CONFLICTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL PROCESS COMPEL NATIONS TO CONSIDER THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROTECTION AGAINST TERRORISM. AN INQUIRY INTO THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM REVEALS THAT TERROR IS ONE OF SEVERAL FORMS OF VIOLENCE USED TO COERCE OPPONENTS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED POLITICAL OUTCOME. HOWEVER, NOT ALL STRATEGIES OF VIOLENCE ARE PERMISSIBLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. THIS RECOGNITION OF LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON VIOLENT COERCION AND THE UNACCEPTABILITY OF 'JUST' EXCUSES IS A KEY TO THE EFFICACY OF NORMS PROSCRIBING TERRORISTIC STRATEGIES. A BASIC HUMAN EXPECTATION INCORPORATED IN THE CUSTOMARY LAW OF WAR HOLDS THAT EVEN IN TIMES OF EXTENSIVE ARMED CONFLICT MANKIND EXPECTS THAT EACH PARTY TO THE CONFLICT WILL CONDUCT OPERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR. THESE NORMS DO NOT PERMIT BELLIGERENTS AN UNLIMITED POWER OF CHOICE OF MEANS FOR COMBAT. COMMISSIONS FOLLOWING WORLD WAR I DENOUNCED THE GERMAN POLICY OF 'GENERAL TERRORIZATION,' AND THEY INDICATED THAT THE INHUMANITY OF TERRORISM WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE MILITARY ADVANTAGES OF THE TACTIC. FUTHERMORE, THE ANIMOSITIES GENERATED BY TERRORISM MAKE THE POSTWAR PEACE MORE DIFFICULT TO PRESERVE. REAFFIRMING THIS BELIEF, THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTIONS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED TERRORISM AND REQUIRED HUMANE TREATMENT OF CIVILIANS. IN THE 1970'S, ANY FORM OF TERRORISM VIOLATES THE HUMAN RIGHTS AGREEMENTS AND EXPECTATIONS RATIFIED BY MANY NATIONS. ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS NEED TO CONSIDER AMBIGUITIES IN THE LAW CONCERNING TERROR TACTICS AGAINST MILITARY PERSONNEL AND CONCERNING THE CLAIMS OF NONCOMBATANTS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)