The political offense exception to extradition has become well-rooted in contemporary international practice. Asylum and immunity from prosecution for crimes otherwise possibly considered terrorist constitutes a permissive action on the part of the granting state. International law does not specify the conditions for granting asylum nor does it prescribe a positive duty for states to do so; it merely sanctions the practice, leaving the regulative details to each domestic legal and political system. Although governments may agree in principle that individuals sought for political or religious offenses ought to be exempt from extradition, they have not agreed upon a set of common definitions and operational legal tests that would distinguish ordinary criminals from "political" refugees. The operational tests for political asylum used in the courts of various countries are the Swiss "predominant motive" test, sometimes referred to as the proportionality test; the Franco-Belgian "political objective" test; and the Anglo-American "political incidence" test. Governments are reluctant to yield any portion of their right and criteria for exercising absolute discretion in the disposition of asylum cases, even in areas with longstanding records of mutual cooperation based on common traditions and strong mutual interests in other areas. 40 notes