TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY . . . . .. .. .. . . .. ..... . . . . ... 1
PART I STATEMENTOF FACTS .... . ... ..... . . ........ . . . .. 4
Chapter 1 Two Libyan NationalsWere Indictedby a FederalGrand
Jury in the United States Followingan International
Investigatiointothe Bombhg of Pan Am 103 . ... . ... . . .... 5
Section1. The Bombingof Pan Am 103 andthe EnsuingInternational
Investigation..... .. ... .... ... . ....... .... . . . .. . . 5
Section2. The Grand Juw IndictmentintheUnitedStates ..... ... . ... . 6
A. The Grand Jury ProcessintheUnited States . . ... .. . . .... . 7
B. The GrandJuryChmes Againstthe Two Lib~ans .. . . . . .. . . 10
Chapter II The UN SecurityCouncii Has Acted Repeatediy and
Decisivelyto CondemnThe Bombingof %n Am 103andto
Require Libya to Surrendes forTrial in the UnitedKingdom
orthe United Statethe TwoLibyan NationalsAccusedof
Committingthe Crime . . . . .., .... . .... . .... ... . .... . 18
Section1. Eventsleadhg to SecuritvCouncilResolution731 .... . . . . . . 19
A. The Demands oftheUnited StatestheUnited
KingdomandFrance . ... . ... ... .... . .. . . . . . ... . 19
B. Libja'sRes~onses tothe UnitedStates.thUnited
Kin~domand France . .... . . .. . . .. , .. .... . .... 22
Section2, SecurityCouncilResolution731 of 21January 1992 .. .. . .. . . 24
Section 3. Libva'sApplicatiotothis Courtandits Fkquestfor
ProvisionalMeasures (3 March 1992) .... . . . ... ....... . .. 29
Section4. SecuritvCouncilResolution748 of 31 March 1992 .. . . ..... . 31
Section5. SecuritvCouncilResolution883 ofIl November1993 . . .. ... 39
A. Events Leadin-to SecuritvCouncilResolution883 .. . . .... . . 39
B. SeciiritvCouncil Resolution 88. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ..41ChapterIII TheSecurityCouncil'sCondemation of the BombinigoPan
Am 103 andIts OtherActionsinthjsCaseare Consistent
with its hngstandiCommitment toMaintainInternational
Pace and Securityby Condemning and ActingAgainst
InternationalTerrorism ............................. 49
ChapterIV Libya Continuesto RefusetoComply witbthe Security
Council'sRequiremeatthiatit Surrender for TthelLibyan
hgitives Accusedof BornbingPanAm 103 ................. 52
TEE OBJECTIONS OF THE UNITED STATTB TO THE
LXEYAN APPLICATION COMEWITHIN TBE SCOPEOF
ARnCLE79 ..................................... 55
Chapter 1 Article79 CoveraBroadRangeof Objections ............... 56
Chapter II TheCourtCan Disposeofthese ObjectionatWi Stage even
ian ObjectionRaisa &sus that Might Touchuponthe
Merits of thCase ................................. 60
PART m THE MONTREAL CO-ON PROVIDES NU BASIS
FORJ-URBDICmON ............................... 64
Chapter1 TheMontrealConventionProvides the Sole AUegeBasisfor
Juhdieîion OverTb- Proceedigs ...................... 66
ChapterII Libya'ApplicationDoesNot SetOuta DisputeBetweenthe
Partiesver the lnterpretator Applicatioofthe
Convention ...................................... 68
Chapter III Libya's Dispuisnot withtheUnitedStates,butwiththe
SecuritUouncll................................... 76
Section1.The ProceedinnsonLibya"RR-uestfor Provisionai
MeasuresDernonstrathatthisActioisabout Libva'sDispute
yith thSecuritCouncil-Not thUnitedStates ............... 79
Section2. Libya'sMemorialDemonstratthatthis Action Concerns
Libva's Dimutewith theSecurîtvCounc................... 80
A. SecuritCouncilResolution131....................... 81
B. Rmrts oftheSecrem-General mirsuantoSecurity
CouncilResolution731.......................... 85 C. SecuritvCouncilResolution748...................... 86
D. SecuritCounçilResolution883 ....................... 87
PART IV EVENIF THE COURT HAS JTRHDICTJON, I'ïSHOULD
DECLINE TO EXERCISEJURZSDICTION IN THESE
PROCEEDINGS .................................. 90
ChapterX A Decisionbythe Court toAcceptJurisdictioninthese
Proceedingsis Incompatiblewithtbe Fundions of the Court.... 92
Section1. AnvJudgmentthatthe CourtMight RenderWouldBe
WithoutPsactical Effect andWouldErnbroii theCouatin
PolrticalDisput................................... 93
Section2. The Court ShouldDeclituExerciseJunsdictiinthis
ProceedingtoAvoid Undermininthe Abilitofthe Secuntv
CouncitoMaintainandRestoreInternationPeaceand
Securiq ........................................ 95
ChapterII TheSwurity Counciihas Full Authorityto RequireLibya to
SurrendertheTwo Accused Persans...................... 101
Section1. T'heActionsof theSecurityCounareFullyConsonant
withPrinci~lesof JusticeandInternationalLaw............. 102
Section2. The Actioof theSecuntvCouncil dnotViolateArticle
2(Tof theCharter.................................. 106
Sectio3. The SecuritvCouncihasActedwithinits Authori........... 108
PART V EVEN IFTEiE COURTEXERCISESJURISDICTION, IT
SHOUW)DECIDE, AS A PRELlMlNARY MATTER,
TRkT TElEDECEIONS OF TKE SECClRTTY COUNCIL
PRECLUDE THE RJ3W SOUGHT BY LZBYA ............. 112
CONCLUSION ............................................llS iNTRODUClTON AND SmU
1. On3 March 1992,the Governmentof Libyafded anApplicationwith theCourt
instituthg thepreseproceedings againsttheUniM States in respe ctwhatLibya
maintainsis adisputebetweenLibya and theUnitedStatesoverthehterpretationand
applicatioof theMontrealConvention fortheSuppressionof Udawful ActsAgainstthe
SafeS of Civil Aviatio(hereinaftMontrealConventionor Convention) concerning the
bombingof Pan Am mght 103overLockerbie in Scotlandon21 December1988. The
UnitedStatessubmitsthe followingPrelirninatObjectionstotheCourt'senteriainhgthe
Applicationfdedby Libya.
2. In its Appiicatioa,theGovernent of Libyaseeksrelieffrom thisCourt solelon
the basisoftheMontrealConvention. Spe~~cally,Libyaquests theCourt toadjudgeand
declarethat:1)Libyaha hlly complied withailof its obligationsundertheMontrai
Convention;2) theUnited Statehasbreached, and iscontinuhg tobreach,its obligationsto
Libyaunder severalarticlesof the Conventioand3) theUnitedStatesis undera legal
obligationi-mediatelytoceaseanddesistfromsuch allegedbreachesand from theuse of
any and diforceor threatsagainstLibya.
3. In thi sase,Libyais invoking,underMcle 36(1)of theStatuteof the Courtthe
basis ofjurisdictionprovidfor in Article 14(1)of theMontrealConvention. This
provisionconferson theCourtjurisdictiononlytodecidedisputesrelatingto the
interpretatiand applicatioof theConvention. Article14(1)does notprovideanybasis
forconsiderationbythe Cour of claims relatito othersourcesof law, suchas theUnited
NationsCharter osgeneraIprincipleof internationallaw. 4. TheUnitedStatescontendsthatthere is nodisputebetweentheUnitedStatesand
Libya undertheMonW Convention. Theactud disputeinthlsmatteris between Libya
and the Se~uliECouncilconcemingdecisionsofthe SecuritCoimnc iequiringthaLibya
surrendertwo accusa Libyannationdsfor triain theUnitedStateor theUnitedKingdom
and theimpositionbytheSecurityCouncilof economicsanctio ansother masures to
compel Libyatocomply withthosedemands. The United Statehasnever made a claim
upon which adisputebetweenthepartiesundertheMontrd Conventioncould be found to
existandmaintainsthatthereisnot asuficient çonndon berneen thedisputeset out in
Libya'sApplicationand theMontrealConventiontoprovidejurisdictiounderthe
Conventionforthe Courtto entertaintheseproceedings.
5. The UnitedStatealsomaintainsthat,eveniftheCourt wereto concludethatit
had jurisdictioverthesepmceedings, the Courtnonethelesshoulddeche toexercise
jurisdictiin this instancebecauanyjudgmentbythe Courtwithregard tothe rightand
dutiesofthepartiesundertheMontrd ConventioncouEdhaveno practicalconsequencein
lightof the decisionsof theSeeurCouncii I.addition,theCourtmot tende ar
judgment addressi Lnigya'sobjectiontothe SecurityGouncil'sdeqandswithoutexceeding
its jurisdictionpursutotheMontreal Convention. Suchn judgmentalsorisks,in the
contextof adecisionbytheSecurityCouncilunderArticle39 of theCharter,Involvinthe
Court in a disputhatcm onlybepmperly decideby the SecurityCouncil. Moreover, any
judgmentbytheCourtthat addressesLibya'sobjectionsto thSe~nty Council'sdemands
would undennine theabilityothe SecuritCouncilto performitsfunctionsunderthe
Charterfor the maintenanceandrestorationof internatipeaceand secunty. In effect,Libyais seekingby thesepmeedings topersuadethe Courtto ovemle decisionsof the
SecurityCounciltaken underChapterV1Zof theUnitedNationsChartes.
B. Further,evenif theCour tereto exercisejurisdlctioninthiinstanceitshould
decide,asa prem matter,thatthe decisionsof theSecuntyCouncilprecludethe relief
soughtby Libya, whatevertherneritsof itarguments conceniingtheMontrealConvention.
As a resultof Article 10ofthe Charterthe obligationsof Libyand other stateundesthe
SecurityCounçil'sdscisionstake precedenceoverany inconsistentobligationsand
accordinglyrenderitunnecessary toconsiderLibya'sassertionsundertheMontreal
Convention.
