Document Type : Original Independent Original Article
Highlights
Introduction
The number and impact of nongovernmental activists have increased, especially since the 1990s. Notably, modern terrorists possess multifarious weapons and use the language of force to justify their actions. In other words, similar to the armed actions of states, the armed actions of nongovernmental groups can be regarded as terrorist attacks. Resorting to the right of self-defense, the states victimized by such attacks have often conducted large-scale military operations against terrorist groups stationed in other countries in response to their attacks. Therefore, an armed attack traditionally refers to only attacks conducted by states; however, the recognition of the fact that the actions of nongovernmental activists can be regarded as armed attacks is definitely a revolutionary breakthrough in international law. According to Article 51 and Paragraph 7 of Article 2 in the Charter of the United Nations, it is essential to analyze the cyberattacks conducted by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran in terms of the concept of armed attacks regarded as a fundamental element in national jurisdiction and the right of self-defense. Based on the research hypothesis in this study, the cyberattacks of this organization have not yet seemingly reached the threshold to jeopardize vital national interests. However, if the intensity of attacks meets the concept of armed attacks, the Islamic Republic of Iran will definitely have the right of self-defense based on the principle of national jurisdiction in defending vital national interests.
Methodology
This study adopts a descriptive-analytical research method.
Findings and Results
Although public opinion about terrorism is still influenced by the classical impression, terrorism has obviously expanded so much that it has evolved into a new form every day along with social developments. The access of terrorists to weapons of mass destruction and their use of modern facilities highlight that the international community must undergo the necessary adjustments. In other words, developments and advances in information and communication technologies have enabled terrorist groups to move from one place to another easily and quickly. As a result of these changes, terrorist attacks have expanded geographically over the past few decades, and the growing prevalence of these attacks has infused the public with fear and horror. In recent years, terrorism has left its traditional form, with its modern forms rapidly proliferating through the wave of neo-terrorism. Known as one of its latest cases, cyberterrorism has emerged from the intersection of terrorist actions and cyberspace. Obviously, cyberspace and pertinent technologies account for one of the most notable sources of power in the third millennium. In other words, the capacities that cyberspace has brought to human society have enabled some nongovernmental players to take advantage of such potential for their political purposes. These capacities have also added to the difficulty of fighting and preventing terrorism. For a considerable period, the international community tried to adhere to a detailed interpretation of the prohibition on resorting to force along with a relatively restrictive reading of the right of self-defense. Nevertheless, this fragile balance was transformed in the 1990s, especially after the September 11 attacks in 2001. Currently, the international trend indicates the legitimacy of resorting to the right of self-defense against terrorist attacks conducted by nongovernmental groups from the land of an incompetent country or one whose state has been acting passively against the actions of nongovernmental groups. Although there is no doubt about the absence of an efficient legal system for cyberspace, what seems important is the attempt to borrow legal principles and regulations from other existing systems for international law and measure their similarities to cyberspace. Furthermore, a cyberattack is evaluated in its aftermaths and effects, i.e. the intensity of damage and destruction as well as the presence of causal relationships between cyberattacks and resultant damage. Within this framework, such an attack can be considered an armed attack leading to the right of self-defense. There is no convincing evidence whether the cyberattacks conducted by the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran have violated the principle of the prohibition on resorting to force, given the impact of those attacks. That is because the cyberattacks of this group have been scattering attacks on the websites of some governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Therefore, the cyberattacks of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran are not currently so threatening that they can be included within the framework of armed attacks jeopardizing vital national interests. Moreover, according to the remarks by the official authorities of Iran, those attacks have caused no physical damage; therefore, they are not considered a violation of the prohibition on resorting to force in international law. However, official silence, lack of follow-up for this problem in international forums, and I.R. Iran’s passive reaction to these attacks have virtually precluded the review of existing options. Undoubtedly, cyberattacks entail not only political security problems but also legal challenges. Thus, the involvement of the International Law Commission as the legal pillar of the UN General Assembly can facilitate the codification of an effective framework of international law for cyberspace and the promotion of both international and regional collaborations to deal with cyberattacks.
