Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Preventive Self-Defense as a Cascading Norm

Abstract

How and to what extent is the preventive use of force becoming the future of foreign policy for states around the world? We explore the spread of preventive logic to increasing numbers of states and examine the degree to which an international norm toward preventive selfdefense is cascading in the international system. Through content and comparative case study analysis, we investigate leaders' rhetoric and security policies concerning what we theorize is the key indicator of a country's emulation of the United States: assertion of the right to the unilateral, preventive use of force outside of its borders. Our evidence indicates that there has been a shift away from the established international norm-which considers the use of preventive force illegal and illegitimate-toward growing acceptance of unilateral preventive strategies, a shift largely propelled by the precedents set by the United States in the war in Iraq and its use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) in the global war on terror. Our findings also reveal that some states are applying the strategy of preventive self-defense beyond the use of UAVs for targeted killings to the extreme contingency plan for nuclear war. We conclude by discussing possibilities for further research and considering the implications of this phenomenon.

The transformation of targeted killing and international order

“…While Ward Thomas addresses normative decline, Fisher ( 2006 ) concludes in his work that a “norm permitting the use of targeted killing for counter-terrorism purposes appears likely to emerge [emphasis added] and spread successfully” (p. 757; see also Jose, 2016 ; Lantis, 2016 ). In a similar vein, Fisk and Ramos ( 2014 , 2016 ) argue that a norm of preventive self-defense slowly supersedes the existing prohibition of the preventive use of force (see also Boyle, 2015 , pp. 119–121; Martin, 2012 , p.…”

“…For example, scholars have argued that current practices of using force preventively, that is, against emerging rather than imminent threats, are fueling the emergence of a norm of preventive self-defense (e.g. Fisk & Ramos, 2014 ; Nichols, 2016 ).

Figure 1.

…”

“…Few scholars (e.g. Fisher, 2006 ; Fisk & Ramos, 2014 ; W. Thomas, 2005 ) have focused on the flipside of the relationship between targeted killing and international order, that is, on the question of whether and how the current transformation of targeted killing is transforming the global international order. So our knowledge of the impact that the use of targeted killing has on the ideas, norms, and rules of the global international order is still very limited.…”

Clashing over drones: the legal and normative gap between the United States and the human rights community

“…35 Despite significant differences between Bush and Obama with regard to the use of force, the US drone programme fit into the scope of an emerging norm, what Fisk and Ramos describe as the norm of preventive self-defence that emerged in the post 9/11 era: 'states' costbenefit calculations regarding the options available for this purpose certainly lean toward drones as the weapon of choice, as they offer a trifecta of capabilities: precision, reconnaissance, and surveillance'. 36 While the first strike in 2002 was an isolated incident in taking the fight to al-Qaeda wherever its members resided, it was part of a larger strategy that had significant human rights implications as it expanded the geographic scope of the war to a global battlefield. As Wolfowitz explained: 'So we have just got to keep the pressure on everywhere we're able to, and we've got to deny the sanctuaries everywhere we're able to, and we've got to put pressure on every government that is giving these people support to get out of that business'.…”

Norm internalisation revisited: Norm contestation and the life of norms at the extreme of the norm cascade

“…Twenty years after the publication of ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, Finnemore and Sikkink’s norms life cycle model (1998) continues to be a mandatory point of reference for theoretical (McKeown 2009, Bloomfield 2016; Wylie 2016; Nuñez-Mietz and García Iommi 2017) and empirical (Bailey 2008, Segerlund 2010; Fisk and Ramos 2014; Davies et al 2015; Jose 2016) scholarship on norm change. Pioneer Constructivists like Finnemore and Sikkink successfully demonstrated the causal impact of norms at a time when rationalist and materialist approaches dominated International Relations (IR) theory.…”