It is, in conclusion, these final points which prove the doctrine of pre-emption to be an unsound policy for the future. Despite its initial appeal as a quick fix in the changing strategic environment some governments now find themselves in, invoking such a legally questionable and controversial policy will serve only to continue to undermine the present framework of international law and relations between states. Hostility to the doctrine has political consequences both at home and abroad: in liberal democracies domestic politics require military action to be legitimate and to be seen to be legitimate - abroad, cooperation on wider security issues is put at risk when stronger states throw their weight around and disregard those rules they expect others to follow. In practical terms, pre-emptively striking another state not only requires intelligence of a higher standard than it seems the US and its allies are capable of providing, but risks destabilising further already tense regions. Non-military, multi-dimensional and multinational approaches must therefore be favoured in all but the most clear-cut and imminent cases.…
