IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 82 

Disavowing the doctrine of preemption. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 9, 2005 

Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. WOOLSEY, 

Mr. SERRANO, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. 

STARK, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. HOLT, and Ms. 

WATERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Disavowing the doctrine of preemption. 

Whereas President Bush has declared in a variety of documents and fora that the United States has the right to 

unilaterally exercise military action, including preemptive 

nuclear strikes, against nations that have not attacked 

the United States, creating what has been termed the 

‘‘doctrine of preemption’’; 

Whereas the doctrine of preemption contemplates initiating 

warfare against a nation that might not pose an imminent threat of harm to the United States and far exceeds 

the commonly understood view, set out in the Charter of 

the United Nations and recognized in international and 

United States law, that nations enjoy the right of self- 
2 

•HRES 82 IH 

defense, and that such self-defense might include undertaking military action to prevent an imminent attack; 

Whereas the doctrine of preemption represents a radical departure from the official position of the United States 

since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations; 

Whereas the doctrine of preemption threatens to set a dangerous precedent that might then be cited by other countries, including other nuclear powers, to justify preemptive military action against perceived threats; 

Whereas United States policy has long recognized the value 

to our national security of advancing the respect for and 

adherence to the international rule of law; 

Whereas actions that diminish the international consensus on 

normative legal behavior and leave open the prospect that 

nations will readily resort to military force outside of 

those normative boundaries increase international instability and undercut the national security interests of the 

United States; 

Whereas the doctrine of preemption contradicts the Charter 

of the United Nations to which the United States is a 

signatory, which, as a result of its ratification by the 

United States, is incorporated into United States law, 

and which reads, in part, ‘‘All members shall refrain in 

their international relations from the threat or use of 

force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations’’ (Article 

2, section 4); 

Whereas the Charter of the United Nations, while disallowing 

preventive war, does not preclude military actions of selfdefense, reading in part, ‘‘Nothing in the present Charter 
3 

•HRES 82 IH 

shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective 

self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member 

of the United Nations, until the Security Council has 

taken the measures necessary to maintain international 

peace and security’’ (Article 51); and 

Whereas under the United States Constitution, the President, 

as Commander in Chief, possesses the authority to use 

military force to protect the United States from attack 

or imminent attack: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That— 

2 (1) it is the sense of the House of Representa3 tives that the United States possesses the inherent 

4 right to defend itself against imminent or actual at5 tack, as codified in the Charter of the United Na6 tions and embodied in the traditions of international 

7 law, but that right does not extend to undertaking 

8 military action in the absence of such an imminent 

9 or actual attack; and 

10 (2) the House of Representatives disavows the 

11 doctrine of preemption because it poses a threat to 

12 international law and to the national security inter13 ests of the United States. 

14

Æ