It has been argued in earlier chapters that contemporary terrorism is, increasingly, an international as well as a domestic phenomenon. Because of the delicate nature of international relations, attempts to control terrorism at a global level will always tend to focus on legal and treaty obligations rather than action-oriented measures. The diplomatic and political implications of, for example, an international anti-terrorist strike force are such that suggestions of this kind are never likely to be translated into reality. Rather, the only suggestion that has any hope of gaining acceptance is one which places treaty obligations on nations to act in a prescribed way in a certain situation (for example, agree to bring to trial any captured terrorists, or agree to extradite them to the country of origin). And as will be shown, even this avenue is fraught with such dangers as to seriously jeopardise its eventual success.

As discussed earlier one of the central problems bedevilling international cooperation is the definition of terrorism. Because treaties are couched in legal terms they rely heavily on definitions acceptable to all parties. Since the issue of what constitutes terrorism is one of the most important unsolved problems in debates about terrorism, the attempts to arrive at a definition for international treaty purposes epitomise the confusion and dissent which surrounds the whole subject.