EFFORTS TO MOBILIZE NATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RATIFYING AGREEMENTS AIMED AT ERADICATING TERRORISM FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT SO FAR HAVE MET WITH LITTLE SUCCESS. SOME THEORISTS SUGGEST THAT THIS IS BECAUSE THE WORLD SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS BECOMING MORE PROGRAMED INTO ACCEPTING A HIGH LEVEL OF VIOLENCE AS A ROUTINE WAY OF EXISTENCE. OTHERS SUGGEST THAT THE RAPID PROLIFERATION OF MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS SINCE WORLD WAR II, ALONG WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED ANTISUBVERSION TECHNOLOGY, HAS BEEN INEVITABLE AND THAT TERRORISTS WILL RESPOND SIMILARLY. BECAUSE TERRORISTS OFTEN ARE SEEKING TO EFFECT POLITICAL OR SOCIAL CHANGE, NATIONS TRADITIONALLY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO AGREE ON A WORKING DEFINITION OF 'TERRORISM.' CONSENSUS AMONG NATIONS HAS BEEN LACKING ON WHETHER TERRORISM REQUIRES AN INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE OR ONLY NATIONAL ACTION. IN ADDITION, THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFICULTIES IN DECIDING WHICH JURISDICTIONS SHOULD HAVE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUNISHING TERRORISTS. DESPITE OBSTACLES TO A GENERAL CONVENTION ON TERRORISM, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT A MORE LIMITED APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM IS STILL POSSIBLE. A LESS GENERAL APPROACH MIGHT FOCUS ON SPECIFIC, PARTICULARLY HEINOUS FORMS OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, WHILE A MORE GENERAL CONVENTION COULD BE SIGNED BY A SMALLER GROUP OF NATIONS. THE LATTER APPROACH WOULD BE A VERBAL STRATEGY TO DETER TERRORISTS, AND THE NATIONS ADHERING TO THE CONVENTION WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT ONE STATE GIVING INTO TERRORIST DEMANDS SURELY SOULD EFFECT THE SECURITY AND WELL-BEING OF THE OTHER STATES. THE DRAFT CONVENTION OF THE DUTY OF STATES NOT TO ENCOURAGE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM BY COMPLYING WITH TERRORIST DEMANDS IS APPENDED. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (JSP)