The primary issue in current legal approaches to international terrorism is no longer that of defining more "crimes" or of providing means for international cooperation in their suppression. The primary problem is how, within the international legal order, to curb the abuses of whatever discretion the order gives to statesmen with parochial "axes to grind." The proliferation of extradition treaties and proposals to limit the exceptions normally contained in them have not helped to solve the problem of how to pressure states to coordinate their efforts to catch and punish those who violate the criminal laws of any particular state for motives accepted as honorable by the public officials of the state to which they flee. It would be difficult to devise any system that would deprive any prosecuting authority of the legal discretion to refuse to submit an accused criminal to prosecution. States have sought to avoid the abuse of such discretion by entering into numerous extradition treaties and attempting to gain the consent of potential asylum states to even more treaties that reduce the scope of local authorities' discretion as a matter of treaty. Almost all existing extradition treaties provide for requested state discretion to refuse extradition for any "political offense." Attempts to restrict requested state discretion regarding the interpretation of that phrase in particular cases have failed. 12 notes