11 levels of capacity and resources available to States.  Since then a large number of Sates, including many of the Pacific States, have submitted their second reports.     Samoa and Security Council Resolution 1373 Samoa has submitted two reports to the CTC.  Its experience would illustrate, at least for a small country, the immense amount of work that had to be undertaken to respond to Resolution 1373, and the demands for international cooperation against terrorism.  In a short space of time, Samoa became a party to one of the international conventions (it was already  a  party  to  several  others,  and  considering  adherence  to  others);  enacted  the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism Act 2002; and prepared a range of amending legislation in respect of related subjects like the proceeds of crime, mutual assistance in criminal  matters  and  extradition.    New  authorities  (a  financial  intelligence  unit,  and  a transnational  crime  unit)  and  coordinating  committees  involving  senior  personnel  of many Ministries were established, and steps were taken to set up a computerised database and other electronic processes for the Government customs and immigration services. Implications of Security Council counter-terrorism action      With the full authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter the Security Council has acted as though it has power to legislate, or at least to set the framework by which members of the  United  Nations  are  required  to  legislate,  certain  criminal  laws.    This  action  of  the Security Council was not viewed by States as controversial, and probably to be expected given the horrendous circumstances of September 11.  It helped that the Security Council had  avoided  controversy  by  not  defining  terrorism.    Also,  the  killing  of  innocent  non- combatants,  hostage-taking  and  other  acts  generally  considered  terrorist,  along  with aiding and abetting them with financing, were already criminal in the laws of almost all States.    The  real  question  was,  and  remains,  whether  these  laws,  especially  the  laws against the financing of terrorist acts, can or will be effectively enforced, either within national systems or through international cooperation.    Already  there  is  debate  whether  the  Security  Council  action  under  Resolution  1373 amounts  to  the  creation  of  a  new  international  crime  of  terrorism.    It  is  an  interesting proposition.    It  does  seem  to  be  the  case  that  the  framework  for  Resolution  1373 legislation  has  been  determined  by  the  CTC  of  the  Security  Council,  and  that  there appears to be broad acceptance of this.  Whether, however, there is broad acceptance of a new international crime of terrorism might be another matter.  In the negotiations of the Rome  Statute  that  established  the  International  Criminal  Court  (ICC)  a  significant number  of  States  pushed  for  terrorism  (and  also  drug  trafficking)  to  be  included  as  a crime  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ICC.    However,  there  was  no  consensus,  in  part because there was no suggestion that terrorism had become established in international customary law as an international crime.  In any event, as has been pointed out,¹⁷ it would be a major departure for the Security Council if compared to other Chapter VII actions as, for instance, in the establishment of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR). When the Security Council created the ICTY and ICTR it used its Chapter VII authority to restore and maintain international                                                 17 Kenneth S. Gallant, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate and Jurisdiction to Prescribe in International Criminal Courts, Villanova Law Review, 2003, vol. 48, No.3, 793