7. TheUnited States,therefore, requesthatthe CourtFust addressthese
preliminaq objectionsfnaccordancwe ithArticle79of theRulesof the Court. A favorable
nilingon theseobjectionsnowwould avoid havingtheCourt unnecessarilyaddressthrough a
difficuland lengthyprocessnumemuscomplicated factualandlegalissues ina situation
where nopracticaireliefcanbe granted.
8. The United Statereserves its rigtoobjectto anyotherissueof the Court's
jurisdicti.over,or the admissibiiiof,Libya'sclaimsthat aise inthe courseof these
procedings and aH itsotherrightsunderthe Statutandthe Rufesof Court. PART 1
STATEMENTOF FACTS
1.01 Part 1 of thisMernorialsetsforththefactsrelatitoand underlyingLibya's
Applicationto theCourt. Chapter 1discussesthebombingof PanAmencanWorldAitways
Flight103("PanAm 103") on 21 Decernbet1988, andtheindictment of two Libyan
nationdsfor this crimeon14Novembes 1991bya fedemlgrand juryin theUnited States.
Chapter 2 discussethe actionsanddecisionsof theSecurityCouncilinconnectionwith the
bomba of Pan Am 103, indudingtheimposition of sanctionson Libyafor faiiure to
complywith theSecurityCouncil'srequirementthatthetwo indictd Libyans be susrenderd
fortriai inthe UnitedKingdomorthe United States. Chapter3 explainsthatthe Security
Council'scondemnation of thebombingof Pankm 103 anditsotheractionsin thiscaseare
consistenwithits longstandingcornmitmen tomairitaininternationpeace and securitby
condemningand actingagaînstinternationa.rrorism. Chapter4 addressesLib yas
continuingrefusaitocomplywiththe SecurityCouncil'srequirements. Chapter 1
Two Libyan NationalsWere Indictedby a FederaIGrand Jury inthe United States
Foiiowhg an InternationalInvestigationinîthe Bombingof Pan Am 103
Section1. The Bombin9:ofPan Am 103 and theen su iInternationalInvestigation
1.02 On21 December 1988, aUnited Stateregistesedaircraftflyias Pan
Amencan WorId Airways Flight103, boundfrom HeathrowAirport in London, England,20
New York's John F. Kemdy Airportinthe Unite Statesexploded overLockerbie,
Scotland.Two-hundred andseventypeuple were killed: Il tesidenofthe Scottishtownof
Lockerbie,and 259 passengetand crew, including189UnitedStatesand atleast29United
Kingdom nationals.Theaircrafdso ded citizenofArgentha, Belgium, Bolivia,
Canada, France,.Gemany, Hungary,India, Ireland,IsraeItaly,Jamaica, Japan,the
PhilippinesSouthAfnca, Spain,Sweden,Switzerland, and Trinidad.The victimshcluded
children,studen,sfamilies,businesspersonsandgovemmentofficiAs. The United Nations
itsetf loa mostdistinguisheofficiainthebombing,Mr. Bernt Carlsson,the
CornrnissioneforNarnibia'.
1.03 Immediatdyfollowingthebombing,a largeandthomughinternationa lrunina1
investigatiowas iaunched, involvinghundredofhvestigatorsand thecooperatioof more
than 25States. On December30, 1988,thePresidentofthe SecurityCouncilissueda
statementon behaifofthemembers of the Counçilstronglycondemningthe destructiof
-- -
' A completelist of theindividukilledon thefIighisattachedtoLetterdated23
Decernber 1991from the ActingPermanent Representativef theUnitedStatesof America
to theUnitedNationsaddressedto theSecretary-Genera2l,3December 1991,UN Dm.
A1461831-Sl23 E3xhibit1,pp. 10-15.Pan Am 103and &g on allStatesto assiinthe apprehensioand prosecutionof those
responsiblforthiscrhhnaIsct.'
1-04 The bornbingof theaircrafwasa singularlyhorriblactof violence. Law
enforcementauthoritiesof the UnitStateand theUnitedKingdomirnmediately dedicated
tremendous resousceto theinvestigation.Eacnationhad a greaand cornpellinginterest in
identifyingthosresponsiblforthe bornbhgr As notedabove, thevastrnajorityothe
individualskillin thebombingwere nationdsoftheUnited Stateorthe UnitedKingdom,
Inaddition,theaircd was U.S.-registerand ownedand operatedbyPan Arnerican
Wodd Airways, Inc.a U.S. corporationIt was destroyeoverBritishterritosykilling
Britishcitizensitheairand onthe groundand destroyingnumemushomes inthetown of
Lockerbie.
Section2. TheGrandJurvIndietmentinthe United States
1.05-The internationailnvestigaproceedsdvigorouslyforthenextthree years.
By 1991 lawenforcement autboritiintheUnited Statesandthe Unite Kdingdomhad
amassed evidencetojustifapplicationto theirjudicsysfemsforhdictmentsand wmts
forthe arresof twoLiibyannationalsAbdeEBassetAbMegralri("AbdelBasset"), a senior
Libyan Govemmentintelligenceofficial, and LameKiialifFliimah ("Lamen Fhimah"), the
former managerof theLibyah nb AirlinesofficinMalta. SectionA below describesthe
grandjury processintheUnited StatesandtherebyputstheindictmentUitoits legal context.
UnitedNationsPresR selease:SecurityCouncilCondemns DestructionofPan Am
mght 103, 30Decernber 1988, UN Doc. SC/505T,Exhibit2.SectionB then outlinethefindingsandconclusionsof the federalgranjury regardhgthe
bombing of Pan Am 103andthealleged cvlpabilityof thetwo Libyandefendants.
A. The GrandJuryProcess inthe UnitedStates
1.06 The grandjury processus& in thefeded courtsof theUnited Statesis
prhcipallygoverned by Sections1861through 1869of Title28 oftheUnitedStatesCode,
and Rules6 through 9of theFederalRulesof CriminaiPr~cedure,~ As described indetail
inthese hws andRules, federalgrandjuriesin theUnitedStatesoperateasfollows:
-A federalgmd jury consistof atleast 16, bno more than23, United
Stateseitizenwho areatleast18 years oage, andwhohave livedfora period of
one year withh the judicid districtwherethareasked toserve. They rnaynot
havebeenwnvicted of feloniesobe thesubjectsoffelonyproceedingsatthe the
they areasked to sit. Juroare selecteatrandomfrom a crosssectionof th&
cornmunit, andare notselecteby theprosecution.
-No citizenmay beexcluded fromservice ona grand jury onaccountof race,
colorreligionsex, nation oaigh or economicstatus.EachUnitedStates district
murt is qurred by law to devise andplaceinto operationa wnttenplan for random
seldon ofgrandjurorsthatshdi be design4 toachievethese
UnitedStatesCode, Title28,6 1861-1869E , xhibit FederalRulesof Criminal
Procedure,Rules 6-9,Exhibit4,
JurySelectLonPlanforthe UnitedStatesDistrict Court forthe DistrofColumbia,
as amended through9 Sqtemkr 1993,Exhibit5. -The identitof citkens who serveas grandjurors ikeptstfictly secret. The
grandjury's deliberationaresupervisedby a Unit& StatesDistrict Jiidge,whose
activitieswhilinofficeare independentofthe politicprocessand who is appointed
to thebenchfor life. The supervishgUnited StateDistrict Judgeselectsoneof the
mernbers of thegrandjuryto serveas thegrandjury's foreperson. Theforeperson
has thesolepowertu swearwitnesses and signindictmentson behdf ofthe grand
juv.
-The federalgrandjury conductsitsproceedingsin secret. While thegrand
juryis deliberatinandvoting onindictments,onlythe grand jurorsmaybe present.
Attorneysfor thegovemment mayattendothergrandjury proceahgs, includingthe
presentationof witnesses. Grandjumrs rnayquestionwitnessesandtheprosecutors.
-The principalfunctionof thefederagrandjury is todecidewhether to
approve an indictmentrelatintofelony crimewhichis believed tohavebeen
committed, Pbm&e thatdecision,thegrandjurymustdetenninefmm theevidence
presentedwhether a crimehasbeencornmitted andif thereisprobablecause toreturn
an indictmentchargingone or moreindividuaiswith thecommissionof the crime. In
most cases,federalgmd junesconsider evidencepreparedand presentedby
prosecuthg attorneys, butdonotthemselvesinvestigatecrimes.
-The prosecutorsresponsiblefora casebrought tothe grandjurytypically
advisethegrand jury aboutrelevantlawand preparea pmposedindictmentfor the
grand juryto consider.The grandjuryis under no obiigationtoretur tne Uldictment
prepared by theprosecutors,andmaychoose toreturn anindictmentforonlysome ofthecharges suggested ,r not to retuan indictmentatall.The grand jury's"veto"
power over indictmentsstems froma wubernent inthe UnitedStatesConstitution
thatindictmentsformajor feded crimes rnay ody be broughtby a feded gmd
jury and not by U.S. prosecutorsactinalone.
-A grand jury'sindicmentis nota conclusivefrndingofguiltofthe aceused.
It constitutasfindingofprobablecause tobelievethatacrime was committed and
thatthe individualsindictedfor tcrimehave been deteminai to bethepersons
likelytuhaveçommitted the crime. Forconviction,an indictmentmust be foilowed
by a fulandpublic csimrna lrialatwhich defendants areentitledto be represented
bythe attorneyof theichoice,or tohave anattorneyappolnted forthemby the
court. Theirguiltisjudgedby a secorrjury,knownasa "petitjury,"whichconsists
of twelvecitizençhosen atrandom from the commun@ atlarge.
-Tu obtain aconvictiontheUnited StatesGovernrnenm t ustproveto thepetit
jury beyonda reasonabEedoubtin apublic trial thatthedefendantindicteciby the
grand jurycornmittectheches &ged in theindictrnent.Any decisionof guilt
must be reachedunanimowsl yy thetwelve membersof thepetitjury. Thusi ,fa
singlejumr is uncertainabout theguiltof a defendantbelievesthatthegovernent
has notmet itsburden of provingguiItbeyonda teasonabledoubt, thatdefendanrnay
not befound guilt.
