ALTHOUGH WORLD OPINION CONCURS THAT INTERNATIONAL ACTS OF TERRORISM CONSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL OFFENSES, NO ADEQUATE AND UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTABLE DEFINITION OF THE PHENOMENON HAS SO FAR BEEN FOUND. INTERNATIONAL LAW WRITERS HAVE ATTEMPTED NUMEROUS TIMES TO WRITE PROVISIONS AGAINST INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, BUT THE RESULTING DOCUMENTS ARE EITHER STILL IN THE PLANNING STAGES OR ARE TOO GENERAL. U.N. EFFORTS TO PREVENT AND COMBAT TERRORISM FLOUNDER AMONG THE DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW OF THE WESTERN NATIONS AND THE THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES; YET THE HAGUE AND MONTREAL CONVENTIONS HAVE MADE SOME PROGRESS IN REPRIMANDING PARTICULAR, CLEARLY DEFINED ACTS OF TERRORISM (E.G., AIRPLANE HIJACKING). SO FAR, INTERNATIONAL LAW HAS OPENLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY NEGLECTED TO DEAL WITH ACTS OF TERRORISM COMMITTED BY A GOVERNMENT AGAINST INDIVIDUALS. IN TERMS OF HANDLING TERRORIST CASES, THE LONGSTANDING (YET UNMATERIALIZED) PLAN OF CREATING A SPECIAL INTERNATIONAL COURT IS STILL THE MOST PROMISING. FEW NATIONAL CRIMINAL CODES (NOTABLY THOSE OF SPAIN, SOUTH AFRICA, THE U.S.S.R., CZECHOSLOVAKIA, CANADA, AND FRANCE) CONTAIN SPECIFIC AND CONCRETE PROVISIONS FOR THE REPRESSION OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, THOUGH IN CONCRETE CASES NATIONAL COURTS WILL FIND GENERAL LEGAL PROVISIONS WHICH MAY ALSO APPLY TO INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. THE POLICY OF DEALING WITH TERRORISTS (EXTRADITION, GRANTING OF ASYLUM) VARIES FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY DEPENDING ON THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS A GOVERNMENT HAS RATIFIED. MOREOVER, THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM DOES NOT FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SITUATION. THE ARTICLE CONTAINS NUMEROUS FOOTNOTES REFERRING TO PARTICULAR LEGAL SECTIONS AND TO EXPERT COMMENTARY. --IN FRENCH.