FUGITIVE TERRORISTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM ORDINARY OFFENDERS BECAUSE OF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO VARIOUS EXTRADITION TREATIES. TERRORISTS INVARIABLY REGARD THEIR ACTS AS BEING POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND OFTEN CLAIM ASYLUM IN THEIR HOST COUNTRY. IN THIS SITUATION, INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS ARE ABLE, IN ESSENCE, TO BLACKMAIL THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. CONVENTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BOUND BY A JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY, STRONGLY DEPENDENT UPON THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, IS UNSUITED TO COPE WITH TECHNOLOGICALLY SOPHISTICATED CRIMINALS. THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUPRANATIONAL CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE TO DEAL WITH INTERNATIONAL CRIMES REQUIRES AN EFFICIENT MEANS TO BRING OFFENDERS BEFORE A COMPETENT TRIBUNAL FOR TRIAL AND, IF FOUND GUILTY, FOR PUNISHMENT. ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE THE PHENOMENON OF TERRORISM AS A BASIS FOR DRAFTING AN ACCEPTABLE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION HAVE FAILED BECAUSE OF THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN POLITICAL AND MORAL ISSUES RELATED TO THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND CAUSES OF TERRORISM. SOME AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED REGARDING THE METHOD OF TRYING PERSONS ACCUSED OF TERRORIST ACTS, INCLUDING THE 1963 TOKYO CONVENTION, THE 1970 HAGUE CONVENTION, THE 1971 MONTREAL CONVENTION, AND ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE. PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXTRADITION OR TRIAL CAN BE RENDERED NUGATORY UNLESS THERE IS A FIRM INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENT TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM ON A CONCERTED BASIS. THIS WILL ULTIMATELY INVOLVE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TAKING SANCTIONS AGAINST STATES THAT SUPPORT TERRORISM OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)