Annex

Annex, Anex or Annexe (pronounced uh-neks, an-eks or an-iks)

(1) To attach, append, or add, especially to something larger or more important.

(2) To incorporate (territory) into the domain of a city, country, or state.

(3) To take or appropriate, especially without permission.

(4) To attach as an attribute, condition, or consequence.

(5) Something annexed.

(6) In architecture, a subsidiary building or an addition to a building.

(7) Something added to a document; appendix; supplement.

1350-1400: From the Middle English, from the Anglo-French and Old French annexer (to join), from the Medieval Latin annexāre, from the Classical Latin annexus (tied to), past participle of annectere (to attach to; to connect with) from nectere (to join; to tie; bind).  It now almost always means "to join in a subordinate capacity", usually as it applies to nations or territories and the meaning “supplementary building" is from 1861.  In legal use, as it applies to documents, it’s an alternative to "append".  The alternative spellings are anex (US) and annexe (used variously in the rest of the English-speaking world).  Annex is a noun & verb; annexion, annexation, annexationism, annexationist, annexer & annexure are nouns, the noun plural is annexes.

A type of theft

Annexation is the formal act by which a state proclaims sovereignty over territory once outside its domain and varies from an act of cession in which territory is given away or sold.  Annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition and historically, annexation has been preceded by conquest and military occupation although in a few cases, such as the Anschluss, the 1938 German annexation of Austria, conquest may be accomplished by the threat of force without active hostilities and military occupation does not constitute or necessarily lead to annexation.  When military occupation results in annexation, an official announcement is the usual protocol, announcing the sovereign authority of the annexing state has been established and will be maintained in future.  This was the usual way of doing things, such as when Burma was annexed to the British Empire in 1886 and followed by Israel in 1981 when it annexed the Golan Heights.  George Orwell (1903-1950), who had spent time employed by the colonial police in Burma, when asked to explain the methods and purposes of the British Empire answered: "theft".  Privately, most in  the Foreign Office probably agreed but preferred "annexation" in official documents.  The subsequent recognition of annexation by other states may be explicit or implied; annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations and there are effectively annexed lands which for decades have been regarded as “disputed territory”.

Lindsay Lohan, after party at the Annex following Freaky Friday (2003) premiere, Hollywood, August 2003.

The formalities of annexation are not defined by international law; whether it be done by one authority or another within a state is a matter of constitutional law and conditions may exist which obviate the necessity for conquest prior to annexation.  In 1910 for example, Japan converted its protectorate of Korea into an annexed colony by means of proclamation; in a legal sense it was no more than a simple administrative act.  Preceding its annexation of the Svalbard Islands in 1925, Norway eliminated its competitors by means of a treaty in which the islanders agreed to Norwegian possession.  Annexation of Hawaii by the United States in the late nineteenth century was a peaceful process, based upon the willing acceptance by the Hawaiian government of US authority.  The Italian annexation of Ethiopia in 1936 was accomplished by a decree issued by the Italian King and joint resolutions of Congress were the means by which the United States annexed Texas (1845) and Hawaii (1898).

Protocol

Protocol (pronounced proh-tuh-kawl, proh-tuh-kol or proh-tuh-kohl)

(1) In government (applied especially to the diplomatic service), the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette.

(2) By extension, an accepted code of conduct; acceptable behavior in a given situation or group.

(3) In diplomacy or other intra- & inter-governmental relations, an original draft, minute, or record from which a document, especially a treaty, is prepared.

(4) An agreement between states (or other national or international entities) or a supplementary international agreement (some notably being secret).

(5) An annex to a treaty containing technical data, definitions etc.

(6) In clinical medicine, the plan of a patient's treatment regimen (which can be a generalized document).

(7) In academic research (especially in medical trials including living subjects), the details, standards & safeguards etc.

(8) In computing, a set of rules governing the format in which data must exist to communicate between devices.

(9) In philosophy, a statement reporting an observation or experience in the most fundamental terms (ie without any commentary or other interpretative layers (and sometimes taken as the basis of empirical verification, as of scientific laws).  It’s known also as the protocol statement, protocol sentence & protocol proposition

(10) To draft, submit for consideration or issue a protocol; to make a protocol of; to make or write protocols; to issue protocols (actual use now probably extinct although such forms do still exist in some diplomatic manuals).

(11) In the Roman Catholic Church, (1) the introduction of a liturgical preface, immediately following the Sursum corda (lift up your hearts) dialogue & (2) an official list (technical details or consequential documents) which, since the late nineteenth century have sometimes been appended (at the beginning or end) to documents such as charters and papal bulls.

