P/L/21 Some States have argued for an expansive concept of self-defence, including the idea that one State may use force against another to prevent what are perceived as possible future threats from the latter (so-called pre-emptive self-defence). Such arguments should be resisted both because they are clearly contrary to the present law and because they are undesirable on policy grounds.

This essay is discussing whether arguments that an expansive concept of self-defence, including the idea that one State may use force against another to prevent what are perceived as possible future threats from the latter should be resisted both because they are clearly contrary to the present law and because they are undesirable on policy grounds.