Self-defence has long been understood as an inherent right of a State when it is militarily attacked by another State. After September 11 attacks, however, there have been attempts to reinterpret the meaning of ‘armed attack’ under Article 51 of the UN Charter to include attacks by terrorists - non-State actors. This paper critically examines the legal and policy considerations that promote a right of self-defence against terrorists by means of thoroughly analyzing the text of the UN Charter, State practice and the jurisprudence of the ICJ. The paper finds that a terrorist attack as such may not be an armed attack within the meaning of Article 51 of the Charter unless it is an act of a State or directly imputable to a State and is on a large scale with substantial effects. The paper concludes that unilateral use of force against a State in the name of self-defence is not the correct way of combating terrorism and that there are effective alternatives such as addressing the root causes of terrorism, resorting to law enforcement mechanisms or coercive countermeasures, and strengthening multilateralism.

Islamic international law is a branch of the Shari’ah (Islamic law). Due to the classical doctrine of the notion of‘ Jihad,’there have been misconceptions and Islam has been painted as a religion encouraging violence and war. This paper appeals for the reconsideration of the classical doctrine, which was adopted at a time when there was a state of war between Islamic and non-Islamic states. Going back to the roots and referring to the Qur’an and the Sunnah: the two primary sources of Islamic law, the paper argues that Islam prohibits aggressive war and that the essence of‘ jihad’ is‘ self-defense.’After elaborating the essential conditions of the right of self-defense, the paper concludes that Islamic international law can contribute much to the present world order by providing moral and ethical values that modern international law is lacking.