{"title":"先发制人:国际冲突中的先发制人和预防","authors":"T. Nichols","doi":"10.5860/choice.46-1724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,","PeriodicalId":51874,"journal":{"name":"Naval War College Review","volume":"62 1","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Striking First: Preemption and Prevention in International Conflict\",\"authors\":\"T. Nichols\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/choice.46-1724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,\",\"PeriodicalId\":51874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Naval War College Review\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Naval War College Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-1724\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naval War College Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.46-1724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Striking First: Preemption and Prevention in International Conflict
‘‘Traditional preemption,’’ writes Michael Doyle, ‘‘is too strict and the Bush administration’s expansive prevention is too loose’’ (p. 43). Doyle intervenes with a proposal for how to limit and structure decisions about when to strike first. For him the key is not only the question ‘‘When is preventive war justified?’’ but also ‘‘What decision-making criteria might most likely be recognized and adopted by the international community?’’ Striking First is based on Doyle’s Tanner Lectures,