1. Dugard, , Towards the Definition of International Terrorism, American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting, 67 A.J.I.L. 34 (1973).Google Scholar

2. Gol, , Aspects Intemationauxdu Terrorisme et de sa Repression, in 38 Studia Diplomatica 380 (1985).Google Scholar

3. In this article, only some juridical ways of suppressing terrorism are considered. This does not mean that non-juridical ways of combating terrorism are not important. For instance, the exchanging of factual information concerning terrorism in the ‘TREVI’-working groups by the Member States of the European Communities is very valuable. The same can be said of the recommendations by the Ad hoc Committee on International Terrorism of the UN-General Assembly.

4. Collignon, J. concludes this from G.A.Res 1514 (XV) (1960), 1541 (XV) (1960), and 2625 (XXV) (1970). See Collignon, Zelfbeschikking en de Spaanse Sahara (Serie Studentenscripties Volkenrecht, Den Haag), 10–11–See also G.A.Res. 1514 (XV), December 14th, 1960, par. 6: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.Google Scholar

5. Van, Krieken, ZelfbeschUMngsrecht en Onafhankelijkheid in 22 Intermediair 63–65 (19–12–86).See also G.A.Res. 2625 (XXV), October 24th, 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation between States): “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and … independent states conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of people as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour (…)”.Google Scholar

6. Cf. Articles 14 and 15 of the ILC-Draft Articles on State Responsibility, 1980.

7. Only one state, Cuba, barred the reaching of consensus.

8. Bedi, S., Extradition in International Law and Practice, 33 (1966).Google Scholar

9. De, Schutter, Problems of Jurisdiction in the International Control and Repression of Terrorism, in M.C. Bassiouni, International Terrorism and Political Crimes, 383 (1975).Google Scholar

10. id.381.

11. Case of the Lotus, S.S., Reports, P.C.I.J., (ser. A) No. 9,28 (1927). In this case no rule of customary law was in force which barred Turkish jurisdiction on the ground of the principle of passive nationality: the required opinio juris among states was absent; even if there was a custom, states rejected the existence of any legal obligation to respect it.Google Scholar

12. E.g. in Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Ecuador, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Iraq, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Peru, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand and Venezuela.

13. PCIJ, Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, (Denmark v. Norway), P.C.I.J.Reports (ser. A/B) No. 53, 22 (1933).

14. Nuclear Tests Cases, 1974 I.CJJleports, at 253 (Australia v. France), and 457 (New Zealand v. France): “It is well recognized that declarations made by way of unilateral acts, concerning legal or factual situations, may have the effect of creating legal obligations. Declarations of this kind may be, and often are, very specific. When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its own terms, the intention confers on the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration. An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with the intent to be bound, even though not made within the context of international negotiations, is binding (...)”.

15. Barcelona Traction Case, 19701.C J. Reports, para. 33 and 34 (duties erga omnes).

16. Akehurst, M., A Modern Introduction to International Law, 91 (1980).Google Scholar

17. See especially articles 55 sub (c) and 56.

18. Van, Veen, Over uitlevering en politieke delicten, 26 Are Aequi 272 (1977).Google Scholar

19. See Shearer, I.A., Extradition in International Law, at 66 and 188 (1971).Google Scholar

20. Ch. van den Wijngaert, The Political Offence Exception to Extradition (The Delicate Problem of Balancing the Rights of the Individual and the International Public Order), 103 (1980).

21. Asylum, Case, 1950 1.C J. Reports, 266.Google Scholar

22. Whiteman, M., A Digest of International Law, VI, 799–800 (1968).Google Scholar

23. Bassiouni, , The Political Offence Exception in Extradition Law and Practice, in M.C. Bassiouni, supra, note 9,407.Google Scholar

24. See Evans, ,Reflections upon the Political Offence in International Practice, in 57 A.J.I.L. 15 (1963).Google Scholar

25. Bassiouni, , supra, note 23,102.Google Scholar

26. Castioni, case, 1 Q.B. 149, at 152 (1891).Google Scholar

27. Ravashiere, , Terrorist Extradition and the Political Offence in International Practice, in 21 V J.I.L. 173 (1980).Google Scholar

28. See Van den Wijngaert, supra, note 20,116–7.

29. See Bassiouni, , supra, note 23,422. Examples of case law are the Giovanni Gatti case, 14 Ann. Dig. No. 70, at 145–146 (1947), and the Coleman case, Court of Appeal (Paris), 14 Ann. Dig. no. 67, at 141 (1947).Google Scholar

30. Wassilief case (1908), in U.S. Foreign Relations 520–521 (1909).

31. Case of Kavic, Bjelanovic –374, at 372 (1952). See also Whiteman, supra, note 22,813–815.

32. Hoge, Raad, 18–5–1978; 1978 NJ.no. 314 (Folkerts) and no. 315 (Wackemagel).Google Scholar

33. Grahl-Madsen, A., Territorial Asylum, 34 ff.(1980); Langemeijer, Terrorisme, Uitlevering, Asiel, in 1978 Socialism en Democratie, No. 3,113.Google Scholar