HISTORY, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE MIDDLE OF THE 19TH CENTURY, PROVIDES EXAMPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AIMED AT THE SUPPRESSION OF VIOLENT ACTS WHICH UNDERMINE THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER. THESE INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS HAVE FOCUSED ON THE EXTRADITION OF CONVICTED OFFENDERS AND THEIR PROSECUTION BY THOSE NATIONS WHICH ARE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENTS. IDEALLY, A TREATY AIMED AT COMBATING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM SHOULD (1) REAFFIRM THAT ALL STATES HAVE THE DUTY IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES TO REFRAIN FROM ENCOURAGING GUERRILLA ACTIVITIES IN ANOTHER STATE; (2) PROHIBIT ACTS OF TERRORISM WHICH DISTURB THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE INTERNATIONAL ELEMENT WHICH BRINGS THE ACT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW; (3) OBLIGE STATES TO EXTRADITE OR PUNISH OFFENDERS UNDER THE CONVENTION; AND (4) REAFFIRM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY'S ABHORRENCE OF STATE-CONTROLLED TERRORISM AS EXPRESSED IN THE NUREMBERG PRINCIPLES, THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION, AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS PROVISIONS OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF SUCH A CONVENTION INCLUDE THE DISPOSITION OF MANY NATIONS TO SUPPORT WARS OF NATIONAL LIBERATION AND THE PREFERENCE OF STATES TO RESERVE TO THEIR OWN COURTS OR EXECUTIVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHETHER A FUGITIVE REQUESTED FOR EXTRADITION IS A POLITICAL OFFENDERS. THE DRAFT CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, SUBMITTED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY BY THE UNITED STATES IN SEPTEMBER 1972, FACES MOST OF THE DIFFICULITIES ASSOCIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ACTS. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (RCB)