1535–1545: From the earlier protocoll, from the Middle French protocolle & protocole (document, record), from the Medieval Latin prōtocollum, from the Byzantine Greek πρωτόκολλον (prōtókollon) (the first kóllēma (a leaf or tag) glued to a rolled papyrus manuscript, listing the contents), the construct being πρῶτος (prôtos) (first) + κόλλα (kólla) (glue).  A kóllēma was “something bound or glued together”.  Proto- was a learned borrowing from the Ancient Greek πρωτο- (prōto-) from πρῶτος (prôtos) (first), superlative of πρό (pró) (before).  In the mid-fifteenth century the spelling prothogol had been used (meaning literally “prologue”) and by the 1540s prothogall (draft of a document, minutes of a transaction or negotiation, original of any writing”, again from the thirteenth century French prothocole (which in Modern French persists as protocole) was in use.  Protocol is a noun & verb, protocolar is a noun, protocoled & protocolled are verbs and protocolary & protocolic are adjectives; the noun plural is protocols.

The plural form was kollēmata (sheets of papyrus glued together to form a roll) and on the basis of those extant or referenced elsewhere, each was typically between 16-24 sheets which, when un-rolled, extended to between 18-30 feet (5.5-9 m).  It’s not clear when use began but the earliest documented evidence of use is from the early medieval period.  A tube-like prōtókollon (usually of a rougher form of parchment but some seem to have been made from tree bark) protected a rolled-up scroll and the original was similar to what in modern publishing came to be called the colophon (containing variously copyright details, a mark of authentication, the date of publication, the font and typesetting data and the name of the author) although the usual function was to list a summary of the contents, any errata or the purpose of the work.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (with preface and explanatory notes), The Patriotic Publishing Co., Chicago, 1934.  Ludwig Rosenberger Library of Judaica.

All such things were of course those which comprised the framework of government & diplomacy and, by the mid-nineteenth century, French bureaucrats had formalized the protocol as (1) “an official record of a transaction & a diplomatic document” (especially an agreement between states to achieve certain things by peaceful means) and (2) “official norms of behavior or etiquette to be maintained between states and their ministers”.  The later sense was understood in English by at least 1896 and by 1952 it was in common use to describe “civilized behavior” in society generally, becoming a popular word in the etiquette guides which proliferated (along with the middle class) in the post-war years.  Long in thrall to all things French, the use relating to matters etiquette was late in the nineteenth century picked up by Russian diplomats and from the Tsar’s court it entered various state apparatuses (of which the Tsar had many), the foreign ministry creating protokóls for everything from the thickness of the carpet allowed in offices according to the rank of the occupant to the form of words to be used when declaring war.  The police used protokól as a heading of “official police records of a case, interview or incident” although the use in Russia will forever be associated with the infamous forgery Протоколы сионских мудрецов (Protokoly sionskikh mudretsov) (The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion (1903)), an anti-Semitic tract published in English under the title The Jewish Peril (1920).  Although debunked as a forgery as early as 1921, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion enjoyed a remarkable life in the twentieth century, accepted as authentic even by some otherwise respectable professors and it remains widely available.  It purports to be the minutes of a secret meeting held by Jewish leaders (known as the Elders of Zion), who met allegedly to conspire to control the world, manipulate governments, and establish a global Jewish domination.  There have been a number of theories about the origin of the protocols and its spread has been compared to the conspiracy theories published by QAnon on 4Chan and other places in that such things rely less on the authenticity of their content than the accessibility to an audience which, even in embryonic form, already maintains those views.

In computing, the terms "protocol" and "parameter" are (casually) sometimes used interchangeably and while it is true protocols contain many parameters, correctly, the two words refer to different concepts.  A protocol is a set of rules and conventions, the best known of which are those which govern the communication between devices in a network; it defines the format, timing, sequencing, and error control of the data packets which are the messages exchanged between these entities.  The significance of protocols is that they ensure diverse devices and systems can interact effectively, removing the need for the hardware to be substantially similar and in that they can be compared with operating systems which sit atop sometimes very different hardware.  The best known network protocols include HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) and SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) although two of the oldest (RS-232, RS-422 & RS-485) serial communications protocols are still in use in the odd niche. By contrast, a parameter is a variable, a value passed to a function, procedure, or command in order to customize its behavior or provide input for its execution.  Parameters are helpful because they allow software to be flexible and adaptable by accepting different inputs without demanding changes to the code.  Parameters may be compared to the range of adjustments offered by the driver’s seat in a car.  Were no adjustments available, manufacturers would have to produce different models for people of different heights.

Lindsay Lohan released NFTs based on Trons’s TRC-721 protocol (functionally similar to Ethereum’s ERC-721).

