Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Democratic peace proponents argue that war does not take place between democracies (Chan, 1997). Moreover, policy makers now attribute to this proposition the status of fact. Yet, the implications of this move are more far reaching and tangible than scholars realize. In September 2002, the Bush administration published the National Security Strategy. Within its pages, the White House proclaimed that due to the U.S.? ?unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence? the U.S. ought to attempt to not only ?defend the peace? but also to spread democracy (NSS, 2002). This paper first analyzes the Bush administration?s policies within the NSS in light of the just war tradition. It then juxtaposes the implicit and explicit assumptions in the NSS to the traditional justifications for going to war (jus ad bellum). I argue that while the NSS espouses the use of preemptive force to achieve its policy goals, it does not in fact meet the requirements of preemptive war. Rather the NSS? initiatives and language explicitly place it under the preventive war framework. Furthermore, because the NSS is actually a doctrine of preventive war, I conclude that the U.S.? foreign policy disregards territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and the traditional moral justifications for going to war.