A Proteção Estatal ao Terrorismo como Fator de Legitimação Estrangeira à Guerra Preventiva

The preventive war has been strongly rejected by some scholars of international law and politics (such as the leftist Noam Chomsky, and even the neoconservative rightist Francys Fukuyama) - especially after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan caused by the attacks of September 11 and the neoconservative doctrine of the government of George W. Bush in the United States of America - considered as a "war of aggression", which allegedly violate the principle of non-aggression in the United Nations Charter and international concept of just war (defensive). However, the preventive war finds legitimacy in international law, as an effective strategy of national defense - especially the defense of sovereignty and citizens of the country - against external threats. The threat posed by the so-called villain states (or rogue states, which openly support and fund terrorism) and the failed states (where does not exist any social, political or military control by the state, which favors the action of terrorist groups) justifies preventive action. The preventive war, a offensive military action pursuing defensive purposes, can be seen as a kind of just war, if it occurs within the limits of international laws of war, if its goals are purely defensive, and if the belligerant state shows evidence of effective consent, collaboration or financing of terrorism by another nation-state.