so "imminent" as to leave "no choice of means" and "no moment for deliberation"?
The traditional conception of self-defense allowing only for imminent preemptive anticipation of planned attacks is clearly rejected in current U.S. strategic doctrine. Despite attempts to adopt preemptive terminology, President Bush reiterated his and the U.S. government's commitment to a much more preventive anticipation of threats posed by those who share a "murderous ideology." He declared, on June 28, 2005, at Fort Bragg:
After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.
Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.
President Bush is now (winter 2006) focusing on the threat he perceives from Iran. In a recent speech in Salt Lake City to the American Legion convention, he declared: "The world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran. We know the depth of the suffering that Iran's sponsorship of terrorists has brought. And we can imagine how much worse it would be if Iran were allowed to acquire nuclear weapons." After blaming Iran for supporting Hezbollah violence, supplying the insurgents in Iraq with weapons, and denying basic human rights to its own population, President Bush concluded: "There must be consequences for Iran's defiance [of the UN Security Council resolution mandating a halt to nuclear fuel reprocessing] and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon." A few days later, Israeli minister Jacob Edri said that a military strike against Iran, limited to its nuclear facilities, is inevitable before President Bush completes his second term.
In these essays, I will examine the distinction-which the president elides-between acts of preemption in the face of an imminent threat of armed attack and acts of prevention undertaken in order to forestall, for instance, the acquisition of threatening capabilities. This distinction is a question of substantive norms or rules. I will also explore the significance of multilateral authorization by the UN Security Council, which is a question of procedure for authorizing the use of force. Thus these essays will explore the ethics, politics, and law of anticipatory self-defense. I will focus both on what the law is and what states should do.
In my first essay, I address what I see to be the main problem: both international law, as it is currently formulated, and the Bush Doctrine of prevention are inadequate for today's global security environment. My true aim, however-given those first judgments-is to propose in my second essay better preventive standards for war and warlike measures short of war that would produce more security for the United States and most other states interested in a law-abiding world
Excerpted from Striking First by Michael W. Doyle
Copyright © 2008 by Princeton University Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Acknowledgments by Michael W. Doyle vii
Introduction by Stephen Macedo xi
Michael W. Doyle
International Law and Current Standards 7
Comment by Harold Hongju Koh 99
Comment by Richard Tuck 119
Comment byJeff McMahan 129
Response to Commentators by Michael W. Doyle 149