Social Sciences and Humans Review


An Alteration within American National Security Strategy Post PP 319-332



Download 0.89 Mb.
View original pdf
Page9/14
Date20.09.2022
Size0.89 Mb.
#156483
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14
An Alteration within American National Security Strategy Post - 9 11 Attacks (1)

An Alteration within American National Security Strategy Post PP 319-332

327

of intimidation and military aggression against their
neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to
attempt to blackmail the US. and our allies to prevent us
from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue
states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means
of overcoming the conventional superiority of the US. (The
National Security Strategy of the United States of America,
2002, p. 15)
The Bush administration massively changed the US. grand strategy by introducing a full-scale militarization as the American foreign policy means to defend American interests Jeffrey Record stated that this administration was "the most significant American foreign policy departure since the Truman Administration" It embraced a doctrine of an anticipatory military strike as the core of the foreign policy.
4. A Military Escalation within US. National Security Strategy
Most scholars and politicians agreed that the US. slogan of 'Striking first against terrorist attacks, was the drastic change ever brought to American NSS since Truman Administration. Military intervention in a sovereign state such as Afghanistan was unjustified neither under the UN Charter nor under the norms of customary IL. The US. curtailed an inherent right of sovereignty and international norms
(Sikander, 2010, p. 101). The US. infringed the UN Charter, to which all the member states adhere, the UN Charter stated that all the UN state members are required to settle international disputes peacefully without any unconventional use of force except in self-defense (War in Afghanistan (present, 2014., p. 8). The UN Charter in article 2(4) prohibits massive military force in self-defense except in two main situations. First, states can use self-defense as a response to an armed attack. Second, states may use force with an agreement from the Security Council (SC) (Smith, p.
2). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) made it clear that self-defense is a term of art in international law the (ICJ) emphasized that the act of armed attacks must be accredited to a state where any counterattack will take place (O’Connell, 2010, p. 3). In regards to article, the US. military intervention in Afghanistan was not legitimized under article 51 of the UN charter because the 9/11 attacks did not fall under the condition



Download 0.89 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page