-Defendantsare entitledto a widrangeof protectionin criminaitrialinthe
United StatesIncludingtherighttochallengepotentiajurorsperernptoriior for
cause;therightto exlunineandchallengephysicaIevidencepresentedby the prosecutorsand tocross-exam iiteesseswho test@ for thegovernment;the right
to presentevidenceandtû calwlitnesseforthedefense;thefightto testfiorto
remain silent, wino legalinferencesking drawn£rom thedecision notto testify;
therightto addressthejuryd-tly orthrough legalcounsel;andthe rigbttoappd
to anappellatecourtalso consistinof He-tenuredfederajudges,with broadpower
to reviewailaspectsofthecriminaltriafor legal emrsrS5
B. The Grand JurvChargesA~ainstthe Two Libyans
1.O7 On 14 Novemkr 1991, a grandjury oftheUnitedStatesDistricCourt for the
District of ColumbiinWashington,D.C., handed down an indictrnenagainsAbdel Basset
and LamenFhimah. The indictrnenc thargedthemwiththe feded crimes ofengagingin a
cruninaiconspiracythe goals of which includedtdestructioof PanAm 103andthe
murder ofthoseaboard;wil£ullyand unlawfullycausingadestructivedeviceand substancto
be pIacedinand upon a civiaircraft theUnitedStates us&,operated and empIoyed in
overseasandforeign aircommerce; wilfuilyandunIawfuliydamaging anddestroying,by
meansof an explosive devicea civiaircrafof the UnitedStateused ,perated,and
ernployedin oveneasand foreignaircommerce; maliciouslydamagingand destroyingby
means of anexplosivepropertyused in oraffectininterstateoforeigncommerce,causing
For thebenefît othe Court anthe Partietothisproceeduig,theU.S. Departmeno tf
Justicehasprepareda ngemorandurnprovidingadditionadletaiconceming the criminai
pmcess inthe federd courtof theUnitedStates,includingtheprotectionaffordedto
defendantsunderthe UnitedStatesfederaIsystem.United StatesDepartmentof Justice,
Sumrnary of Chinal Procedurein Federai CriminalCasesintheUnitedStates,31 May
1995,Exaibit 6.thedeathsof270 persons;andmurdering 189UnitedStates nationaloutsidethe United
o ta tes.etailsof the chargagainsAbdelBassetandIamen Fhimah arecontained in the
grandjury'sindi~tment.~
1.O8 The crucialfactaliegedbythegrandjury and setforthindetailinthe
indictrnentmaybesummrenZed asfollows:
- Both defendantswereernployedby the externalsectiofthe Jamahiriya
SecurityOrgankation (the"JSO")the LibyanGovernment'sintelligenceservice.
AbdelBasset was employedby theJSO invariouspositionshclusingastheChief of
the JSO'sAkhe SecuritySection,Operations Division, assuch was familiar
withinternational irlisecurrtprocedures. LamenFhimah was employedby the
JSO invariouspositions,hcludingatvarioustimesastheStationManager and
representativefor Libyanhb Airlines at Luqa Ahport, MaltLamen Fhimah had
accesstoAir Maltaluggagetags andthe Air Mdta facilitused to board passengers
andbaggage for LAA flightsfromLuqaAirport, Mdta to citieinGermanyand
elsewhere.
- PanAm 103 was destroyedastheresultof anexplosivedeviceinits forward
cargohold.
- The explosivedevicwas plad on theaircrafinfurtheranceofa
conspiracybythe Libya defendantsandtheirCO-conspintortsodestroyan
Amencanaitcraft bymeans of an explosivedevice andto kill passengerson
boardtheaitcraft.
& UnitedStatesCode,Tide 18, $$ 32,844, 2332 @reviouslycoad as 2331)and
371,Exhibit7.
The grandjury's uidictmenissetforthinitsent* intheAnnex toExhibit 1. - The defendantsandCO-conspirato rrecrirninallyresponsibforthe
destructioof theaircrafandthe murderof al Inboard md ofelevenpeopleon the
pund in Imkerbie, Scotland.
- The defendantandco-consphtors utked theresourcesand facilhies
of thenationof Iibya, includingtheJSOto carryouttheirschemeto destroy
theaircd and killthoson board. To awomplishthe sabotageof Pan Am
103,thedefendantsandCO-conspirato didthe foliowing:
--constnictedandcaused to be constluctan improvisaiexplosive
device consistinof plasticexplosivescontainhgthe substanRDX
and PETN, andan MST-13prototypedigital electronitimer,~apable
of initiatianexplosionat apredeterminedfuturethe, which had
been rnanufacturedfoand deliveredto theLibyanJSOby the Swiss
fi of Meisteret Bollieduhg theperiod of 1985to 1986atthe
requestof seniorLibyanGovernmentofficiais.
-- cawsedtheirnpmvisedexplosivedevicetobe concealedinsideaportable
radiocassetteplayer.
--causedtheradiocassetteplayertu lxplad insideabmwn colored
Samsonite Silhoue t00e rangesuitcase.
-- çausedthesuitcaseto bpackedwith clothingpurchased inMalta,
to providetheappearanceof anormaltravelbag.
-- causedthesuitcase,withthearmed deviceconeealedwithinit, tbe
placed inthestreamof internationalnirlinepassengerluggateLuqa
Airport inMalta.
-- utiLizedfdsidentitito enterMalta andothernationswithinwhich
the conspiracywascarriedout.
-- utilIzethehbowIedge and accessgainedasa resultoftheir
employment withLibyan Arab Airlinetocirçumventandevade
Maltese customsandairlinesecurityatLuqa AUport andelsewhere;
and lmproperlyobtainedand utilizetheAir Maltabaggage tagsto causethe interLieransferof thesuitçase,containingthe explosive
deviceto otheraircraft.
--causetdhesuitcasecontainhgtheexplosivedevicto beplaced înto
thebaggag cornpartmentofAir MaltaFfightKM-180 atLuqaAirport,
Maita;causedthesame suitcasta betransfemd £mm Air Mdta Flight
180to PanAmericanWorldAirway sFligErlO3A inEimrt,
Germany; causedthesame suitcasto befurthertmsferred toPan Am
103atHeathrowAirport, London; aused thedetonatioof the
explosivedeviceduringPanAm 103'sjourneyto theUnitedStates;
andcausedthedestructionofPan Am 103andthedeathof 270people
ontheabcraft andon theground.
1.09 The indictmenfurtheaikges thatnumemus specificoveractswese cornmitted
by Abdel BassetandLamen Fhimah inLibya, Switzerland,MaltaGermany ,the United
Kingdom,andelsewhere,in conneetionwiththe bombingof PanAm 103. The following
arethespecificallegationsof oveactsquoted verbatirnfrompatagraph39of the
indictmen:t
"OVERT ACTS
"39. In ordeto further theconspiracyantuache its objectives,the
foUowingovertacts, mong others,werecornmitted inLibya,Switzerland,Mdta,
Germany,the UnitedKingdom,and elsewhere:
"(a) Inoraboutthesumrnerof 1988,~~storedaquantity
ofplasticexpIosivinhisofFiceatthe LibyanArabArrhes Station,Luqa
AirportMdta. "@) Inor aboutthe faof 1988, ABDEL BASSET flew fromTripoli,
Libya,toLuqaAirport,Malta,on Libyan AmbAirlines,
"(c) Onorafiout7December1988,ABDEZBASSETtraveUdfmmLibya
toMalta.
"(d) On orabout 7Decernber1988, ABDEL BASSETregistered atthe
HolidayInn,Sliema,Malta,usingthename "ABDELBASET A,
MOHMED" , a"FLJGHTDISPACHER" (sic) foLibyanArab Airlines.
"(e) Onor about 7December 1988,in Sliema,Malta, ABDELBASSET
purchasaiitems of dothingfromMary'sHouse, arem store located
approximatel300 yardfsrornthe hoteinwhichABDELBASSETwas
staying.
"{O On or about9December 1988, ABDELBASSETtravelledfrumMalta
toZurich,Switzerland.
"(g) Onos about15December 198 8,LAMEN FHlMAH madethe
followinentriesinhis diasy:"AbdeBassetiscomhg fmm Zurichwith
, Salvu...and "take-ggs (sic) fmm Air Mdta."
"(h) On os about15Decernber19 88,LAMEN -AH made an additional
entryinthe"Notes" sectioofbisdiary:"bringthetagsfrom theAirport
(ABDELBASSET-ABDm SALAM). "
"Ci) Onor about 15December1988, LAMEN FHllViAH made an additional
entryinhisdiarb y writinglette"OK" adjacentto the notation:"ABDEL
BASSET iscomingfromZurich withSdvu ..taketaggs(sic)fromAir
wta. "' On or abou17 December1988,ABDEL BASSETtraveliedfrom
Zurich,Switzexlanto LuqaAbport, Maltaand thenontoTripoli,Libya.
(kp On orabout18Decernber1988,JAMEN FHlMAHtravelled from
MaltatoLibya forameetingwithABDI% BASSET.
"(1) On orabout20 Becernbe1988,ABDEL BASSET travelled£rom
Libyato hqa Ahport,Malta,utilkingthfalseidentityof "AHMED
KHALZFA ABDUSAMAD".
"(m) Onor about20 December 1988,LAMEN FHIMAHtravelled fmm
Tripoli,LibyatoLuqa AirportMalta,onthesame flighasABDEL
.BASSET.
"(n) On orabout20 Decemkr 1988,theDefendantand CO-conspirators
brought a largbmwn hard-sideSamsonitesuitcasintoMalta.
"(O) On or abou20Decernber 1988, ABDE BASSBT hada meetingwith
LAMEN FHMAH in mta.
@) Onor about20 DeCernber1988, ABDELBASSZTregisteted atthe
HolidayInn, SliemaMalta,underthefdse name"kMMED KHALIFA
ABDUS-".
