Three possible approaches appear promising; each would appeal to a different constituency. The first approach, which is that urged in the fourth interim report of the Committee on International Terrorism of the International Law Association, refers to the well-accepted international law of war as a limit to a government's discretion to grant asylum to political offenders. Trial or extradition would be required for all offenses so atrocious that even soldiers obeying orders would not escape personal liability. The second approach rests on the application of the well-established rules of international law that forbid states to permit their territory to be used as a base for armed bands that commit violence in the territory of another state. This approach would apply the general law of claims. The third approach would apply the accepted principle that a party threatened by irreparable injury by the default of another is routinely conceded the legal authority to act for that other. Although none of these approaches would end terrorism, none require that terrorism be defined, and all give a limited rationale for action consistent with international law to provide cooperation beyond what is currently politically feasible. In addition, none of these approaches prevents further actions or treaties to deal with international terrorism. Ten notes are supplied.