The recent collapse in the non fungible token (NFT) market surprised few of the analysts who had predicted a bubble market based on selling something “non-fungible” which merely referenced something inherently fungible and infinitely duplicable wouldn’t long last and would be among the first victims of any instability in the wider economy.  Analysts always enjoy being able to say “I told you so”.  Still, the NFTs themselves (in the sense of the object on a blockchain) have a robustness which offers much promise as a kind of macro-title document and, if regulators can agree, the concept may have a future in fields like land title or ownership certificates for traded, high-value collectables.  The infrastructure is certainly beyond the embryonic because a number of blockchains have added support for NFTs since Ethereum created its ERC-721 standard.  ERC-721 is an “inheritable” protocol which means developers can create contracts by copying from a reference implementation, a contract able to be tracked to the owner of a unique identifier and it includes a mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.  Ethereum also developed the ERC-1155 protocol which (a little misleadingly), they described as offering a “semi-fungibility” whereby a token represents a class of interchangeable assets.  Ethereum did however demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the NFT approach even if they did little to improve the transactional speed although, if the protocols have a future in low-volume, high-value items such as land or collectable physical objects, that really matters little.  There were though other approaches and the Tron Network released their NFT model using Proof-of-Stake (PoS) which differs from Ethereum’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) based blockchain.  PoS & Tron’s TRC-721 protocol, cheaper and faster to use, attracted Lindsay Lohan when she released some “collectables” as NFTs.

Hang

Hang (pronounced hang)

(1) To fasten or attach a thing so that it is supported only from above or at a point near its own top; to attach or suspend so as to allow free movement.

(2) To place in position or fasten so as to allow easy or ready movement.

(3) To put to death by suspending by the neck from a gallows, gibbet, yardarm, or the like; to suspend (oneself) by the neck until dead.

(4) To fasten to a cross; crucify.

(5) To furnish or decorate with something suspended.

(6) In fine art, to exhibit a painting or group of paintings.

(7) To attach or annex as an addition.

(8) In building, to attach (a door or the like) to its frame by means of hinges.

(9) To make an idea, form etc dependent on a situation, structure, concept, or the like, usually derived from another source.

(10) As hung jury, hung parliament etc, where deliberative body is unable to achieve a majority verdict in a vote.

(11) In informal use, to cause a nickname, epithet etc to become associated with a person

(12) In nautical use, to steady (a boat) in one place against a wind or current by thrusting a pole or the like into the bottom under the boat and allowing the wind or current to push the boat side-on against the pole.

(13) To incline downward, jut out, or lean over or forward.

(14) To linger, remain, or persist; to float or hover in the air.

(15) In informal use (to get the hang of), the precise manner of doing, using, etc, something; knack.

(16) In computing, as “to hang”, usually a synonym for “freeze”.  Nerds insist a hang refers only to a loss of control by manual input devices (mouse; keyboard etc) while the machine remains responsive to remote control whereas a freeze is a total lock-up.

(18) In chess (transitive) to cause a piece to become vulnerable to capture and (intransitive) to be vulnerable to capture.

(19) As “hang up”, to end a phone call, a use which has continued even though many phone handsets no longer physically “hang up”.

Pre 900:  A fusion of three verbs: (1) the Middle English and Old English hōn (to hang; be hanging) (transitive), cognate with the Gothic hāhan (originally haghan); (2) the Middle English hang(i)en & Old English hangian (to hang) (intransitive), cognate with the German hangen; and (3) the Middle English henge from the Old Norse hanga & hengja (suspend) (transitive), cognate with the German hängen & hangēn (to hang).  The ultimate source of all forms was the Proto-Germanic hanhaną (related to the Dutch hangen, the Low German hangen & hängen, the German hängen, the Norwegian Bokmål henge & Norwegian Nynorsk henga), root being the primitive Indo-European ḱenk- (to waver, be in suspense).  Etymologists compare the evolution with the Gothic hāhan, the Hittite gang- (to hang), the Sanskrit शङ्कते (śáṅkate) (is in doubt; hesitates), the Albanian çengë (a hook) and the Latin cunctari (to delay).  From the Latin cunctari, Modern English retains the very useful cunctator (a procrastinator; one who delays).

