ANTITERRORIST TREATIES ENJOIN MEMBER STATES TO EXTRADITE OFFENDERS OR TO SUBMIT THEM TO PROSECUTION. STATE PRACTICE INDICATES THAT DEPORTATION IS MORE COMMON THAN EXTRADITION AS A METHOD OF COMPLIANCE. EXISTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF STATES WITH REGARD TO EXTRADITION, EXPULSION, AND EXCLUSION SHOULD BE REVIEWED TO ESTABLISH A COMMON STANDARD FOR THE RENDITION OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS. HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, AND JURISPRUDENTIAL CONSIDERATION MAY PREVENT STATES FROM AFFIRMATIVELY DEFINING POLITICAL OFFENSE, BUT THE DEFENSE OF THE POLITICAL OFFENSE (I.E., WHERE THE ACCUSED SEEKS TO BLOCK EXTRADITION BY CLAIMING A PARTICULAR ACT IS EXEMPT UNDER RECOGNIZED POLITICAL OFFENSE CATEGORIES) AS AN OBSTACLE TO THE LEGAL CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM CAN BE CURTAILED BY SELECTED ELIMINATION OF OFFENSES FROM THIS CATEGORY. SUBMISSION OF AN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST TO PROSECUTION IS THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO WHICH HE OR SHE HAS BEEN SURRENDERED OR OF THE STATE THAT, DENYING RENDITION, HAS RETAINED CUSTODY OF THE OFFENDER. WHERE A STATE HAS FAILED TO PROSECUTE EFFECTIVELY, A REALISTIC APPRAISAL OF THE SITUATION--WITH A VIEW TO DETERMINATION OF POLICY AGAINST THE STATE--CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEANING OF 'SUBMIT TO PROSECUTION' IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF THE DELINQUENT STATE. CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS A NEED TO DEVELOP INFORMATION ABOUT POLICY AND PRACTICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS IN CIVILIZED STATES. A GREATER KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRACTICAL OPERATIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS OF VARIOUS STATES, COUPLED WITH WIDESPREAD DEVELOPMENT OF JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PROCEDURES IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, WOULD ALLAY MUCH OF THE RELUCTANCE OF STATES TO SURRENDER INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS FOR PROSECUTION OR TO UNDERTAKE PROSECUTION THEMSELVES. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROVIDED, ALONG WITH EXTENSIVE REFERENCE NOTES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--KBL)