On21 Becember1988, atapproximately7.11am., CET, ABDEL
"(q)
BASSET' placeda telephocalto LAMEN FlEMAH from the HolidayInn,
Sliema,Malta. "Cr) On 21.December1988, ABDEL BASSET,travellingunderan assumed
name, departeciLuqArrport,MaIta,on LAA Flight LN 147 toTripoli,
Libya.
"(s) On21December1988, betweenO815md0915houss, CET, the
Defendantsand co-conspiratouhown to the GrandJury,causeda bmwn,
hard-sideSamsonite suitcascontainhg anexplosivdeviceincorporatinan
MST-13timer, previouslymanufacturedfortheJSO,to be introduceas part
oftheinterIinebaggageinAirMalta FlightKM-180 to Frank€urtGermany.
"(t) On 21 Decernber1988, theDefendantsand co-conspiratounhown to
theGrandJury, destroyedairçsaft N739PA[PanAm 1031as chargedinCount
Three ofthis Indictrne,heallegatiomsf whichareherebyre-allegeand
hcorporatd by reference.
"(u) On 21 December1988,the DefendantsandCO-conspirato rsknown to
theGrand Juryb,ymeans offm and explosivedestroyedairc& N739PA,
andas a direcresulthereof caud thedeath oftwo hundredseventypersons
as seforthin CountsTwo andb, theallegationsof whican: hereby
re-allegedandincorporatedby reference.
"(v) On 21 December1988, theDefendantsandCO-conspiratournlaiownta
theGrand Jury,by means ofFm and explosivedestroyedaircraft N739PA,
and asa directresuthermf, didmurder onehundsed eighty-ninnationaiof
the UnitedStatesassetforthinCounts FivethroughOneHundrsd Ninety-
Three, theallegationsowhichare herebyse-allegeandincorporateclby
i reference"
l ' Exhibit1, pp.7-9. 1.10 Thegrand jury' isdictmentthusdkectly linksthetwoLibyannationals,acting
asofficiais theJSO,to the suitcasecontainithebombandits insertionintothebaggage
systemleadhg toPanAm 103. Onthe basisof theevidenceknown to it, tgran ury
alsolinkeddefendantAbdelBassetto the Swisscompany,Meisteret Bollier, that
rnanufacturedfor theLibyanGovernent thesophisticateelectronictimerusedinthePan
Am 103bombing andfoundin theplane' wreckage. Substantiaiidenticafactuaandlegal
conclusionsweremhed by theProcuratorFiscalforDumfries,Scotland, who appliefor, l
obtainsd,andissueda PetitioWarrantfor AbdelBassetand Lamen Fhimah on
14 November1991,followingtheinvestigationby Scottisauthoritiesinthe tragedyat
& LRtterdated20 December 1991from thePermanent Representativofthe United
Kuigdom tothe UniteNations addresseto the Secretary-Genera,1 December1991, UN
Doc. A1441826-S12330 E7,hibi8,p. 3. Çhapter II
The UN SecurityCouncrlBas ActedRegeatedlyand Decisivelto Condemn The
Bombhg of Pan &ti 103 and to Require LibytoSurrender for Trial itheUnited
Kingdomor the United StatestheTwo LibyanNationah Accused
of Committingthe Crime
1 1.11 SecurityCouncilinvoIvemeninthe PanAm 103hmbing began almost
hmediately after tcrime occurred. On30 Decernber1988,thePresidentof thSecurity
I
l
Councilissueda staterneon behaiof themernbersof the Councstronglycondemningthe
1
I destructionof Pan Am 10andcallingonallStateto assistin the apprehensand
1
prosecutionof thoseresponsiblefor criminaactl0 I
1
1.12 SecurityCouncilinvolvemenintensfiewhen,on 14 Novembes 1991,the
internationalinvestigationintothe bombingledto the grandjury indictmentin the United
Statesand thissuanceofa PetitionWmnt bythe ProcuratoFiscalfor Dumfries,
1
Seotlmd, againstthtwo Libyans. Duringthe nexttwoyears,thSecurityCouncil adopted
tb majorresolution&g on LibyatosurrendertotheUnited StateortheUnited
Kingdomthe two Libyan officiaaccuse ofmurderingthe 270 victims of Pan Am 103.
The lattetwo of theseResolutio748 and 883,weredecisionsunderChapterVII ofthe
I
UN Charter,quiring Libyan çompZiancweith the dernanof the UniteStateandthe
1 United Kingdomto surrenderfor trial the Libyansirnplin the conspiracyandmurder.
As noted below, Libya has deftheSecurityCounciland kasrefused to produceits
I
nationalfortrial. The SecurityCounckasrepeatdy reviewedLibya's faiiutocomply withthe sanctioand hasdecide edchthe tokeep themin placetcompel Libyato
1
comply.
1.13 The foiiowingdetailedchronolowilreviewfor thCourt thekeyactions
I
takenbythe SecuritCouncd fmm November 1991tothepresentandtheeventswhich
~
precededandtriggeretheSecurityCouncil'actions.
Section 1. Eventsleadinprto SecuritvCouncilResolutlon731
A. The Demandsof the UnitedStates.theUnitedKingdomandFrance
1.14 On 21November 1991,theUnitedStatetmsmitted toLibyathrough
I
l authoritiesof the GovemmofBelgiurn, whichrepresentsUnitedStateshterests in Libya,
copiesof thegrandjuryindictmof thetwo Libyanoficials. Alonwiththat indictment,
the UnitedStatestmnsmittadnotewhichdernandedthattheGovemment of Libyasurrender
thetwoLibyansto theUnitedStatesin order to standtrial. TheUnitedKUisimilarly
1 tmsrnitted thearrestwmt andthe statementmadebytheLordAdvocateof Scotland
I
1 outhhg thecaseagainsthetwo LibyanofficiaisThereafter, BritishGovernent
soughtunsuccessfulta persuadethe LibyanGovernmeto makeavailablethetwo accused
l
fortriain Scotland.n27 November1991, the Govenunentsof the UnitedStatesathe
UnitedKingdombothissueddeclarationsswing:
,
"TheBritisand AmencanGovemmentit sodaydeclare thatthe Governmentof Libya
must:
- surrendefortriadithosecharged withthcrime;andacceptresponsibility
fortheactionsof Libyanofficiais; - disclosaii ihows of thiscrime, includingthe nmes oaiithose
responsible,anddow fuii accessto alw,itnessedocuments andother
matenialevidence, includiailthe remaining timers;
- payappropriatecompensation".
1.15 France,for its parcaiieduponLibyaon 20 Decernber1991to produce dithe
materialevidencein its possessand tofacilitaaccesstoaU documentsthatmightbe
usefulinFrance'sjudicial inquiXntothe19 September 1989, bornbinofUnion de
TransportsAérensFlight772 (hereinafterUTA 772),andto authorizthe responsibieLibyan
officiaisto respondto arequestmadeby the examiningmagistrateresponsibleforjudicial
informati~ n.h'~ompIetetext of theFrenchCommuniqué onthis subjectiasfollows:
"IJOMMUNIQ~ FROM THE PRESIDENTOFTEE FRENCHREPUBLIC
AND THE hlINlSTRY OF FOREIGNAFFALRS
"The judicialinquiryconductedwithregardto theattaon theUTA DC-10,
which resultedin171deathson19 September1989placesa heavypresumption of
guiltforthisodiouscrimeon severaiLibyannationals.
"Accordingly,oliowhg thesummoning oftheArnbassadorof Libyatu France
by theMinisterof StateMinisterfor ForeignAffairs, theFrenchGovernrnent
reiteratesitsdemandthattheLibyanauthoritiecuoperateirnmediately,ffectively
l1Thesedeclarationswere includein twosubrnissiondated 20 Dscember 1991.to the
Secretary-Gened;theydiiferody in theBritishinsertioof"cornplete"befose
"responsibili".SecExhibit8, p. 4;Letterdated20 December1991 £mm tliPermanent
Representativof theUnited StateofAmerica tothe UnitedNationsaddressedto the
Secretary-Genera3l,December 1991, UN Doc. A1461827-5123308E, xhibit9, p. 2.
l2UTA772 was destroyedby a bombover Niger on September19, 1989. The flight
was en mute from Chad to Francand w ascarryhg 171 passengerand crew. There were
no survivors. Amongthedead weresevenArnericans, includingthewife of theUnited
StatesArnbassadortoChad. andby ailpossiblmeans withFrenchjusticein orderto helpto establish
responsibilitfor thistemrist act.
"To thatend,France dis upon Libya:
- To produce aithemateriaievidencein its possessionantofacilitate
accessto aiidocumentsthatmightbe usefulfor establishithetmth.
- To facilitatethenecessarymeetings,interdiforthe assemblyof
witnesses.
- To authorizetheresponsibleibyan officiaistrespondto anyrequest
madebythe examining magistrateresponsiblforjudicial
information.13
1.16 On 20 Dscernber1991, theBritishFrench, andU.S. Governments issueda
joint declaration,the cornpletetextof whichfoUows:
"DECLARALION OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERZCA, FRANCE
ANDGREAT BRTTAINON TERRORTSM
"Thethre etatereaffm theicomplete condernnationofte~~orismin alits
foms and denounceanycomplicityof Stateintemrist acts. The threeStates
&km their cornmitmento putanendto temrism.
"They considerthattheresponsibilityof Statesbeginswheneverthetakepart
directIy terrorisactions, orindirectlythrouharbouring,training,providing
facilities, armingor providingfinanciaisupport,ofomnyof protection, anthat
theyare responsiblfortheiractionsbeforetheindividualStatesandthe United
Nations.
