This research examined the problem of whether the doctrine of pre-emptive strike could
have been legally justified as a form of self defense under international law, since Article
51 of the United Nations Charter restricted self defense to armed attacks. The purpose of
the study was to analyze the legal framework of self defense and to identify the conditions
under which pre-emptive strike might have been accepted. A normative juridical approach
with doctrinal analysis was applied, reviewing international legal instruments,
jurisprudence, and state practices such as the Caroline case, the Six-Day War, and the U.S.
invasion of Iraq. The results showed that pre-emptive strike was justified only under
necessity, imminence, and proportionality, and the conclusion emphasized that broader use
undermined international law and the authority of the UN Security Council.