Preemptive Operations in Public International Law: Between National Security Requirements and the Prohibition on the Use of Force—Iraq as a Case Study

Abstract

This study examines the legal implications of pre-emptive operations under public international law, a subject that remains one of the most contested aspects of the use of military force within Iraq's security environment, which has been characterised by the rise of non-traditional threats, particularly cross-border terrorism, the activities of non-state armed actors, and the increasing overlap of regional theatres of operation. The study begins with the general prohibition on the threat or use of force under Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations before examining the principal exceptions, most notably the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51. Particular attention is given to the limits of military necessity, the principle of proportionality, and the extent to which these principles may justify pre-emptive operations. Iraq is employed as a case study because of its distinctive security environment since 2003, marked by organised terrorist threats, particularly those posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and by repeated pre-emptive military operations conducted within Syrian territory or otherwise linked to Iraq's national security. The study analyses the extent to which such operations are consistent with the rules of international law, especially the legal requirements governing self-defence, necessity, proportionality, and imminence. It concludes that the legality of pre-emptive operations remains contingent upon strict compliance with the conditions governing the lawful exercise of self-defence and must not undermine the fundamental prohibition on the use of force.