I.After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States" Government argued that it had the right to fight a "war on terror". It asserted its right to engage in "pre-emptive self-defence" in order to neutralize the new threats posed by international terrorists. The United Nations Charter, as traditionally interpreted, does not permit such a form of self-defense because it could encourage countries to begin wars against their rivals. UN Charter Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." War on terror as a political rhetoric does not have a corresponding legal category in international law.
Whether or not should UN Charter include the concept "pre-emptive self-defence" as an acceptable judicial explanation of its Article 51?
if I'm correct you wish to argue that the US (or any country) has the right to attack in 'pre-emptive self defence attacks'. the right to attack in pre-emptive strike is absurd and it is fatal as the US has been wrong about a lot of wars including the so called 'war on terror' as we have seen that there are no WMD's in Afghanistan or Iraq. pre-emptive strike in self defence doesn't justify war, and the murder of innocents of a mass scale as it doesn't meet the standard of self defence. I've considered what you have said about Article 51 but considering what you have said, doesn't Afghanistan and Iraq have the Article 51 right to create guerrilla insurgents and attack in self defence against western forces? as history has shown us that Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die, from the Alexander the Great, the British Empire to the Soviets. Just for the interest of logic, you can't have a war on terrorism because thats not an actual enemy, its an abstract. its like having a war on dandruff. that war will be endless and pointless. its idiotic. thats not a war, its a slogan. its a lie. its advertising, which is the only art form that has ever been invented in America. And they use it to sell soap, wars and presidential candidates in the same fashion.