"Inthis conneçtion,foliowingthe investigationc&eautinto thebombings
ofPan Am 103andUTA 772 thethreeStateshavepresented specificdemands tothe
Libyanauthoritierelatedtothejudiciaproceduresthatareunder way. They require
thatLibyacomplywith aithesedemands,and, inaddition,thatLibyacommititseif
I3 TheFrench Communiquw easdso submitted to theSecretarGeneral in thLetter
dated 20December1991fromthe Permanen tepresentativofFranc eo the United Nations
addtess todthe Secretary-Genera,1 Decernber1991,UN Duc.A1461825-SJ23306 E,xhibit
10, p. 2. concretelyand dsffinitivelyto cease ailforms of terrorist actionsand aiiassistance to
terrorist groups. Libya mustpromptly, by concrete actions,prove its renunciation of
tenorism. "14
B. Libva's Resuonsesto the United States. the United Kingdomand France
1.17 Libya responded to the charges broughtby the law enforcementauthorities in
the United States and the United Kingdom, and to the demandsof the United States, the
United Kingdom, and France, in five letters it sent to the UN Secretary-Generalbetween 17
November 1991, and 18January 1992:
-In its letter of 17November 1991,Libya categoricailydeniedthat it had any
involvementwith the Pan Am 103bombing or that the Libyan authorities had any
knowledgeof its perpetrators.I5
-In its letter of 20 November 1991, Libya asserted that it had appointed a
judge to inquire into the accusations made,and that it had requested the United States
and United Kingdomto nominatelawyers to monitor the fairness and propnety of the
inquiry l6
l4 Letter dated 20 December 1991from the Permanent Representativesof France, the
United Kingdomand the United Statesof Arnericato the United Nations addressed tothe
Secretary-General,31 December 1991, UN Doc. N4261828-Sl23309, Exhibit 11, p. 3.
l5 Letter dated 17 November 1991 from the Permanent Representativeof the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nationsaddressed tothe Secretary-General,20 November
1991, UN Doc. N461660-Sl23226, Exhibit 12, p. 2.
l6 Letter dated 20November 1991from the Permanent Representativeof the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nationsaddressed to theSecretary-General, 13January 1992,
UN Doc. ~4,1461844-Sl23416 E,xhibit 13, p.5. - In its letter of 8 January 1992,'Libyastated that the twojudges appointed to
conductthe inqujl had communicatedwith the competentjudicial authorities of the
United States, the UnitedKingdom, and France, which had refused to respond to the
judges' requests for the records of the investigation."
- In its letter of 17January 1992, Libya transmitted a copy of the resolution
adoptedby the Councilof the Arab League, inter alia, urging the Security Councilto
resolve the conflictby negotiation, mediationandjudicial settlementin accordance
with Article 33 of Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter.'*
- Finally, in its letter of 18January 1992, Libya stated that its examining
magistrate had institutedjudicial procedures to ascertain the presence of the two
suspects, had initiateda preliminary inquiry, and had issued an order for the two
suspectsto be taken into custody ona tentative basis. The letter indicatedthat Libyan
judicial authorities had unsuccessfullysought the assistanceof law enforcement
authorities of the UnitedStatesand France in Libya's investigation. It also urged the
United States and the United Kingdomto agree promptly to arbitration in accordance
1
I l7 Letter dated 8 January 1992 fromthe Permanent Representativeof the Libyan Arab
1 Jamahiriyato the United Nations addressedto the Secretary-General, 9 January 1992, UN
Doc. AI461841-Sl23396,Exhibit 14, p. 2.
1 l8 Letter dated 17January 1992 from thePermanent Representativeof the Libyan Arab
I Jamahiriyato the United Nations addressedto the President of the Security Council, 17
January 1992, UN Doc. Sl23436, Exhibit 15.as tocontributetotheeiiminationof international temrism." Thefull textof Resolution731
"The SecuritvCouncil,
"Deeplv disturb bedtheworId-widepersistenceof actsof internationalemrism in
aliitsforms, includingthosein whiçhStatesaredirsctlyor indirectlyinvolved, which
endanger or takeinnocenthes, have adeleteriouseffect on internatiolelations
and jeopardizethe securityof States,
Deepl yconcernexiby dl ilkgal activitdirect againstinternationalivil aviation,
andaffming therightof ail States,in accordan wcihtheCharter oftheUnited
Nations and relevantprinçipleofinternationalaw, toprotecttheixnationdsfrom
actsof internationlemrism thatconstitutethreato internationpeace and
secunty,
"Reaffimlng itssesolutio286(1970)of 9 September 1970,inwhichit cailedon
Stateto takeallpossiblelegaistepsto preventanyinterferencewithinternational
civil air travel,
"Reaffming alsoits resoIution635 (1989)of 14June 1989, iwhich it condernned
aliactsof unlawfulintederenceagainstthe smuritof civil aviatiand callecupon
aii Statto couperatein devisingandimplernentingmasures tupreventali actsof
tersorisnjricludingthose involviexpIosive s
"Recallingthe stakmentmadeon 30 December 1988bythe Presidentof the Security
Councilon behaifof the membersof the Councilstronglycondemnhgthedestruction
of PanAm fight 103 and&g on aiiStatesto assistin the apprehensand
prosecutionof thoseresponsiblefor this crimiact,
"Deepl~ concernedover theresultsof investigations,whichimplicateofficiofsthe
LibyanGovemmentand which are containedinSecuntyCouncii documentsthat
includethe quests addressedto theLibyanauthoritiesby France t,eUnited
Kingdomof GreatBrltain and Northern Ireland,andtheUnitedStatesof America, in
connectionwiththe legai proceduresrelatetotheattackscarsiedoutagainstPan
Amencan fiight103andUnionde transport aénen slight772 [citatiototherequests
of theUnitedStates,UnitedKingdomandFmce omittedherein];
"Detenninedto eliminateinternationalerrorism,
"1. Condemnsthedestructionof PanArnezicanflight 103 and Unionde transports
aérensflight772and the resultanIossof hundredsof lives; "2. Stronelydqloses thefact thatthe LibyanGovernent has not yetresponded
effectivelytotheabove requeststocooperate fullin establishinresponsibilityfor
thetemrist actsrefend toabove againstPanAmencanElight103 and Unionde
tmsporcs aéren slight772;
"3. Urnes theLibyan Government imrnediatelto providea fulland effective
response to thoserequestso as tocontributeto the elhination of international
terrorism;
"4. Rquests the Secretary-Generdto srxktheçooperationof theLibyan
Governent to provide a fuland effectiveresponsetothosequests;
"5. Urges al1Stateindividuallyand collectiveto encouragetheLibyan
Government torespondfuUyandeffectively tothose requests;
"6. Decidesto remah seked of tbematter"
1.20 The Representativoef the UnitedKingdom, inexplainkg kis vote inlfavorof
Resolution731, siated:"Ithasbeen suggestedthemenmightbe tri4 inLibya. But inthe
particulacircumstancestherecan benoconfidenceinthe impartialitoftheLibyan courts.
.,, We arenotsettinga broadprecedeni. We aredealing ody withterrorismin which there
isStateinvolvement.In thecircumstnnces of thiscaseitmust be cleartodi thatthe SEate
which isifselfimplicateinthe actsof temrism canot tryitsown officiai"Z1
1.21 Ambassador Thomas Pickering,the UnitedStatesRepresentative,s'milarly
stated: "The Coirnciwasfacedin thiscasewith clearimplicationsofGovemment
involvementin temrism asweUas withtheabsenceof anindependenjtudiciaryin the
impiicatedState""
hisional Verbatim Record, United NationsSecurityCouncil, 3033rdmeeting, 21
January1992,UN Doc. SIPV.3033,Exhibit 19,pp. 105-06. 1.22 Durhg consideratio of thedraftof whatbecameResolution731,
representativesfromvariousother members of theSecurityCounciI alsocondemned Libya's
actionsand calledon Libyato çomplywiththe requestsofthe Secunty Council. The
follawingare verbath excerptsof commentsmadebyvarious representatives:
"Those are extremelysenous indicationsof theresponsibiliof Libyan
Bel~ium:
officiaiinthe destructionof thesetwo aircrain flightandthedeath ofail
theirpassengers. It iLibya'sresponsibilitto cooperatefully withthe legd
authoritiesof the Statesdirecconcerned inthesetwo attacks, so that
responsibilitcm be determinedonce andfor a11.23
Canada: "Canada is entirelycomrnittetuguttinganend toau formsof international
tenorism. The internationalornrnunityas been fortoo longthevictim of
thetype of terrozisrinwhichStates have beeninvolveddirectlyor hdirectly.
. .Canada believesthatattacksagainstciviliatargetsareabhorrentthreatsto
internationalce and securit,andthey must be addressedby the
internationalomrnunityas a whole.
"Moreover, theconcem oftheSecurityCouncil in respecof mattersof
intemationalterrorisnis not new. In 1989rny delegatiowas pleasedto be
involved inthepmcess thatEedto theadoptionby the SecurityCouncilor
resolution635 (1989),wfiichcondemned allactsof unlawfulinterference
againstthe securitof civil aviationThe Councd nowhas theopportunityto
builduponits involvement and to make aconstructivecontributioto bringing
suchcriminal actsto anend.
"'Inbdated contacts,Canada hasalreadyunderhed theseriousnesswith
whichit regardsthematter. We haveurgedLibyato cooperatefuliy withthe
British, Frenchand UnitedStatesGoveniments in respectof the matter.Inthe
absenceof asatisfactoryLibyanresponseto the vaHousbilateral démarches
madeto itand, giventhenon-acceptanceto dateby Liéya of its
responsibilitiin thesetwo tragedies,the Governmentof Canadaconsiders
thatthedraft resalutiosubmittedto the SecurityCouncilmpresentsthe best
course of actiofor theinternationalornrnunity."~~
23 m, p. 83. {translation)
" Ibid, pp.47-48.Hungaq: "Hungary expresses its deep concem at temrist acts in which Statesare
implicated directly or indirectly. Each and every member of the international
community is in duty boundto cooperate fuily and appropnately to bring the
facts to light and to establishresponsibilityunequivocaiiy"''
India: "Govements have sometimesfor short-tenn gains been lenient with
terrorists.... My delegationbelieves, therefore, that determined Security
Councii actionshould send out the messagethat terrorists, and international
terrorists even more, will not fmd safe haven anywherebut wili be flushed out
and punished for their mi~deeds."~~
"My country has favouredthe involvementof the United Nations in
comection with the needto identify and to prosecute those responsible for the
terronst acts conducted againstthe Pan Amand UTA flights that are the
subject of the Council'sdeliberationstoday.
