WESTERN NATIONS VIEW TERRORISM AS INDIVIDUALISTIC ACTS OF VIOLENCE, WHEREAS THIRD WORLD NATIONS SEE TERRORISTS IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT AS SOLDIERS IN WARS AGAINST REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENTS. THE EXTRADITION PRACTICE HAVE BECOME UNFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS AMONG STATES AND THE MOBILITY OF THE MODERN TERRORIST. THE INTERNATIONAL CRIME APPROACH ASSUMES THAT CERTAIN STANDARDS OF CONDUCT MUST BE MAINTAINED SO THAT CIVILIZED NATIONS CAN COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMES SUCH AS PIRACY OR GENOCIDE IS PLACED UPON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY. THE UNITED STATES, ITS WESTERN ALLIES, AND THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES DO NOT AGREE, HOWEVER, ON THE DEFINITIONS OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND RIGHTS OF ASYLUM. THE CONVENTION ON TERRORISM PRODUCED BY THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE IN 1973 COULD BE A WORKABLE COMPROMISE. IT DEFINES TERRORIST ACTS AS CRIMES WHEN INNOCENT PERSONS ARE HARMED, BUT ALLOWS STATES SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THEIR RESPONSE WHEN POLITICAL OR HUMANISTIC CONCERNS ARE INVOLVED. THE LAWS OF WAR AVOID PROBLEMS OF POLITICAL CRIME, EXTRADITION, AND ASYLUM BECAUSE THEY ARE DIRECTED AT REDUCING SUFFERING AND JUDGING COMBATANTS' BEHAVIOR, NOT DECIDING BLAME. UNDER THOSE REGULATIONS INNOCENT CIVILIANS AND TARGETS SUCH AS SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS COULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO TERRORIST ATTACKS. CERTAIN WEAPONS WOULD BE BANNED BECAUSE OF THEIR INHUMANE CHARACTERISTICS OR INDISCRIMINATE APPLICATION. TERRORISTS WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT THESE LAWS BECAUSE THEY WOULD SEVERELY ALTER THEIR MILITARY TACTICS, BUT THESE RULES COULD ALSO BE APPLIED TO GOVERNMENTS AND AFFORD SOME PROTECTION TO THE INSURGENT. (MJM)