Past tense: hung and hanged

Hang has two forms for past tense and past participle, “hanged” and “hung”.  The older form hanged is now used exclusively in the sense of putting to death on the gallows by means of a lawful execution, sanctioned by the state.  Even in places where capital punishment is no longer used, it remains the correct word to use in its historical context.  There are two forms because the word “hang” came from two different verbs in Old English (with a relationship to one from Old Norse).  One of these Old English verbs was considered a regular verb and this gave rise to “hanged”; the other was irregular, and ended up as “hung”.  Hanged and hung were used interchangeably for hundreds of years but over time, hung became the more common.  Hanged retained its position when used to refer to death by hanging because it became fossilized in both statute and common law; it thus escaped the development of Modern English which tended increasingly to simplified forms.  Even the familiar phrase hung, drawn and quartered originally used “hanged”, a change reflecting popular use.  The only novel variation to emerge in recent years has been to use hanged to describe executions ordered by a state and hung when referring to suicides by hanging although this remains still a trend rather than an accepted convention of use.  Henry Fowler (1858–1933) in his A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) held it wasn't necessarily erroneous to use "hung" in the case of executions but in standard English it was certainly less customary although most style guides acknowledge the distinction still exists while noting the use of hung is both widespread and tolerated.  The consensus seems to be it’s best to follow the old practice but not get too hung up about it.

Portraits: hung and not hung

Most politicians, usually by virtue of uninterest, leave the arts to others but there are exceptions and while Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) wasn't unique among politicians in regarding himself as “an artist” he was untypical and his credentials were reasonable because in pre-World War I (1914-1918) Vienna he’s earned a modest living as a painter of the streetscapes in which there’s now a somewhat controversial trade.  Critics seem prepared to concede Hitler was a competent artist when depicting buildings and even the natural environment but all concurred with the examiners who denied him entry to art school on the basis he had not enough talent to handle the human form, a judgment some historians, political scientists and amateur psychoanalysts have over the years mapped onto his political career.  With that he may even have agreed because the people in his paintings are almost always small, un-detailed blotches there merely to lend scale to the buildings which were his real love but, after taking power in 1933, he didn’t let that stop establishing himself as the Reich’s chief art critic and he’d judge portraiture as harshly as any landscape.  He certainly thought an “artistic temperament” was vital for a politician to achieve greatness, rejecting the idea of Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945) succeeding him as Führer because the head of the SS was “totally unartistic” and it was Hitler’s self-identification as “an artist” which in the first decade of his rule protected many painters, sculptors and others from persecution.  In his clandestine prison diary (Spandauer Tagebücher (Spandau: The Secret Diaries) (1975)) Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945) noted that for Hitler their political views were “…a matter of supreme indifference…” because “…he regarded them one and all as politically feeble-minded.”  Speer recalled a lunch in 1938 at Hitler’s favorite Italian restaurant, Munich’s Osteria Bavaria, when a senior Nazi functionary brought to the Führer’s attention a Communist Party proclamation (pre-dating the regime) which had been signed by a large number of artists; the apparatchik wanted all these artists banned from any government work but Speer recoded how “Hitler replied disdainfully, ‘Oh, you know I don’t take any of that seriously. We should never judge artists by their political views.  The imagination they need for their work deprives them of the ability to think in realistic terms. Artists are simple-hearted souls. Today they sign this, tomorrow that; they don’t even look to see what it is, so long as it seems to them well-meaning.’”  It was an indulgence to freedom of expression Hitler granted few others and a contrast also with what would have been the likely reaction of comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) to revelations of dissent.  Comrade Stalin’s three preferred ways of dealing with such problems were (1) have them murdered, (2) have them sent to the Lubyanka (KGB headquarters on Moscow's Lubyanka Square) to be tortured to death or (3) have them sent to the Gulag to be worked to death.

Portrait of Oliver Cromwell (1650), oil on canvas by Samuel Cooper.

Even if it’s something ephemeral, politicians are often sensitive about representations of their image but concerns are heightened when it’s a portrait which, often somewhere hung on public view, will long outlive them.  Although in the modern age the proliferation and accessibility of the of the photographic record has meant portraits no longer enjoy an exclusivity in the depiction of history, there’s still something about a portrait which conveys, however misleadingly, a certain authority.  That’s not to suggest the classic representational portraits have always been wholly authentic, a good many of those of the good and great acknowledged to have been painted by “sympathetic” artists known for their subtleties in rendering their subjects variously more slender, youthful or hirsute as the raw material required.  Probably few were like Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) who told Samuel Cooper (1609-1672) to paint him “warts and all”.  The artist obliged.

Although certain about the afterlife, Cromwell was a practical politician with few illusions about life on earth.  Once, when being driven in a coach through cheering crowds, his companion remarked that his popularity with the people must be pleasing.  The lord protector replied he had no doubt they’d be cheering just as loud were he being taken to the gallows to be hanged.

Exhibition of images of Lindsay Lohan by Richard Phillips (b 1962), hung in the Gagosian Gallery, 555 West 24th Street, New York, 11 September-20 October 2012.  Described by the artist as an installation, the exhibition was said to be "an example of the way Phillips uses collaborative forms of image production to reorder the relationship of Pop Art to its subjects, the staging and format of these lush, large-scale works said to render them realist portraits of the place-holders of their own mediated existence."