In this context, theItalian Govemment wishes to expressappreciationfor the
raft resolution thatis aboutto adoptedby the Security Councii. It fervently
hopes that the Libyan authoritieswill promptly and effectivelycomply withthe
draft resolution'sprovisions."27
1.23 During debate on Resolution731, the Representativeof Libya said the British
charges and U.S. indictments werebaseless andquestioned theauthonty of the Security
Council toact on this matter: "There can be no doubt thatthis is a purely legal question.
Neither can there be any doubt thattherefore the Security Councilis a forum thatis not
competentto consider the question. "28
1.24 In sum, at the time the Security Council acted, it had before it, through Libya's
series of written submissionsand its statementsduring debate, Libya'sclaims that: Libya
* m, p. 91. (translation)
26 IbA, p.95.
m, p. 46.
IAb, pp. 14-15. (translation)shouldprosecute the individuals;Libya couldnot extradite the individuals;the United States
had not cooperatedwith Libya's investigation;and the matter shouldbe handledpursuant to
the Montreal Conventionand be referred either to arbitration or to the International Court of
Justice. Despite these arguments, and over Libya's vigorous objections,the Council
unanimouslyadopted Resolution731.
Section 3. Libva's A~~licationto this Courtand its Reauest for Provisional Measures (3
March 1992)
1.25 On 3 March 1992,just five weeks after Resolution 731 was passed, Libya
institutedproceedings at this Court to attemptto irnpedethe United States and the United
Kingdomfrom pursuing further action against Libya. As it had done before the Security
Council, Libya claimedthere existed a dispute between Libya and the United Statesand
Libya and the UnitedKingdomover the interpretationor applicationof the Montreal
Convention,a dispute whichLibya claimedarose from the bombing of Pan Am 103 on 21
December 1988.
1.26 Since the Court already has before it Libya's Applicationagainst the United
States and the proceedingsthat took place in March 1992in co~ection with Libya's request
for provisional measures,United Stateswill only summarize Libya's arguments briefly here
for convenientreference. Libya claims that:
-the Montreal Conventionis the only appropriate conventionin force between the
partiesdealing with such offenses, and that the U.S. is bound by its legal obligations
under the Conventionwhich require it to act in accordance with the Convention, and
only the Convention,with respect to the matter involvingPan Am 103 and the
accused; - the United Stateshas breachedand is continuing to breach the Conventionin certain
respects;
- Libya hastaken measures to establishits jurisdiction over the offenses charged, to
ensure the presenceof the accused in Libya in order to enable criminai proceedingsto
be instituted, and to submitthe case to its competent authoritiesfor the purpose of
prosecution, pursuant to the Convention;
- Libya has not extradited the accused,there being no extraditiontreaty with the
United States, and Libyan law prohibits extradition of Libyan nationais;
- the United Stateshas shownthat it is notinterested in proceeding within the
framework of the Convention but is intent on compellingthe surrender to it of the
accused, in violationof the Convention; and
- by its actionsand threats, the United States seeks, in violationof the Convention, to
prevent Libya from exercising theright conferred on it by the Convention to exercise
itscriminaljurisdiction to deal with the matter in accordance with its national law.
1.27 In its Application,Libya asked theCourt to adjudgeand declare that: Libya
has fuily compliedwith aii of its obligationsunder the Convention; theUnited States has
breachedand is continuingto breach its legal obligationsto Libya under.Article 5(2), 5(3),
7, 8(2)and 11 of the Convention;and the United States is under a legal obligation
immediatelyto cease and desist fromsuch breaches and from the use of any and all force or
threats againstLibya.
1.28 Along with its Application,Libya filed an urgent request thatthe Court indicate
provisionalmeasures to preserve Libya's rights. In requesting provisionai measures, Libya
allegedthat the United Stateswas actively seekingto by-pass the provisionsof the
Conventionby threateningactions againstLibya in order to compel Libya, in violation of the
Convention,to surrender itstwo accusednationais. Libya aiso aiiegedthat the United States
had indicatedthat it rnightseekor imposeeconomic, air and other sanctionsagainst Libya if
Libya didnot comply with the demandsof the United States. Libya specificallyrequested the Court to enjoin the United Statesfrom taking any actionagainst Libya calculated to
. coerce or enjoin or compel Libya to surrender the accused individuals toanyjurisdiction
outsideof Libya; and to ensure that no steps are taken that wouldprejudice in any way the
rights of Libya with respect to legal proceedingsthaare the subjectof Libya's Application.
1.29 On 14 April 1992, this Court fmly rejected Libya's request,citing, inter alia,
l
the decisionsof the Security Council,which directed Libya to comply withthe requests of
the United States or the United Kingdomto render the accusedto one of those two countries
for trial. Among other things, the Court determined that both Libya and the United States,
as Members of the United Nations, are obligedto accept and cany out the decisionsof the
Security Council inaccordance with Article 25 of the UN Charter; that in accordancewith
Article 103of the Charter, the obligationsof the Parties in that respect prevail over their
obligationsunder any other internationalagreement, includingthe Montreal Convention;and
that an indicationof measures requestedby Libya wouldbe likelyto impair the rights which
appear prima facie to be enjoyed by the United States by virtue of Security Council
Resolution748 discussed below .
Section4. Securitv Council Resolution748 of 31 March 1992
i 1.30 As noted above, Resolution731 requested the UN Secretary-Generalto seek the
!
cooperationof the Libyan Governmentto provide a fuli and effective responseto the United 39 I
I
i States, United Kingdom and French requests. The Secretary-Generalfiled two reports on his
efforts to obtain such cooperation. In the fust report of 11 February 1992, the Secretary-
I
General statedthat Libya had indicateda readiness to cooperatefully with the Security ICouncilandhad invitedtheSecretary-Generao createamechanism for thehplementation of
resolution731.29 In his secondreportof Masch 3,1992, however, the Secretary-General.
reporzedless cooperativecornmentby Libyanoffîcialson thepossibiiityof handhover the
Libyan defendants0
1.31 Faced withcontinuedLibyan non-cornpliancwith the rquests of the Security
Council,theUnited StatestheUnitedKingdom, and Fmce consultedwithothetmembers of .
the Council aboutasecond, stmnger CouncilresolutionthatwoulddirectLibya to respond.
1
Resolution731, descriliedabovewas adoptedunderChapter VIof theUN Charter, pursuant
to whichthe SecurityCouncil rnayseek orrequestaction ofrnember states.Becauseithad
becorneapparentby Mmh 1992thatLibyawas not inclinetocouperatevoluntady with the
SecurityCouncil,the mcmbersof theSeçurityCounçildetemlned toseekactionunder Chapter
VII ,ursuanttowhich Libyawouldbelegallyrequued, amongother things,tocomplywiththe
requestsof theUnitedStateand theUnitedfigdom tosurrenderthetwoindividualswhohad
ben indict iedhe UnitedStatesmd chargedin theUnitedKingdom. Skilarly,underArticle
48 oftheCharter,Mernber Stateof theUnitedNationswouldbe obligd to cornplywithany
sanctions imposed against Libya under Chapter VII until Libya cornplid with those
requirements.
29ReportbytheSec~tary-Genera PlursuanttoParagraph 4of SecurityCouncil
Resolution731, 11Febniary 1992, UN Doc. S123574,Exhibit20.
3"~~her Reportby theSeçretary-Genera Pursuantto Pmgmph 4 of SecurityCouncil
Resolution731, 3 March 1992,UN Doc. S123672, Exhibit21. 1.32 On31 March1992, theCouncilthusconsidered a draftresolutionunderChaptet
VII of theUN Charter.31 The key elementsof thedraft,andparticullary ibya'sarguments
duringdebate,aresetforthbelow toemphasizethefactthatLibyamadeto theSecurityCouncil
funhentally thesame argumentsit inow makingto thisCourt. The ddt resolutionwhiçh
was GO-sponsore by theUnite Kdingdom,theUnited Stateand France,statedthatheCouncil
would takethefoiiowingsteps:
- onceagain expressdeep concernthattheLibyan Governent stilhadnotprovided a
fuU and effective responstothe requestsofthe UnitedStates, United Kingdomand
Fmce endorsed byResolution731;
-deteminethatthefailurebytheLibyanGovernment todernonstratebyconcretactions
its renunciatiofterrorismandiniarticularitcontinuedfailuretorespondfuilyand
effectiveltothequests inResolutio731constitutedathreattointernationleaceand
secunt;
-decide,underChaptesVI1 oftheCharter,thatthe Libyan Governmentmustcomply
withoutfurthedelaywiththerequestsoftheUnitedStatesUnitedKingdom and France;
- decide, under ChapterW, to impose mandatory sconomic sanctionson the
Governent of Libya,includinga civiair embargo andan armsembargo,
1.33 Libya'srepresentativargued thatthe SecurityCeuncishouldnot adopt sucha
resolution because:
-the Councilwas king askedto decidewithouthavingbefore itany evaluatiunof the
evidenceby aneutml and objectivforum;
-Libyahadtakenstepsunderthe MontreaiConvention tuassumejurisdictionover the
matteïtakecustodyof theaccused ,onduçtaninvestigatioofthecharges,and seekthe
cooperationof theUnited States and the United Kingdom in the investigationas
providedunder theMontreal Convention;
31 Thestatementsof Libya andof theth Stateswhich sponsor4 Resolution748,
dong with variousothermembersof theSecurity Çouncil, arset fortinProvisional
VerbatimRecord, UnitedNationsSecurityCouncil, 3063rdmeetin3 g1,Marçh 1992, UN
Doc. SJPV.3063, Exhibit22. - Libyahadindicled thatItwouldwelcomea neutralinvestigatingcornmittorputting
the matterbeforetheInternationalourtofJustice,andpresentedanumber of proposais
to thatend;
- Libyahadindicated itswillingnesstoturn thaccuse dverto someneutralbodyfor
investigatioand triai;
- theUnitedStatesandthe UnitedKingdomcontinueto requestextraditionin vioIation
ofjudiciâl procedurand establishedconventionsandnoms;
- Resolutio731 was bas4 uponincornpleteinvestigationand waswlthovtjustification;
- adoptionof Resolution731 did not takeintoaccount thecomt jmplementationof
Article27(3)ofthe Charterwhichbars Members oftheCouncilthatarepartyto alegd
disputefmm participatininCouncilconsiderationof thatdispute;
- thereisnoneed to talcthe actionbeinconsideredonlytwomonths aftertheadoption
of Resolution731;
- Lîbya hadsubrnittedthe rnattto theInternationaCourt ofJusticeunderArticle 14
.of theMontd Convention andquestionedwhy itisclaimed thatthisincidentdoesnot
corne underthejurisdictioof the Court;
- Statesshouldawaitthe opinionof thiCourt on thequestjon;
- the proposedactiondidnotrelatetathreatsto thpeace,but relat tadale@ dispute
concedg whoshou1dinvestigatethe accusedand who shouldputthem ontrial.32
1.34 Resolution748was adoptedby avoteof 10infavor(Austria, Belgium,Ecuador,
France, Hungary, Japan, Russian Fedemtion, the United Kingdom, the United States and
Venezuela), noneopposed, and fiveabstentions (Cape Verde, Chùia, India,3Morocc0,and
Zimbab~e)~~.Buring debateon the masure, S~curitCouncilrnembersobservext ihatLibya's
continuadnon-cornpliancewithResoEution731 had ledthem tosupportthestsicter,mandatory
3Qesolution 748, UnitedNations SecurityCounçil,3063rdmeeting 3,1 March1992,
UN Doc. S/RES/748,Exhibit 23.measuresofResoIution 748. ThefoUowing are verbatimexcerptsof comments made byvarious
representatlv:s
Ecuador: "Unfortunate lyneitherresolutio'731,northestatement oftheHeads of State
and Governent adopted on 31 January, northe diligentsteps takenby the ,
Secrehry-Generalin implernentationf pmgraph 4 of thatresolutionnor the
tirelesefforts of thmembers of the Non-Aligned Movement havethus far
prompted Libya to comply with the requestsmade to it in resolution 731
(1992).
