1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Mises Economics Blog

Just War: the Chicago View

June 17, 2004 11:35 AM by Peter G. Klein | Other posts by Peter G. Klein | Comments (3)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=546104

Optimal War and Jus Ad Bellum

ERIC A. POSNER
University of Chicago Law School
ALAN O. SYKES
University of Chicago Law School

April 2004

U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 211; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 63

Abstract: The laws of war forbid states to use force against each other except in self-defense or with the authorization of the United Nations Security Council. Self-defense is usually understood to mean self-defense against an imminent threat. We model the decision of states to use force against "rogue" states, and argue that under certain conditions it may be proper to expand the self-defense exception to preemptive self-defense. We also consider related issues such as humanitarian intervention, collective security, and the role of the Security Council.

Keywords: laws of war, United Nations

Comments (3)

  • Dennis Sperduto

  • This view of "self-defense" is a fundamental perversion of the common sense meaning of the term, and, obviously, can easily be used to "justify" virtually any act of war or foreign intervention. Disgustingly, it moves America yet another step away from what once was its strictly limited constitutional government to an arrogant empire.

  • Published: June 17, 2004 1:53 PM

  • Peter White

  • Preemptive self defense sounds a lot like Herr Hitler's excuse for invading first Poland, and then Russia. Of course he had a more plausible argument, since in invading Poland, he was pretty much just taking back what had been robbed from Germany by the Versailles treaty, and protecting those ethnic Germans who had found themselves under the heavy thumb of the Poles after 1918. And it's pretty clear that Stalin was indeed planning on invading Germany.

    Since many of the German leadership was hanged for "waging aggressive war", and since they clearly had a better case for waging that war, (however unjust) than Herr Bush does, one wonders with what punishments a properly convened court would sentence the current regime, since there's not a shred of evidence that Iraq ever intended or even desired to attack the United States.

  • Published: June 17, 2004 3:11 PM

  • J H Huebert

  • Incidentally, Eric Posner has also written, with another Chicago colleague, in defense of the PATRIOT Act.

  • Published: June 17, 2004 10:18 PM

Post an intelligent and civil comment