BECAUSE OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY AND SOPHISTICATED WEAPONRY, TERRORIST ACTS POSE A GREATER THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ORDER THAN IN PREVIOUS DECADES. IT IS DEBATABLE WHETHER ALL GROUPS WHO ENGAGE IN ARMED STRUGGLE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE CALLED TERRORISTS. VIOLENCE CAN BE JUSTIFIED IF CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS FOR PEACEFUL CHANGE DO NOT EXIST, SUCH AS IN SOUTH AFRICA. HOWEVER, INDISCRIMINATE KILLINGS OF INNOCENT PERSONS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED, EVEN WITH THE CLAIM THAT AN ENTIRE NATIONAL GROUP MUST BEAR EQUAL GUILT FOR INJUSTICES COMMITTED BY ITS POLITICAL LEADERS. MOST GOVERNMENT WILL CHOOSE ACTIONS THAT PREVENT INNOCENT VICTIMS FROM BEING HARMED BY TERRORISTS, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE IN THEIR NATIONAL INTEREST. HIJACKING CANNOT BE CONTROLLED UNTIL ALL COUNTRIES REFUSE ASYLUM TO HIJACKERS. FROM A MORAL STANDPOINT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY ANY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION THAT DENIES THE USE OF TERRORIST METHODS TO GROUPS WITH GENUINE GRIEVANCES WHILE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTS ARE PERMITTED TO EXERCISE TERRORISM TO MAINTAIN POWER. UNDERLYING CAUSES OF TERRORISM INCLUDE AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS' USE OF VIOLENCE TO SUPPRESS DISSENT, THE INCREASINGLY RAPID RATE OF SOCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CHANGE, AND THE DEPERSONALIZATION OF MODERN GOVERNMENTS. MODERN COMMUNICATIONS HAVE ENHANCED THE ATTENTION-GETTING VALUE OF TERRORIST ACTS. (MJM)