If U.S. Attacks North Korea First, Is That Self-Defense?<br />Here are some questions and answers on what can be considered legitimate self-defense under international law,<br />and what the United States would need to demonstrate were it to invoke self-defense as the reason for attacking North Korea first: How can a country even claim self-defense when attacking another country that has not attacked it?<br />Michael N. Schmitt, a professor at the United States Naval War College and an affiliate at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict, said three basic requirements must be met: The other country must have the ability to attack; the other country’s behavior must show<br />that an attack is imminent; and there are no other ways to forestall it.<br />"There’s no right of self-defense against a non-imminent threat." If the legal conditions for a first strike were met, would the<br />destruction of North Korea, as critics of Mr. Trump say he implied when he threatened "fire and fury," be legally justified?<br />Mr. Trump’s supporters have said that such a strike, should there be one, would be legally justified<br />as an act of self-defense by the United States against a dangerous and irrational adversary.<br />Article 2 of the charter prohibits states from using or threatening force against one another, while Article 51 does not prohibit the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs."<br />But Article 51 has been interpreted in different ways.<br />10, 2017<br />President Trump’s apocalyptic admonishment to North Korea over its nuclear threats to annihilate America suggested<br />that he may be closer than ever to ordering an attack — without waiting for Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, to strike first.
