Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) - Libya to submit a Reply in each o

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel (31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.

Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address: http: Il www.icj-cij.org

Communiqué
unofficial
forimmediaterelease

No. 99/36

1 July 1999

Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention
arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie
(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom)
(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America)

Libya to submit a Reply in each of the cases by 29 June 2000

THE HAGUE, 1 July 1999. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) bas authorized the
submission by Libya of a Reply in each of the cases instituted by it against the United Kingdom
and the United States of America concerning the aerial incident at Lockerbie.

In Orders dated 29 June 1999, the Court fixed 29 June 2000 as the time-limit for the filing
of that Reply.

The Court also authorized the filing a Rejoinder by the United Kingdom and by the United

States respectively, but it fixed no date for this filing.

The Court referred to the meeting held with the Parties on 28 June 1999 by the
Vice-President of the Court, acting President, Judge Weeramantry, in arder to ascertain their views
on the subsequent procedure following the filing of the Counter-Memorials of the United Kingdom
and of the United States last March. At that meeting the Agent ofLibya stated that his Govenunent

wished to be authorized to submit a Reply in each of the cases and that it sought a time-limit of
twelve months for the preparation of that Reply. The representatives of the United Kingdom and
of the United States did not oppose that request but expressed the wish that no date be fixed at this
stage of the proceedings for the filing of Rejoinders by their respective countries, in view of the
new circumstances consequent upon the transfer to the Netherlands, for trial by a Scottish court, of
the two Libyan nationals suspected of having caused the Lockerbie incident. The Agent of Libya

bad no objection to this.

The subsequent procedure bas been reserved for further decision.

Background information

On 3 March 1992, Libya filed in the Registry of the Court two Applications instituting
proceedings against theUnited Kingdom and the United States of America concerning disputes on
the interpretation or applicationthe Convention for the Suppression ofUnlawful Acts against the
Safety of Civil Aviation signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971.

Libya referred to charges made by the Lord Advocate of Scotland and an American

Grand Jury against two Libyan nationals suspected of having caused the destruction of Pan Am
flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people died.

Following these charges, thenited Kingdom and the United States bad demanded that Libya
surrender the suspects for trial either in Scotland or in the United States. - 2 -

The Security Council of the United Nations subsequently adopted three resolutions (731, 748

and 88 3, two of which imposed sanctions) urging Libya "to provide a full and effective response"
to the requests of the United Kingdom and the United States "so asto contribute to the elimination
of international terrorism".

In its Applications, Libya argued that there was no extradition treaty between itself and the
United Kingdom, nor between itself and the United States, and that according to the Montreal
Convention it was entitled to trythe suspects itself.

On 3 March 1992, Libya also asked the Court to indicate provisional measures to prevent
further action by theUnited Kingdom and the United States to campel it to surrender the accused
before any examination of the cases on the merits. However, by Orders dated 14 April 1992, the
Court found that the circumstances were not such as to require the exercise of its power to indicate
such measures.

After Libya filed its written pleadings, thenited Kingdom and the United States raised
objections to the Court's jurisdiction and to the admissibility of the Libyan daims.

In two separate Judgments handed down on 27 February 1998 on these preliminary
objections, the Court declared that bad jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the disputes between
Libya and the United Kingdom, and between Libya and the United States. Itbased its jurisdiction
on Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Convention, which concems the settlement of disputes
on the interpretation or application of the provisions of that Convention. The Court also found the
Lib yan claims admissible and stated that it was not appropriate, at this stage of the proceedings, to
make a.decision on the arguments of the United Kingdom and the United States that resolutions of
the United Nations Security Council have rendered these claims without abject.

By Orders dated 30 March 1998, the Court fixed 30 December 1998 as the time-limit for the
filingofthe Counter-Memorials of the United Kingdom and of the United States on the rnerits of
the dispute. The time-limit was extended to 31 March 1999 at the request of the United Kingdom
and of the United States by Orders of 17 December 1998.

Website of the Court: http://www.icj-cij.org

Information Department •
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, Secretary of the Court (tel: + 31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Information Officer (tel: + 31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: information@icj-cîj .org