Sanctions according to the former US president Woodrow Wilson is a "peaceful, silent, [and] deadly remedy" and currently there are sanctions placed on North Korea. Critics can say that this deters North Korea from building weapons of mass destruction thus illustrating how it is not necessary to ever use preemptive strikes. The problem with this is first, sanctions placed on states that sponsor terrorism are ineffective . This is because sanctions are not used to change the mind of a foreign government, rather they are used to please the domestic outcry for action . Secondly, for terrorist groups, there are often extremist and to them, it is often a total war or a divine conflict where they are on a mission to change the world for the better
…show more content…
This is because self-defense can only occur after an armed attack , since the text says 'after ' which means that a preemptive strike could never comply with section 51 . This presents a very restrictive interpretation of section 51 which is supported by the UNSC, General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and international scholars . This is seen with the international condemnation of Israel for preemptively attacking Iraq 's nuclear factory . To further support the anti-preemptive strike stance, the International Court of Justice have also ruled that it would take a restrictive interpretation of Article 51 as seen in Nicaragua v. United States. This criticism is, however, being flawed if looking at it from a logical perspective and given a new threat that terrorist can now pose. This is because the literal interpretation of Article 51 claims that a country cannot defend itself until it suffers harm . This is extremely dangerous as it limits the state to attempt to solve the issue through nonviolent means such as negotiating, which as mentioned earlier, states will not do with terrorist. This then leaves the state defenseless to do anything until the attack occurs, which thus violates its right to defend
This is because self-defense can only occur after an armed attack , since the text says 'after ' which means that a preemptive strike could never comply with section 51 . This presents a very restrictive interpretation of section 51 which is supported by the UNSC, General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and international scholars . This is seen with the international condemnation of Israel for preemptively attacking Iraq 's nuclear factory . To further support the anti-preemptive strike stance, the International Court of Justice have also ruled that it would take a restrictive interpretation of Article 51 as seen in Nicaragua v. United States. This criticism is, however, being flawed if looking at it from a logical perspective and given a new threat that terrorist can now pose. This is because the literal interpretation of Article 51 claims that a country cannot defend itself until it suffers harm . This is extremely dangerous as it limits the state to attempt to solve the issue through nonviolent means such as negotiating, which as mentioned earlier, states will not do with terrorist. This then leaves the state defenseless to do anything until the attack occurs, which thus violates its right to defend