The word "unjust" is required if one recognizes that some acts of aggression are just. The policeman who tackles a fleeing suspect commits an act of aggression that is just.
But the policeman's actions are by definition "
just". Unless we appoint another party to act as arbiter over the policeman's actions. So yes, I think that you should take the word just out of there, because it's redundant, the policeman's actions, at least in theory, are by definition always just, and any aggressors actions are by definition always unjust.
But in any case, we can't use this in state on state situations, because lacking a neutral third party each state would always consider their own actions to be just, and the other state's actions to be unjust. Each state would consider itself to be the policeman.
Following the expression of an intent to do lethal violence to an innocent, an act by the one who has expressed that malevolent intent that enables him to commit that evil act can be an objectively determined and be judged so by others (after the fact) as a reasonable determination.
Very true...in the case of a policeman, but not so easily determined in the case of states. For example, if one state places sanctions on another state, with the direct intent of causing some level of hardship, and the second state lacks the capacity to respond in kind, are they then justified in responding by some other means? Each state would then deem itself to be justified in responding to an ever escalating level of malevolent actions. So what works for a policeman isn't going to work in the case of states. There's no neutral arbiter...aka the policeman.
? Does the innocent one not have an irrevocable right to self-defense?
Yes they do. Parties may act specifically, and solely in self defense, in instances where the policeman is unable to do so on their behalf. But a party's claim of self defense is unjustified if the policeman makes such self defense unnecessary. The policeman doesn't simply augment that right, he supersedes it, so long as he has the capacity to do so. Otherwise you would end up with the policeman getting caught in the middle of confrontations in which both parties claim the right of self defense. Thus parties relinquish the claim of self defense so long as the policeman is able to act in that capacity.
Why does one need a "neutral" party to judge a preemptive act as just?
You don't. It just means that every party then decides for itself which preemptive actions are just and which one's aren't. In order to apply the policeman's criteria to state on state actions you need to have a neutral third party to act as the policeman. It's not a role that the states can just arbitrarily apply to themselves.
It's when you're lacking a policeman that parties are almost forced to act preemptively, and in their own minds at least...justly. When there are no policeman...everyone becomes a policeman.
Or do you think the preemptive strike can never be justified?
On the contrary, I'm concerned that absent an arbiter every preemptive action can be justified, at least by the one undertaking it.
You can use the policeman's criteria to govern state actions, all that you need to accept is that in such a situation every state is justified in presuming that all actions against it are unjustified. Just as all actions against a policeman are theoretically unjustified.