France: "Inthe absenceofany responsefrom theTripoliGovemment, themurse chosen
by the threecountries has beenthat based un the rule oflaw, namely, the
SeeurityCouncil.,.Theqeated effortsof theSecretary-General,ftheLeague
of ArabStatesand ofLibya'sneighbrs havebeenmetwithdelayirigtactics. Ln
ordernotto reverseitself,tSecurityCouncilwas thereforeforcedtoadoptnew
measures tobrhg Libya toface upto its responsibfities. It hasjustdsoeby
adoptingresolution448 (1992),of whichFmce isa sponsor.""
Japan: "Atthe the resolution731 (1992)was adoptedon 21 Januaryit wasforeseen
thattheSecurityCouncilwouldbe cornpeIied to take furthermeasuresif Libya
did not comply with it. Unfortunately, thesubsequentdevelopments inthe
situationcd for theCouncil'sadoptionof anew resolutio~."~~
Hungac: "Today, as we considerforthesecond the thefateofthese PanAm andWTA
fiightswe are compelledto note that,althoughover two monthshave passed
sinc the adoptionof SecurityCouncilresolution731 (1992),Libyahas yetto
complywith its provisions. . .Benhg inmindthe vital ~ig~cance of the
subject before us todayasweil as the credibility andauthoriof the United
Nations, Hungarybas felt andcontinuestofeel thattheSecurityCouncilmust
takefurthermasures to ensurecornpliancwithits ownresol~tions."~'
" Exhibit22,p. 48. (translation)
35 m, pp.73-74. (translation)
36 n)idp. 75.
37 m, p.76. (translation)Austria: "RegrettablyL, ibyahasstiiinotimplementedits obligationsunder[Resolution
7311. Hence, we voted infavourof resolution748 (1992)."38
1,35 Resolution748 imposedsanctions on Libyaincluding aban an aliairtraffiçinto
and out of Libya; a banon the operationsof LibyanAiriines offices worldwide;a ban on
provisionof ahraft and relatedservices andpartstoLibya; a ban on al1arms suppliesand
relatedmaterialfal lypesandlicensingaraangement forarms toLibya;withdrawao lfmilitary
advisers, specialisandtechicians from Libya;a requiremen thatStatessignificantlreduce
the nurnber and level of stafat Libyan diplomatiemissions and consular posts; and the
requirementthat Statestake stepsto denyentry or expel Libyan nationalwho have ben
involvedin temrist activities.
1.36 Key sectionsof Resolution748 areas f~Uows:~~
"The SecurityCounçil
"Deeplyconcenid thattheLibyan Govement hasstiUnotpmvided afuUandeffective
responseto therequestsinItsresolution731 (1992) of 21January1992,
"Convincedthatthe suppressionof acts of internationlemrism, including thosein
which Statesare directlyor indktly involved, is essentifor the maintenance of
internationalpeacand securit,
"Rwallinpthat, inthe statement issuedon 31 January1992 on the occasion of the
meetingof the SecurityCouncil atthe levelof heads of Stateand Govement, the
rnernbersoftheCouncilexpressaitheircisepconcernover actsofinternationaltemrism,
and emphasizedtheneed fortheinternationalomrnunityto deal effectivelywiaiisuch
acts,
38m, p. 73.
39Thefiru text of Resolution748nppearsas Exhibit. 3.
36"Reaffimin~t ,hat, iaccordan wcth the prlnciplein Article2, paragraph4, of the
Charter of the UnitedNations, every Statehas the dutyto refrainfrorn organizing,
instigating,assistior participahg intemrist actsinanotherState or acquiescingin
orgmized activitieswitb its temtory directed towardsthecommission of such acts,
whensuchactsinvolve athreator useof force,
"Determining,inthiscontext thatthefadurebytheLibyanGovernment to demonstrate
byconerete actionsitsrenunciationofterrorisand inparticulaitscontinuedfaihre to
respund fullyand effectivelyto trequestsinresolution731 (1992)constituteathreat
to internationalpeaceandsecurity,
"Detemined to eliminate internationatlerrori,m
'Xecallingthe nght of States,undes Article50of the Charter,to consultwith the
SecurityCounciiwheretheyfmdthemselvesconfrontedwithspecideconomicproblems
arisingfromthecasryingoutof preventive osenforcementmasures,
"ActingunderChapterVII of theCharter,
"1. Decides thatthe Elbyan Governent must nowcomply withoutanyfurtherdelay
withparagraph 3of resolution731(1992) regardhgtherequests containedindocuments
S123306, SI23308 andS123309 [therequestsby theUnited Statesthe UnitedKhgdom
andFrancement ionedabove],
"2. Decidesalso thattheLibyan Governmen t ustcommit itseidefdtively to cease
aiIfoms of terest action and rtLaEsistanceto terrorisgroups and that it must
prornpty, by concreteactions,demonstrateits renunciatiof temrism,
"3. Decidesthat,on 15April 1992dl Statesshd adoptthe rneasuresset oubelow ,
which shall apply untithe Security Councildecldesthatthe Libyan Government has
cornplid withparagraphs 1 and 2 abuve,
"4. Decides also thatallStatesshall:
"(a)Deny permission to any &raft totake off fmm, landinor overflytheirtenitory
if it is destinai hd in or has taken offfrom the temitoryof Libya, udess the
particular flighthasbeenapprovsdon grounds of significanthumanitarianeed bythe
Cornmitteeestablishedbyparagraph 9below ;
"(b) Prohibit,by theirnationalsor fromtheir territory,the supplafany aircraft.r
aitcraft componersttoLibya,theprovisionof engineeringandmaintenance servicingof
Libyan aireraftor aircrafcomponents, thecertification of airworthinefor Libyan
aircraft,hepaymentof newchhs againsiexisthginsurancecontractsandtheprovision
of new directinsurancefor Libyan &raft;"5. Decides further that all States shall:
"(a) Prohibit any provision toLibya by their nationalsor from their temtory of arms
and related material of ail types, including the sale or transfer of weapons and
ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, pararnilitarypolice equipmentand spare
parts for the aforementioned,as wellas theprovisionof anytypesof equipment,supplies
and grants of licensing arrangements, for the manufacture or maintenance of the
aforementioned;
"(b) Prohibitany provisiontoLibyabytheir nationalsor from their temtory oftechnical
advice, assistanceor trainingrelated tothe provision, manufacture, maintenance,or use
of the items in (a)above;
"(c) Withdraw any of their officiais or agents present in Libya to advise the Libyan
authoritieson miiitary matters;
"6. Decidesthat allStates shall:
"(a) Significantlyreducethe numberand levelof the staff atLibyandiplomaticmissions
and consularposts and restrict or control themovement withintheir temtory of all such
staff whoremain; in the case ofLibya'smissions tointernationalorganizations,the host
State may, as it deems necessary, consult with the organization concemed on the
masures required to implementthis subparagraph;
"(b) Prevent the operation of all Libyan Arab Airline Offices;
"(c) Take aliappropriate stepsto denyentry toor expelLibyannationalswhohavebeen
denied entry to or expelledfrom other States because of their involvementin terrorist
activities.
"7. Calls uponail States, including Statesnot membersof the United Nations, and ail
internationalorganizations,to actstrictlyin compliancewiththeprovisionsofthe present
resolution, notwithstanding the existence of any rights or obligations conferreci or
imposedby any internationalagreementor any contract entered into or any license or
permit granted prior to 15 April 1992;
"13. Decides the Security Councilshail, every 120days or sooner should the situation
so require, revie1-lthe masures imposedby paragraphs 3 to 7 above in the light of the
compliance by the Libyan Government with pamgraphs 1 and 2 above takinginto
account,as appropriate, any reports providedby the Secretary-Generalon hisrole as set
out in pamgraph 4 of resolution 731 (1992); "14. Decides to remain seizedof the matter." I
1.37 Other sectionsof resolution 748not quotedaboveseekreports fromMember State1
on their compliance with the sanctionsestablished in the resolution and establish a special
Security Council committee to examine the reports of States on compliance and to makeI
additionalrecommendationsto enhancethe effectivenessof the sanctions,againstLibya. 1
Section5. Securitv CouncilResolution883 of 11 November 1993
A. Events Leading to SecuritvCouncil Resolution883
1.38 In the monthsfoliowingthepassage of Resolution748, the Committeeestablished
by that resolutionreviewed and supervisedimplementationof the sanctionsagainst Libya. The
United Statesand other membersof the United Nations implementedthe sanctions regime and
continued to cal1 on Libya to comply withthe requirements of Resolutions 731 and 748.
