Could U.S. legally hit North Korea first?

, The National Law Journal

   | 4 Comments

As North Korea ratchets up its hostile rhetoric, international lawyers are debating whether the United States would have legal justification to launch a pre-emptive strike.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • AMcitizen

    As stated above, we are already in a declared state of war, therefore, why go to the Security Council (when that action would only provide notice). If we have the capability of neutralizing their aggression without use of nuclear weapons, or those that would only impact the North, and not harm any other countries, a plan to strike first and end the terrorist regime seems appropriate. We need not invade, or use any ground troops, simply strike all known facilities, nuclear plants, weapons manufacturing, and communications infrastructure... oh, and be sure to significantly impact current leadership.

  • IANAL

    Given N. Korea has unilaterally withdrawn from the armistice, then what would be the reason the U.S. isn't presumptively already in a state of declared war?

  • Brian L

    Article overlooks the critical fact that the US and North Korea area already in a state of war, dating from the North's unprovoked 1950 invasion of South Korea. That was was interrupted by the 1953 Armistice, which North Korea has just renounced. So, the war is back on. Legally, the US is entitled to take military action at any time, up to and including invading and occupying the North.

  • EDWARD

    Legally sound article but wonder if politically and economically wise at this point in time.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202594892018

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.