National Security Strategy

I also am of the opinion that partnerships that rely on voluntary adherence rather than binding treaties have its disadvantages too. While it is true that the absence of treaties will reveal the true commitment of allies, signing of treaties will likewise ensure the support of countries to the cause till the end –no matter the cost. As earlier noted, voluntary adherence may result to countries pulling out before the results are achieved.

This attitude may put the entire project at great risk and will definitely cause more harm than good. It goes without saying that the United States has placed too much emphasis on security and safety of the nation and its citizens. After the tragedy that is September 11, the United States began to view the global community as nothing short of being violent, dangerous and unpredictable.

In response to this, the United States has crafter one of the most comprehensive security strategies in the world today: the National Security Strategy for 2006 and its 2002 predecessor. Both of these strategies have been crafted to meet the looming threat perceived by the Bush administration. But the affects of these security strategies must hold water in the area of international law. And does it? Upon scrutiny and analysis, does the NSS06 comply with international law and its guidelines?

Some say it does and some say it does not. Michael N. Schmitt, in his paper entitled “U. S. Security Strategies: A Legal Assessment”, says the United States did comply with international law and its guidelines. Clearly in the twenty-first century, says Schmitt, the international community deems it appropriate to use military force against non-State actors pursuant to the right to self-defense so long as the conditions precedent to such use, particularly that of necessity, are present.

He added that states need not secure the authorization of the Security Council before acting in self-defense, whether against terrorists, Weapons of Mass Destruction, or any combination thereof (Schmitt, 2004). “States may even act preemptively, despite the crescendo of protestations to the contrary, during the last window of opportunity to prevent becoming the victim of an armed attack. Under certain circumstances, it is appropriate to cross into another State to mount counterterrorist operations without that State's consent,” notes Schmitt.

Source: law aspect