Following September 11, 2001, the UN Security Council adopted resolutions consistent with international law that paved the way for recognizing new concepts of self-defense (preemptive and preventive strikes). The rationale behind this shift lay in the conduct of non-state actors whose actions could potentially amount to armed attacks. Current terrorist activities changed their traditional forms and are evolving into modern versions under the rubric of the “post-modern terrorism wave,” exemplified by phenomena such as cyberterrorism. According to Barry Buzan’s expansive approach to national security, this article seeks to answer the question: How can recourse to preemptive and preventive strikes against post-modern terrorism (specifically, the cyber terrorism of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization—MEK) be justified from the perspective of Article 51 of the UN Charter?
The research uses a descriptive-analytical method. Its primary objective is to establish a mutual understanding between the legal and political domains in countering post-modern terrorism threats (with a case study on the MEK’s cyberterrorism). The results indicate that international legal practice recognizes the legitimacy of invoking self-defense against terrorist attacks perpetrated by non-state groups, and the selected national security theory supports this view. The concepts of preemptive and preventive strikes are not officially recognized in international law. However, in the absence of a working legal regime governing cyberspace, there is little doubt about the existence and validity of the right to self-defense against post-modern terrorism.