Citation

Rubin AP. Terrorism 1990; 13(4-5): 277-297.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1990)

DOI

10.1080/10576109008435837

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Most difficulties in achieving international cooperation to suppress "terrorism" reflect failures to take account of the way authority is distributed in the international legal order. Attempts to narrow or abolish the "political offense," exception to extradition treaties, are seen as either futile or self‐defeating for both political and legal reasons. Five other approaches are analyzed and promise is seen in three of them. The fourth, resting on the extension of national jurisdiction in disregard of the limits inherent in the international legal order, is seen as the one most attractive to the United States, Germany, and Iran, but the one most likely to lead to unmanageable political complications. The fifth, relating to an "international criminal court," is seen as most attractive to lawyers who would like to rule the world, but is inconsistent with both law and reality. A plea is made to statesmen and lawyers to examine the other three more closely.

Language: en