Preventive force is commonly recognized as a preventive use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that preemptive force is when both states defend themselves from imminent but not actual violence; the state can shoot if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “…the need for self-defense must be demonstrated…immediate, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no time for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state saw it coming, but before feeling its impact. Preemption is therefore like a reflex “throwing up one's arms at the last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Setting aside definitions of preventive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory issue for many states. Issues related to respect for international law, understanding the meaning of "imminent threat" and morality are called into question. The bigger problem is that states misjudge the threat. The confusion and confusing definition of the term imminent threat leads states to act out of uncertainty and aggression rather than a justified move, which may constitute pre-emptive war. By referring to realist and liberal theorists along with previous examples where states have pursued “preventive” force to legitimize their actions, one can come to a conclusion about whether preemptive war can be justified. Preventive war can be justified by supporting the state's internal responsibility to protect. However, since states have previously exploited this use of force, the justification may seem extremely controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, preemptive war is “about strategy or morality…one or the other…half of paper…and order within the imperiled state.” It does not give the vulnerable state the right to misuse and abuse the rights granted to it by the international community. Despite the confusion surrounding the justification for launching preventive war, multiple sources including the United Nations Charter, international law, the theoretical approaches of Webster and The Waltz, and historical cases where preventive force has and has not been legal or justified provide a basis for determining under what circumstances a state is justified in using preemptive force against the aggressor. If there is an imminent threat and there is a clear intention to attack, and this would cause problems within the targeted state, then it is permissible under the UN Charter to resort to preventive war, which means it is justified. As Hugo Grotius stated, “It is lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill you!” (Reference).