If U.S. Attacks North Korea First, Is That Self-Defense?
Here are some questions and answers on what can be considered legitimate self-defense under international law,
and what the United States would need to demonstrate were it to invoke self-defense as the reason for attacking North Korea first: How can a country even claim self-defense when attacking another country that has not attacked it?
Michael N. Schmitt, a professor at the United States Naval War College and an affiliate at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, said three basic requirements must be met: The other country must have the ability to attack; the other country’s behavior must show
that an attack is imminent; and there are no other ways to forestall it.
"There’s no right of self-defense against a non-imminent threat." If the legal conditions for a first strike were met, would the
destruction of North Korea, as critics of Mr. Trump say he implied when he threatened "fire and fury," be legally justified?
Mr. Trump’s supporters have said that such a strike, should there be one, would be legally justified
as an act of self-defense by the United States against a dangerous and irrational adversary.
Article 2 of the charter prohibits states from using or threatening force against one another, while Article 51 does not prohibit the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs."
But Article 51 has been interpreted in different ways.
10, 2017
President Trump’s apocalyptic admonishment to North Korea over its nuclear threats to annihilate America suggested
that he may be closer than ever to ordering an attack — without waiting for Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, to strike first.
