The requirements of attributability, proportionality and necessity have been the conditions to be met while exercising the right of self defense. While the limitations of necessity and proportionality have largely remained uncontested, a huge discrepancy has aroused regarding the requirement of attributability. It has been a subject of vital importance and profound debate whether the right can be exercised against non state actors, essentially in the context of international terrorism. While a great number of scholars and jurists continue to argue that the right can only be exercised against a state, a few others have favored the other side of the argument. Whatever the position be, it would not be a problem in dealing with state sponsored terrorist activities as they can be attributed to the host states. However, the situation would be different with regard to such terrorist activities which cannot be attributed to any state. In the setting of increasing terrorist attacks against states and the anonymity of any state involvement in the same, it becomes plausible that the right of self defense should be given a broad interpretation thus allowing the use of force to defend non state sponsored terrorism. The mere fact that the act of terrorists cannot be attributed to any state should not restrict the use of the right of self defense by the victim state against those terrorists.