Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) - Preliminary Objections - The Cour

INTERNATIONAL COURTOF JUSTICE

Peace Palace,25:17 KJ The Hague. Te1.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-364 99 28).Telex 32323. Intemet address : http: 11www-icj-cij-org

Comrnuniaué A
unofficial
forimmediaterelease
No 9814
27 February 1998

Ouestions of Intarisinp from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbieeal Convention
JLibvanArab Jarnahirivav. United Kingdom)

Preliminarv Obiections

The Court will proceed to consider the case on the merits

the UnitedNations, foundtoday that it hasjurisdiction to dealwith the merits of the case brought by Libyaagainst
the United Kingdom concerning the aerial incident at Lockerbie. It also found that the Libyan claims are
admissible.

Libya,which submittedthe case i:othe Court on 3 March 1992,contends that the United Kingdom does not
have the rightto compel itto surrendertwo Libyannationalssuspectedof having causedthe destructronof Pan Am
fli ht 103 over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people died
(7l 259 passengers and crew, as well (as11 people on the ground). Libya argues that the Convention for the
the suspects itself.ul Acts against the Safetyof Civil Aviationsigned at Montreal in 1971authorizes it to try

In June 1995,the United Kingdomraisedtwo preliminaryobjections:one to thejurisdiction of the Courtand
the other to the admissibilityof the Libyan Application. In dealing with admissibility,the United Kingdom also
askedthe Court "to rule that the interveningresolutionsofthe (UnitedNations) SecurityCouncilhave renderedthe
Libyan claims without object".

Jurisdictionof the Court
The United Kingdom maintained that there was no legal dispute with Libya with regard to the Convention
becausethe questionto be resolved had to do with"th...reactionof the internationalcommunityto the situation
arising from Libya'sfailure to respond leffectivelyto the most serious accusations of State involvementin acts of
terrorism".

In its Judgment, the Court however finds that the Parties differ on the question whetherthe destruction of
the Pan Am aircraft over Lockerbie is governedby the MontrealConvention. A legaldispute of a generalnature
concerning the Convention thus exists between the Parties. The Court adds that specific disputes also exist
and Article 11 (relatingto assistance in connectionwith criminalproceedings).latingto the place of prosecution)

The United Kingdom also maintâinedthat, even if the Montreal Convention did confer on Libya the rights
it claims,they could not be exercised in this case because they were superseded by SecurityCouncil resolutions
748 (1992) and 883 (1993) which, by virtue of Articles 25 and 103 of the United Nations Charter, have priority
over al1rights and obligations arising out of the Montreal Convention.

The Court does not uphold this line of argument. Security Council resolutions 748 and 883 were in fact
adopted afier the filin5 of the Applica1:ionon 3 March 1992. In accordance with its establishedjurisprudence,
if the Court hadjurisdiction on that date, it continues to do so.
The Court concludesby thirteen votesto three that ithasjurisdiction to hearthe disputesbetween Libyaand
the United Kingdom as to the interpretationor applicationof the Montreal Convention.

Admissibilitvof the Libvan ADDlication

The United Kingdom contended ,thatthe Libyan Applicationwas inadmissiblebecausethe so-called issues
in dispute "are now regulated by decisions of the SecurityCouncil". The Court finds that it cannot uphold this conclusion. The date, 3 March 1992, on which Libya filed its
Application,is in factthe only relevantdate for determiningthe admissibilityof the Application. SecurityCouncil
resolutions 748 and 883 cannot be taken into considerationin this regard since they were adopted at a later date.
As to the resolution 731(1992), adopted before the filing of the A plication, it could not form a legalimpediment
moreoverby the UnitedKingdom.tterbecause it was a mere r'ationwithout binding effect, as was recognized

The Court concludesby twelve votes to four that Libya'sApplication is admissible.

Objection that thecuritv Council resolutionsrendered the claims of Libva without obiect
Finally, regardingthe request of the United Kingdom for a ruling "that the intewening resolutions of the
Security Council have rendered the Libyan claims without ob'ect",the Court finds that irule on that
objection atthis stage of the proceedings, it would ibe ruling on the merits and affectin Libya'srights.
The Court rejects by ten votes to six the objectionraised by the United Kingdom but willbe ab e to consider it
when it reaches the meritsof the case.
Furtherroceedinns

Having establisheditsjurisdiction and concludedthat Libya'sApplicationis admissible,the Courtwill now,
after consultation withthe Parties, fix time-limits for the furtherproceedings.
The proceedings consist of two parts: writtenand oral.

During the written phase, written pleadings are exchanged. The A plicant (Libya in this case) has already
Counter-Mernorialby the Respondent(the United Kingdom). The Court may authorizea Reply by the Applicant
and a Rejoinder by the Respondent.

Uponthe closureof the written proceedin s ublic hearingsare organizedduring which the Partiesaddress
the issuesthattill dividethem. The Court cffown a Judgmenton the merits only afterthe oral proceedings.

The Court was composed as follows in the case: Vice-President Weeramantry, Acting Presidenc
Parra-Aranguren,Kooijmans, Rezek;Judnes ad hoc Sir Robert Jennings, El-Kosheri; RegistrarValencia-Ospina.

Judnes Bedjaoui, Guillaume and Ranjeva appended a joint declaration to the Jud ment of the Court;
Judnes Bed'aoui,Ranjevaand Koromaappended ajoint declaration;Judnes Guillaumeafd F eischhauerappended
opinions. President Schwebel,Judne Oda and Judne ad hoc SirRobert Jennings appended dissentingopinions.e

brief summary of the opinions may be found in the Ann%xat press communiqué. text of the declarationsand a

The full text of the Judgment,the declarationsand opinions,ashe Press Communiqués,are already
availableon the Court'sWebsite (http://www.icj-cij.or&.
The printed text of the Judgment and of the declarationsand opinions a pended to it will becomeavailable
in due course(orders and enquiries should be addressedto the Dist‘?Sales Section,Officeof the United
Nations, 1211 Geneva 10; to the Sales Section, United Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017; or any appropriate
specializedbookshop).

Information Office
Mr. Arthur Witteveen,Secretaryof the Court(tel:0302 2336)
Mrs. LaurenceBlairon, Information Oficer (tel: 31-70 302 2337)