Bad Teddy and Good Theodore: Portrait of Theodore Roosevelt (1903), oil on canvas by Théobald Chartran (left) and Portrait of Theodore Roosevelt (1903) oil on canvas by John Singer Sargent.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919; US President 1901-1909), famous also for waging small wars and shooting big game, after being impressed by Théobald Chartran’s (1849–1907) portrait of his wife (Edith, 1861-1948), invited the French artist to paint him too.  So displeased was he with the result (which he thought made him look effete), he refused to hang the work.  Later, he would have it destroyed, turning turned instead to expatriate American artist John Singer Sargent (1856–1925).  The relationship didn’t start well as the two couldn’t agree on a setting and during one heated argument, the president suddenly, hand on hip, took on a defiant air while making a point and Sargent had his pose, imploring his subject not to move.  This one delighted Roosevelt and prominently it was hung in the White House.

Side by side: Portraits of Barak Obama (2011) and Donald Trump (2018), both oil on canvas by Sarah A Boardman, on permanent display, Gallery of Presidents, Third Floor, Rotunda, State Capitol Building, Denver, Colorado.

In March 2025 it was reported Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) was not best pleased with a portrait of him hanging in Colorado’s State Capitol; he damned the work as “purposefully distorted” and demanded Governor Jared Polis (b 1975; governor (Democratic) of Colorado since 2019) immediately take it down.  In a post on his Truth Social platform, Mr Trump said: “Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol, put up by the Governor, along with all the other Presidents, was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before.  The artist also did President Obama and he looks wonderful, but the one on me is truly the worst. She must have lost her talent as she got older.  In any event, I would much prefer not having a picture than having this one, but many people from Colorado have called and written to complain. In fact, they are actually angry about it!  I am speaking on their behalf to the radical left Governor, Jared Polis, who is extremely weak on crime, in particular with respect to Tren de Aragua, which practically took over Aurora (Don’t worry, we saved it!), to take it down. Jared should be ashamed of himself!”

At the unveiling in 2019 it was well-received by the Republicans assembled.  If Fox News had an art critic (the Lord forbid), she would have approved but presumably that would now be withdrawn and denials issued it was ever conferred.  

Intriguingly, it was one of Mr Trump’s political fellow-travellers (Kevin Grantham (b 1970; state senator (Republican, Colorado) 2011-2019) who had in 2018 stated a GoFundMe page to raise the funds needed to commission the work, the US$10,000 pledged, it is claimed, within “a few hours”.  Ms Boardman’s painting mush have received the approval of the Colorado Senate Republicans because it was them who in 2019 hosted what was described as the “non-partisan unveiling event” when first the work was displayed hanging next to one of Mr Trump’s first presidential predecessor (Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017), another of Ms Boardman’s commissions.  Whether or not it’s of relevance in the matter of now controversial portrait may be a matter for professional critics to ponder but on her website the artist notes she has “…always been passionate about painting portraits, being particularly intrigued by the depth and character found deeper in her subjects… believing the ultimate challenge is to capture the personality, character and soul of an individual in a two-dimensional format...”  Her preferred models “…are carefully chosen for their enigmatic personality and uniqueness...” and she admits some of her favorite subjects those “whose faces show the tracks of real life.”

Portrait of Winston Churchill (1954) by Graham Sutherland.

Another subject turned disappointed critic was Sir Winston Churchill.  In 1954, a committee, funded by the donation of a 1000 guineas from members of both houses of parliament, commissioned English artist Graham Sutherland (1903–1980) to paint a portrait of the prime minister to mark his 80^th birthday.  The two apparently got on well during the sittings, Churchill himself a prolific, if undistinguished, amateur painter (in 1948 he published the book Painting as a Pastime) and it’s said he enjoyed their discussions.  He was unimpressed though with the result, telling Sutherland that while he acknowledged his technical prowess, he found the work “not suitable”.  To his doctor he was less restrained, calling it "filthy" and "malignant".

Portrait of Laurence Olivier in the role of Richard III (1955) by Salvador Dalí.

