In the numerous conventions adopted since 1970 to increase the effectiveness of international crime control, extradition has become recognized as the principal favored procedure. In addition, the principle of 'extradite or punish?' i.e., extradite offenders or take legal action against them in the country that refuses to extradite them, is applied to assure the effectiveness of the extradition approach. In general, extradition is refused by countries such as France, in cases where grounds exist to halt public action because the offense was not committed in France, and in cases where public action is not halted. While there is no obligation to punish offenders of the first category who have not been extradited, punishment is normal upon refusal to extradite offenders of the third category. Punishment is not feasible for cases in the second category. While the conventions of The Hague and Montreal, as well as U.N. conventions, conform to these conceptions, the European Convention for the Repression of Terrorism requires punishment in cases of nonextradition only when the rules of competence for requesting extradition overlap for the state requesting extradition and the state from which extradition is requested. The principle of 'extradite or punish' is both a criticism of extradition and an affirmation of international solidarity in the fight against international crime. The compromises in the Convention for the Repression of Terrorism suggest that certain states are reticent to accept allout efforts to repress terrorism. A reserve clause allows countries such as France to refuse extradition for political offenses under circumstances in which countries such as Germany would grant extradition. Clearly, the reserve clause will pose problems of interpretation: if and when France ratifies the convention, she will insist on the right to grant political asylum. Furthermore, punishment of political refugees for offenses committed in their own countries is viewed in French circles as problematic. Notes are supplied.