Recent incidents of state terrorism, including the assassination of Kim Jong-Nam, the murder (and attempted murder) of persons with strong ties to Russia, and the Jamal Khashoggi assassination, demonstrate cruelty while implying the involvement of the state, unlike other acts of terrorism since the Second World War. This trend denies the efforts of the international community, which has suppressed physical punishment including the death penalty in modern times and has achieved advances in human rights and humanitarianism under contemporary international law. Accordingly, this paper utilizes Michel Foucault’s indications regarding prison to reconsider recent cases of state terrorism from a broader perspective while taking into consideration the historical background of conventional terrorism and the development of international terrorism-related treaties.

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.