It had been intended the painting would be hung in the House of Commons but Churchill had no intention of letting it be seen by anyone.  An unveiling ceremony had been arranged and Churchill demanded it not include the painting, relenting only when a compromise was arranged whereby both subject and artwork would appear together but rather than being hung in the Commons, it would instead be gifted to him to hang where he pleased.  Both sides appeased (if not pleased), the ceremony proceeded, Churchill making a brief speech of thanks during which he described his gift as “…a remarkable example of modern art..”, praise not even faint.  It was never hung, consigned unwrapped to the basement of the prime minister’s country house where it remained for about a year until Lady Churchill (Clementine, 1885–1977)), sharing her husband’s view of the thing, had a servant take it outside where it was tossed on a bonfire, an act of practical criticism Sutherland condemned as “vandalism”.  Not anxious to repeat the experience of his brush with modernism, Churchill declined the offer of a sitting before the Spanish surrealist Salvador Dalí (1904–1989), the result of which might have been interesting.  It's not known if Churchill ever saw Dali's interpretation of Laurence Olivier (1907-1989).

Two photographs of Winston Churchill (1941) by Yousuf Karsh.

Roosevelt’s pose is one favored by politicians but the expression adopted matters too.  The famous photograph taken in Ottawa in December 1941 by Armenian-Canadian Yousuf Karsh (1908-2002) was actually one of several but those where Churchill shows a more cheerful countenance are not remembered; they didn’t so well suit those troubled times.  The scowl, although immediately regarded as emblematic of British defiance of the Nazis, had a more prosaic origin, the photographer recalling his subject had appeared benign until it was insisted the ever-present Havana cigar be discarded lest it spoil the photograph.  That changed the mood but, the moment captured, he relented and permitted a couple more, including the now obscure ones with a smile.

Prevent & pre-empt

Prevent (pronounced pri-vent)

(1) To keep from occurring; avert; hinder, especially by the taking of some precautionary action.

(2) To hinder or stop from doing something.

(3) To act ahead of; to forestall (archaic).

(4) To precede or anticipate (archaic).

(5) To interpose a hindrance.

(6) To outdo or surpass (obsolete).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English preventen (anticipate), from the Latin praeventus, past participle of (1) praevenīre (to anticipate; come or go before, anticipate), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + ven- (stem of venīre (come)) + -tus (the past participle suffix) and (2) praeveniō (I anticipate), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + veniō (I come).  In Classical Latin the meaning was literal but in Late Latin, by the 1540s the sense of “to prevent” had emerged, the evolution explained by the idea of “anticipate to hinder; hinder from action by opposition of obstacles”.  That meaning seems not to have entered English until the 1630s and the spelling prævent is archaic.  Prevent, prevented & preventing are verbs, prevention, reventability (preventibility the alternative spelling), prevention, preventive (preventative the alternative spelling) & preventable (preventible the alternative spelling), preventor (preventer the alternative spelling) are nouns, preventable (or preventible), preventive & preventative are adjectives and preventably (preventibly the alternative spelling) is an adverb; the noun plural is preventatives is in more common use than preventives.

The adjective preventable (that can be prevented or hindered) dates from the 1630s, the related preventability a decade-odd later.  The adjective preventative (serving to prevent or hinder) is noted from the 1650s and for centuries, dictionaries have listed it as an irregular formation though use seems still prevalent; preventive is better credentialed but now appears relegated to be merely an alternative form.  The adjective preventive (serving to prevent or hinder; guarding against or warding off) has the longer pedigree (used since the 1630s) and was from the Latin praevent-, past-participle stem of praevenīre (to anticipate; come or go before, anticipate).  It was used as a noun in the sense of "something taken or done beforehand” since the 1630s and had entered the jargon of medicine by the 1670s, and under the influence of the physicians came the noun preventiveness (the quality of being preventive).  The noun prevention came from the mid-fifteenth century prevencioun (action of stopping an event or practice), from the Medieval Latin preventionem (nominative preventio) (action of anticipating; a going before), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of the Classical Latin praevenīre.  The original sense in English has been obsolete since at least the late seventeenth century although it was used in a poetically thus well into the 1700s.

Many words are associated with prevent including obstruct, obviate, prohibit, rule out, thwart, forbid, restrict, hamper, halt, forestall, avoid, restrain, hinder, avert, stop, impede, inhibit, bar, preclude, counter, limit & block.  Prevent, hamper, hinder & impede refer to so degree of stoppage of action or progress.  “To prevent” is to stop something by forestalling action and rendering it impossible.  “To hamper” or “to hinder” is to clog or entangle or put an embarrassing restraint upon; not necessarily preventing but certainly making more difficult and both refer to a process or act intended to prevent as opposed to the prevention.  “To impede” is to make difficult the movement or progress of anything by interfering with its proper functioning; it implies some physical or figurative impediment designed to prevent something.

Pre-empt or preempt (pronounced pree-empt)

(1) To occupy (usually public) land in order to establish a prior right to buy.

(2) To acquire or appropriate before someone else; take for oneself; arrogate.

