{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014492753623188406, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004140786749482402, 'mean_word_length': 5.446666666666666, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Anticipatory and Preventative Force Under International Law

Contemporary security threats pose a serious challenge to the international legal regime on the use of force. Preventing the potentially devastating consequences of an unconventional armed attack might require an earlier action; yet, in the absence of an actual or imminent armed attack, the Security Council authorization international law seriously restricts the ability of states to respond to such risks by using military force. The U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) of 2002 seeks to modify the current regime by expanding the traditional and narrow standard of imminence that defines the scope of justifiable unilateral action against threatened attacks. More ambitiously, it pushes aside the normative restraints on the launch of preventive military strikes by declaring the willingness of the U.S. administration to act alone against more remote threats and before they have fully materialized.