The right to revolt and the concept of the political offense were products of the French Revolution, and tolerance of political offenses continued to grow throughout Europe in the course of the 19th century. The Belgian extradition law of 1833 was one of the first in Europe to support the principle of nonextradition of political offenders, which has remained valid until the present. The course of development to the concept of political offenses differed in internal and international law. In an internal context, political crimes are those intended by the perpetrator immediately and directly to affect political institutions. On the international level, determining the nature of political crimes for extradition requires consideration of the intention of the agent and the circumstances in which the offense was committed: all offenses against persons or property committed for political motives, with political consequences or in a political context, are considered political offenses. Despite the broad concept of extraditable political offenses, the right to political asylum has been maintained. Exceptions are made to the right of asylum in the case of attempts on the lives of heads of state, collaboration with the enemy, genocide, crimes of war, and desertion. The European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism creates a fictional category; i.e., political offenses for which extradition may be denied, then empties the category of its contents as a means of preventing states from denying extradition on the grounds that the offense in question is political. The fiction seeks to generalize extradition, to assure apparent compatability with the principle of political asylum, and to provide a transition to accustom legal and social elements to a new idea. Unfortunately, the fiction actually obscures the problem of controlling terrorists' violence and poses the danger that all political activity will be repressed under the convention. Depolitization of political offenses or exceptions to the nonextradition rule for political offenses restrict the right of asylum. For that reason, states are permitted the choice between extradition and trial of political offenders, as several conventions have already done. In any case, the liberal state which yesterday favored protection of the right of asylum today supports repression and extradition for political offenses. Notes and texts of the discussion following the paper are supplied.