(3) To take the place of because of priorities, reconsideration, rescheduling, etc; supplant.

(4) In bridge, to make a pre-emptive bid (a high opening bid, made often a bluff by a player holding a weak hand, in an attempt to shut out opposition bidding).

(5) To forestall or prevent (something anticipated) by acting first; preclude; head off.

(6) In computer operating systems, the class of actions used by the OS to determine how long a task should be executed before allowing another task to interact with OS services (as opposed to cooperative multitasking where the OS never initiates a context switch one running process to another.

(7) In the jargon of broadcasting, a euphemism for "cancel” (technical use only).

1830: An invention of US English, a back formation from preemption which was from the Medieval Latin praeēmptiō (previous purchase), from praeemō (buy before), the construct being prae- (pre; before) + emō (buy).  The creation related to the law or real property (land law), to pre-empt being “to occupy public land so as to establish a pre-emptive title to it".  In broadcasting, by 1965 it gained the technical meaning of "set aside a programme and replace it with another" which was actually a euphemism for "cancel”.  The use of pre-empt as a noun happens in bridge, broadcasting and the design of computer operating systems (mostly in the context of multi-tasking).  Pre-empt is a noun & verb, pre-empted & pre-empting are verbs, pre-emptor, pre-empted, pre-emptory, pre-emptive & pre-emptible are adjectives; the noun plural is pre-empts.

In law, broadcasting and computer operating system architecture, pre-empt has precise technical meanings but when used casually, it can either overlap or be synonymous with words like claim, usurp, confiscate, acquire, expropriate, seize, assume, arrogate, anticipate, commandeer, appropriate, obtain, bump, sequester, take, usurp, annex & accroach.  The spelling in the forms præemption, præ-emption etc is archaic).  The hyphenated form (pre-empt) was historically the standard form except in the US English where all style guides recommend "preempt".  Usually, simplified US spelling improves things (despite what the pedants claim) but pre-empt really is preferable because the double "e" makes the word less legible (it looks like a spelling mistake) and for those for whom English is not a first language, on first acquaintance, pronunciation must be baffling.  Given all that, pre-empt is recommended.    

Pre-emptive and preventive wars

A pre-emptive war is a military action by one state against another, begun with the intent of defeating what is perceived to be an imminent attack or at least gaining a strategic advantage in the impending (and allegedly unavoidable) war before that attack begins. The “pre-emptive war” is sometimes confused with the “preventive war”, the difference being that the latter is intended to destroy a potential rather than imminent threat; a preventative war may be staged in the absence of enemy aggression or even the suspicion of military planning.  In international law, preventive wars are now generally regarded as aggressive and therefore unlawful whereas a pre-emptive war can be lawful if authorized by the UN Security Council as an enforcement action.  Such authorizations are not easily gained because the initiation of armed conflict except in self-defense against “armed attack” is not permitted by the United Nations (UN) Charter and only the Security Council can endorse an action as a lawful “action of enforcement”.  Legal theorists suggest if it can be confirmed preparations for a future attack have been confirmed, even if the attack has not be commenced, under international law the attack (as a legal construct) can be said to have “begun” but the UN has never upheld this opinion.  Militarily, the position does make sense, especially if the first two indictments of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) assembled at Nuremberg (1945-1946) to try the surviving Nazi leadership ((1) planning aggressive war & (2) waging aggressive war) are considered as reality rather than in the abstract.

Legal (as opposed to moral or ethical) objections to pre-emptive or preventive wars were not unknown but until the nineteenth century, lawyers and statesmen gave wide latitude to the “right of self-defense” which really was a notion from natural law writ large and a matter determined ultimately on the battlefield, victory proof of the ends justifying the means.  Certainly, there was a general recognition of the right forcibly to forestall an attack and the first legal precedent of note wasn’t codified until 1842 in the matter of the Caroline affair (1837).  Then, some Canadian citizens sailed from Canada to the US in the Caroline as part of a planned offensive against the British in Canada.  The British crossed the border and attached, killing both Canadians and a US citizen which led to a diplomatic crisis and several years of low-level clashes.  Ultimately however, the incident led to the formulation of the legal principle of the "Caroline test" which demands that for self-defense to be invoked, an incident must be "…instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".  Really, that’s an expression little different in meaning to the criteria used in many jurisdictions which must exist for the claim of defense to succeed in criminal assault cases (including murder).  The "Caroline test" remains an accepted part of international law today, although obviously one which must be read in conjunction with an understanding of what's changed over the last 200-odd years.

