International law is perhaps most useful as a measure of international concern and opinion on an issue such as terrorism. Lacking methods and mechanisms for enforcement, it cannot be said to be an effective deterrent to terrorism, on either the national or the international level. Since their formulation is so ad hoc, international draft conventions are not clear and are often indecisive, largely because they rely on loose associations of states rather than any legislative body. Also, political considerations often weaken the resolve of nations to deal with politically sensitive subjects. In the absence of a judiciary empowered to adjudicate without the consent of all parties, and lacking an executive or police force to enforce the laws, international law on terrorism has evolved as a patchwork of treaties. Among the most successful have been those that relate to specific types of terrorism, such as piracy in the air and on the sea as well as the protection of diplomatic personnel and heads of state. Even these treaties, however, have been seriously hampered by political concerns that relate to issues of jurisdiction, prosecution, extradition, and political asylum. Thus, when agreements have enforcement capabilities, then they can be used to curb terrorism, but to date few such agreements are in force within the international community. 9 suggested readings and 25 notes