THE PROBLEM IS TO IDENTIFY THOSE ACTS OF TERROR WHICH DISRUPT INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO DESIRABLE INTERNATIONAL BEHAVIOR. HISTORICALLY, NATIONS HAVE COOPERATED IN CASES INVOLVING THE UNDERMINING OF INTERNATIONAL ORDER. FOR EXAMPLE, ANARCHISM AND THE ASSASSINATION OF HEADS OF STATE ARE FORMS OF CONDUCT EXCLUDED FROM THE BENEFIT OF NONEXTRADITION BECAUSE THE ASSASSINS WERE VIEWED AS ENEMIES OF ALL GOVERNMENTS. THE MOST RELEVANT ANTITERRORISM PRECEDENT IS THE 1937 CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF TERRORISM, WHICH INCLUDED A PROVISION FOR OFFENDERS EXTRADITION. ALTHOUGH THE CONVENTION NEVER CAME INTO FORCE, OTHER COOPERATIVE APPROACHES HAVE IDENTIFIED FORMS OF CONDUCT AS CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, SUCH AS SUPPORT FOR ARMED BANDS, HIJACKING, AND THE TERRORISTIC TREATMENT OF DIPLOMATS. WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF NEW FORMS OF TERRORISM (E.G., THE MASSACRES AT ISRAEL'S LOD AIRPORT AND THE MUNICH OLYMPIC GAMES), THE UNITED NATIONS DRAFTED A RESOLUTION WHICH SHOWED MORE CONCERN FOR THE LEGITIMATION OF WARS OF NATIONAL LIBERATION THAN FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM. IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT ANY CONSENSUS WILL EMERGE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS, SINCE WESTERN NATIONS FAVOR THE ADOPTION OF A CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TERRORISM AND AFRO-ARAB AND EAST EUROPEAN STATES REFUSE TO SUPPORT MEASURES WHICH INTERFERE WITH NATIONAL LIBERATION MOVEMENTS. TWO OBSTACLES STAND IN THE WAY OF A CONVENTION WHICH CLEARLY IDENTIFIES ACTS OF TERRORISM: (1) THE STATUS OF WARS OF NATIONAL LIBERATION AND (2) THE RIGHT OF STATES TO GRANT ASYLUM TO POLITICAL OFFENDERS. A U.S. RESOLUTION, THE DRAFT CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN 1972, OFFERS THE MOST REALISTIC BASIS FOR A CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TERRORISM, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT EXCLUDES WARS OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND CONCENTRATES ON EXPORTED TERRORISM. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (WRJ)