Legitimate use of military force against state-sponsored - Air University

Form of Crimes against Persons and Related Extortion That Are of International Significance,” 2
February 1971, TIAS 8413, UST, vol. 21, pt. 4, 3949; Organization of American States (OAS),
AG/88/rev.; and “International Convention against Taking of Hostages,” 17 December 1979, UN
A/34/819 (1979).
Regarding letter bombs, see “Universal Postal Convention,” 10 July 1964. TIAS 5881, UST,
vol. 16, pt. 2, 1291. For a discussion of this convention, see L. C. Green, “International Law and
the Control of Terrorism,” Dalhousie Law Journal 7, no. 2 (April 1983): 244.
Regarding diplomats, see “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against
Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents” (New York Convention), 14
December 1973, TIAS 8532, UST, vol. 28, pt. 2, 1955.
Requests regarding extradition ‘nay be denied on the basis of the political offense exception.
Although the basic rule in international law is cooperation among states with respect to fugitives
from justice, an exception to this rule for political offenses arose during the eighteenth-century
revolutions for political freedom and liberty. How broadly the exception is interpreted is open to
dispute. Some argue that it should extend only to those whose extradition is sought for exercising
political freedoms such as free speech. Others argue that it extends to any political statement,
such as violence in furtherance of one’s political cause. This issue takes on significance in the
context of terrorism. If one assumes the broad view of the political offense exception, then one
must agree with Noemi Gal-Or, who argues that “the problem of determining the political
character of the political terrorist offence is non-existent. Such an offence is by definition a
political offence par excellence… The terrorist offence always fits into some theoretical category
of political offence.” Gal-Or, international Cooperation to Suppress Terrorism (New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1985), 136.
A broad view would inhibit greatly extradition of terrorists to stand trial in countries where
they committed their acts. Recently the United States and the United Kingdom concluded a
supplement to their extradition treaty narrowing the political offense exception. Much remains to
be done in this area. For a general discussion, see Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs,
“The Political Offense Exception and Terrorism,” statement by Abraham Sofaer, legal adviser.
Department of State, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1 August 1985, Current
Policy 762.
13. Another related issue concerns assassination. For US guidance, see Executive Order
12333, US Intelligence Activities, 4 December 1981, Code of Federal Register (CFR), Title 3,
The President, 1981 Compilation, 200; Christopher Dobson and Ronald Payne, Counterattack:
The West’s Battle against the Terrorists (New York: Facts on File, 1982), xv-xvi; and Brian
Jenkins. “Assassination: Bad Policy. Morally and Logically,” Alabama Journal-Montgomery
Advertiser, 16 November 1986, 5(B).
14. Brian Michael Jenkins. “Research Note: Rand’s Research on Terrorism.” Terrorism: An
International Journal 1, no. 1 (1977): 92.
15. A concise history of the steps leading to the 1937 Convention for the Prevention and
Punishment of Terrorism is in Proceedings of the International Conference on the Repression of
Terrorism, League of Nations, C.94.M.47.l938.V (1938.V.3), 49-50. See also Maj William R.
Farrell, USAF, “Terrorism Is .?” Naval War College Review 32, no. 3 (May-June 1980): 65;
Seymour Maxwell Finger, “International Terrorism and the United Nations “ in International
Terrorism: National, Regional and Global Perspectives, ed. Yonah Alexander (New York:
Praeger Publishing, 1976), 323; Thomas M. Franck and Bert B. Lockwood, Jr., “Preliminary