The "Caroline test" was however a legal principle and such things need to be enforced and that requires both political will and a military mechanism.  In the aftermath of the Great War (1914-1918), that was the primary purpose of the League of Nations (LoN, 1920-1946), an international organization (the predecessor of the UN) of states, all of which agreed to desist from the initiation of all wars, (pre-emptive or otherwise).  Despite the modern perception of the LoN as an ineffectual talking-shop, in the 1920s it did enjoy some success in settling international disputes and was seen as as effective.  It was an optimistic age, the Locarno Treaties (1925) and the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) appeared to outlaw war but the LoN (or more correctly its member states) proved incapable of halting the aggression in Europe, Asia and Africa which so marked the 1930s.  Japan and Italy had been little punished for their invasions and Nazi Germany, noting Japan’s construction of China as a “technical aggressor” claimed its 1939 invasion of Poland was a “defensive war” and it had no option but to pre-emptively invade Poland, thereby halting the alleged Polish plans to invade Germany.  Berlin's claims were wholly fabricated.  The design of the UN was undertaken during the war and structurally was different from the LoN; an attempt to create an institution which could prevent aggression.

There have been no lack of examples since 1939.  Both the British and Germans staged pre-emptive invasions of Norway in 1940 though the IMT at Nuremberg was no more anxious to discuss this Allied transgression than they were war crimes or crimes against humanity by anyone except the Nazis.  The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941 proceeded without undue difficulty but that couldn’t be said of the Suez Crisis of 1956 when the British, French and Israelis staged an war of aggression which not even London was hypocritical enough to claim was pre-emption or preventive; they called it a peace-keeping operation, a claim again wholly fabricated.  The Six-Day War (1967) which began when Israel attached Egypt is regarded by most in the West as pre-emptive rather than preventive because of the wealth of evidence suggesting Egypt was preparing to attack although the term “interceptive self-defense” has also be coined although, except as admirable sophistry, it’s not clear if this is either descriptive or helpful.  However, whatever the view, Israel’s actions in 1967 would seem not to satisfy the Caroline test but whether “…leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”, written in the age of the “flutter of carrier pigeons and splutter of musketry” could by 1967 reasonably be held to convey quite the same meaning was obviously questionable.

Interest in the doctrine of pre-emption was renewed following the US invasion of Iraq (2003).  The White House claimed the action was a necessity to intervene to prevent Iraq from deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) prior to launching an armed attack.  Subsequently, it was found no WMDs by then existed but the more interesting legal point is whether the US invasion would have been lawful had WMDs been found (Iraq’s resistance to the attack was lawful regardless of the status of the US attack).  The relevant sections (Article 2, Section 4) of the UN Charter are considered jus cogens (literally "compelling law" (ie “international law”)).  They prohibit all UN members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state".  However, this apparently absolute prohibition must be read in conjunction with the phrase "armed attack occurs" (Article 51, Section 37) which differentiates between legitimate and illegitimate military force.  It states that if no armed attack has occurred, no automatic justification for pre-emptive self-defense has yet been made lawful under the charter and in order to be justified, two conditions must be fulfilled: (1) that the state must have believed the threat is real and not mere mere perception and (2) that the force used must be proportional to the harm threatened.  As history has illustrated, those words permit much scope for the sufficiently imaginative.

Pre-emptive progress on the ground, March-July 2022: At the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (June 2025), Mr Putin would describe what really should be regarded as the “Putin doctrine”: “We have a saying, or a parable: Where the foot of a Russian soldier steps, that is ours”, adding he regarded Russians and Ukrainians to be one people and “in that sense the whole of Ukraine is ours.”

Mr Putin (Vladimir Putin (b 1952; prime-minister or president of Russia since 1999)), although avoiding distasteful words like "aggression" “war” or “invasion”, did use the language associated with pre-emptive and preventive wars in his formal justification for Russia’s “special military operation” against Ukraine.  Firstly he claimed, Russia is using force in self-defence, pursuant to Article 51 of the Charter, to protect itself from a threat emanating from Ukraine.  This threat, if real, could justify pre-emptive self-defence because, even if an attack was not “imminent”, there was still an existential threat so grave it was necessary immediately to act (essentially the same argument the US used in 2003).  This view met with little support, most holding any such theory of pre-emption is incompatible with Article 51 which really is restricted to permitting anticipatory self-defence in response to imminent attacks. Secondly he cited the right of collective self-defence of the Donetsk and Luhansk “republics” although neither are states and even if one accepts they’ve been subject to a Ukrainian attack, the extent of Russia’s military intervention and the goal of regime change in Kyiv appear far to exceed the customary criteria of necessity and proportionality.  Finally, the Kremlin claimed the special military action was undertaken as a humanitarian intervention, the need to stop or prevent a genocide of Russians in eastern Ukraine.  Few troubled themselves to comment on this last point.