In 2003,the United States argued that its use of force in Iraq was justified because Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction that it could use against the United States in the future.This argument is based on
A) preemptive self-defense.
B) jus in bello.
C) the Hague Conventions.
D) the Geneva Conventions.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The argument made by the United States in 2003 is consistent with the concept of preemptive self-defense, which allows a state to use force against an imminent threat before an attack occurs. The justification was that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction that could pose a threat to the United States in the future, and thus a preemptive strike was necessary to protect national security.

In 2003,the United States Argued That Its Use of Force