The Moral Principles for Justification of Anticipatory Self-Defense

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 동아시아국제정치학회
· 수록지 정보 : 국제정치연구 / 24권 / 4호 / 179 ~ 212페이지
· 저자명 : 김진만

초록

While the political decision which, under the pretext of anticipatory self-defense, a country tries preemptive strike used to be upheld by increasing probability of war victory, it used to be in an ethical dilemma due to the gap between the necessity for a military solution covered by the probability and the moral justification that, for whatever reason, launching a preemptive strike can not be justified. No authoritative decision-maker within the international community has taken a position on whether anticipatory self-defense is permissible under international law, or it is permissible only under certain conditions.
Preemptive and especially preventive war are in a class of hard cases for the traditional philosophy of war. Moral principles for just war theory permit anticipatory self-defense in some rare cases where there is ‘moral certainty’ of an enemy’s future attack and not merely fear of such an attack. Anticipatory self-defense including preemptive strike and preventive war, just as war has been traditionally sustained by teleological ethics system, has been justified in that theory. However in case that preemptive attack or preventive war would produce worse output than input, any just causes for the war can not be embraced.
If a war will be determined from teleological standpoint based on consequentialism, the calculation on the effectiveness and efficiency of the cost for war must take precedence. In deontological standpoint view, the justification of war means neither that an individual has to avoid war and to seek peace, nor to defend against invasion, but that it has the obligation to counteract the unjust or the wicked or to fight against them. From the theoretical structure of deontological standpoint, war can be regarded as a punishment or a retribution. Just war theory based on deontological ethics system postulates that war, even though it may be terrible, is not always the worst option. While undesirable outcomes are not enough to legitimize obstructing a war, the sacred obligation and responsibilities to protect their own country as well as preventing atrocities will work on the motive which justifies a war.

참고자료

· 없음