In the 1980s the issue which has dominated discussion of international terrorism is the extent to which it is influenced, aided, planned, financed or controlled by sovereign states. There is little disagreement in the literature that state involvement in terrorism has increased significantly in recent years and that this level of involvement has implications for the ways in which terrorism may be countered. There is major disagreement, however, over the definition of international terrorism, what constitutes state sponsorship of or involvement in it, what strategic, domestic or foreign policy goals are intended to be pursued by such sponsorship, which states are involved in sponsoring or influencing terrorist groups, and how to evaluate the alleged evidence of state involvement. In essence, the lack of a universally accepted definition of terrorism and the aggressive and abrasive nature of relations between different states and political ideologies serve to amplify the problems of lack of objectivity which typify discussions of terrorism. As with domestic terrorism, the labelling of an act as one of state-sponsored terrorism depends largely on the political perspective of the labeller. An act committed by an opponent state will be readily condemned as state-sponsored terrorism, whereas the same act committed by an ally (or one's own country) will be called something else, or justified, or simply not commented on.