Notwithstandingthe sanctionsandthedemandsof the internationalcornmunity,Libya continued
to refuseto comply withthe requirementsof the SecurityCouncilresolutionsand surrender for
trial the two individuals accusedof bombing PanAm 103.
1.39 From Auest 1992throughAugust 1993,the Security Councilrepeatedlyreviewed
Libyan compliancewith sanctions,ascalledfor in resolution748, andfoundthatLibya remained
in defiance of the WU of the international c~mrnunity.~~Members of the Security Council
40See Note by the Presidentof the Security Council, 12 August 1992, UN Doc.
~124424:~xhibit 24; Note by the Presidentof the Security Council,9 December 1992, UN
Doc. Sl24925, Exhibit 25; Note by the President of the Security Council, 8 April 1993, UN
Doc. Sl25554, Exhibit 26; Note by the President of the Security Council, 13 August 1993,
UN Doc. Sl26303, Exhibit 27.therefore began to considerwhether additional sanctions, including sanctioaffecting Libya's
oil revenues, might force Libyan to complywith the SecuxityCouncil's requirements.
1.40 On 13 August 1993, the Govemmentsof France, the United Kingdom and the
United States issued a Declarationon Libyanterronsm which stated inpart:
"The United States, the United Kingdomand France have observed with diminishing
patience that.the envoys of the Secretary-Generalof the United National to Tripoli
repeatedly come back empty-handed,without indicationsof compliance aithough with
manyassurancesof Libya's cooperation. We have waitedthe four months requestedby
the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, who wished to serve as an
intermediarybetweenthe internationalcommunity andthe Libyans. We have rep'eatedly
rejected Libyan efforts to distract the intemational community from its lack of
compliancewithemptyoffers to surrender the Lockerbie suspectsandto complywiththe
requirements of French justice and to provetheir partial compliancewith the Security
Council'sdemands.
"However,our tluee Govemments, intheinterestsof givingLibya onelast chance,have
asked the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations to look into thematter and take the
necessary steps to achieve the full implementation by the Libyan Government of
Resolution 731 (1992) within 40 to 45 days.
"If,by Octoberfmt, the Libyan Govemmenthas failedto comply with resolutions 731
(1992) and 748 (1992)' including the transfer to United States or United Kingdom
junsdiction ofthe Lockerbiesuspectsandcompliancewiththe requestsof French justice
on UTA flight 772, we wili table a resolution strengtheningthe sanctions in key oil-
related financialand technologicalareas.
"Once more, our three Governmentsreiteratethat theyhave nohiddenagendaand that,
on the contrary, uponfull implementationby Libya of Security Council resolutions731
(1992) and 748 (1992)'the conditionswould bemet for the lifting of sanctions by the
Security Council."41
1.41 Approximatelyfive weeks after this Declaration, under cover of a letter dated 11
September1993, Libya sentthe Secretaq-General a memorandummising a senes of nineteen
41 Letter dated 13 August 1993from the Representativesof France, the United Kingdom
and the United Statesof America to the UnitedNations addressedto the Secretary-General,
13 August 1993, UN Doc. Al481314-Sl26304,Exhibit 28.questionsregardingtriai in the UnitedKingdomor the UnitedStatesof the two Libyans sought
for triai.42The United States and UnitedKingdomreplied quicklyto Libya'squestions.43Based
on these replies, the Secretary-General's responsiveletter to Libya provided detailed answers
shortly thereafter, on 24 September1993, in which the Libyan Govemment was assured, inter
a& that its nationaiswouldbe affordeda fair trial in eitherforum.44In a letter dated 1October
1993,Libyaacknowledgedthat the repliesto its memorandumwere "adequateandacceptable."45
Yet Libya continuedto fail to complywith the Security Council'srequirement to surrender the
two suspectsfor trial.
B. Securitv Council Resolution 883
1.42 In light of the LibyanGovemment's continuedfailure to cooperate, the members
of the SecurityCounciibegan to consider whether the sanctionsregime imposed in Resolution
42 Letter dated 22 September 1993from the Permanent Representativeof the Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya addressed to the Secretary-General, 28 September 1993, UN Doc. S126500,
Exhibit 29. . .
43 The answers to Libya's questions,which were suppliedby the United States tothe
United Nations tbough the U.S. Mission to the United Nations inNew York, are set forth in
a cable sent from the U.S. Department of State on 22 September 1993to the U.S. Mission to
the United Nations, Exhibit 30. While this cable was originally classified by the United
States, it has been declassifiedin relevant part for use in this proceeding, and the
classificationmarkings and other information not communicatedto the United Nations have
been redactedfrom the document.
44 The Secretary-General's responsiveletter to His ExceilencyMr. Omar Al-Muntasser,
Secretary of the General People's Committeeof the People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison and
International Cooperationof the Great SocialistPeople's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, has not
been publishedas a United Nationsdocument.
45 Letter dated 1 October 1993from the Permanent Representativeof the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressedto the Secretary-General, 1 October 1993, UN
Doc. S126523,Exhibit 31, p. 3.748 should be expanded to include sanctionson Libyan oiErevenue. UtimateIy, on 11
November1993,theSecurityCouncllimposedadditional sanctions,inResolution883,46Key
elementsof thisresolutionwkieh went intoeffect on December1, 1993,included a hited
assetsfreezean embargo on aircraftor aircrcornponents,andlanguageclosing certaigaps
inthe çiviaviationsanctionswhichhad been putintoplaceby Resolution748.
1.43 In Resolution883, like Resolution748, the SecurityCouncil actpursuantto
Chapter VIIof the Charter. TheResoIutionprovidesin part:
"TheSecurieCouncil,
"Reaffirminitsresolution731 (I992)of21Januq 1992and 748 (1992)of 31Mmh
1992,
"De-l~ concerned thataftermorethan twentymonths theLibyan Government hasnat
fullycornplid withtheseresoIutions,
"Determinedto diminate internationlerrorism,
"ConvincedthatthoseresponsibleFosactsofinternationatlermrisrnmustbebrciughto
justice,
"Convinceddso thatthe suppressionofactsof internationtermrism,includingthose
inwhich Statesaredktly or indirectlginvolved,is essentiaifor the maintenofce
internationpleaceandsecurity,
"Detemining, inthiscontext,thatthecontinu& failureby theLibyan Government to
demonstrateby concreteactions its renunciationof temrism, and inpwticular its
continuedfailureto respond fuiiy and effectively the requestsand decisions in
resolutions 731 (1992and 748 (1992),constituta threattoInternational eace and
seculity,
"Takingnoteof theletterto theSecretary-Generaldated29 Septernberand1 October
1993from the Secretarof theGened People 'sornmitteeforForeignLiaisonand
InternationaClozperatioof Libya(5126523)and hisspeechintheGeneral Debateat the
46 Resolution883, UnitedNationsSecurityCouncil,3312thmeeting, 11November
1993, UN Doc. S/Rl3/883, Exhabi t2. forty-eighthsessionof the General Assembly (N481PV.in)whichLSbya statedits
intentitoenmuragethosechargedwiththebomblngof Pan Am 103toappearfortrial
inScotlandandits wilhgoesto cooperatewiththecompetenFrench authoritiesinthe
caseof thebornbingof UTA 772,
...
"ActingunderChapterVII ofthe Charter,
"1. Demands onceagainthattheLibyanGovernment complywithoutanyfurtherdelay
withresolutions731 (199and 748 (1992);
"2. DscidesinosdertosecurecornpliancebtheLibyanGovernmentwiththedecisians
oftheCounciito takthefoliowingmeasures ,hichshaiicorninto forcea00.01EST
. on 1 Decernber1993udess the Secretary-General as reporttothe Councilin the
tems setout iparagraph 16below;
"3. Decides thataliStatesin whichthere are fundsor other fmancial resources
(includingfundderivedorgeneratedfrom property)owned or contmlied,dktly or
indirectlby:
"(a)theGovemment orpublicauthoritiesoLibya,or
"(b)anyLibyanundertakllig,
"shd freeze suchfundsand fuiancial resourcandensurethatneitherthey nosany
otherfund snd financiaresourcesaremade available,by theirnationorsby any
persons within their territory, directly or hdirecor forothe benefitofthe
Govemmentor publicavthoritiesof Libyaor anyLibyanundertakingw , hicforthe
purposesof th5 pmgraph, means any commercial, indiistrialor public utility
undertakinwhichis ownedor controlleddirect oryindirectlby
"(i)the Govemmentorpublicauthoritiesof Libya, 1
"(ii) any en,iwherever locatedor organizd, owned or controby (i)or
I
"(ii any personidentifid by Statas actingon behalfof(i)or (ii) for the
purposesofthisresolution;
B
"4. Furtheréecidesthattherneasuresimposedby paragraph3 abovedo notapply to
fundsor otherfinanciaresowrcesderivedfrom thesde or supplyof any petroleum
pmducts,includingnaturalgasand nahiralgasproducts,or agriculturalpruduetsor
comrnoditiesoriginatininLibya and exportaitherefromafter ththe specifiedin
.Iparagraph 2 above,pmvidedthat any such funds arepaidinto separatebackaccounts
exclusivelyforthese funds;
"5. Decides that ailStatesshaü prohibitany provisionto Libyaby theirnationdsor
from theirterritoryof the items listed in tannex to this resolution, as weasthe
provisionof anytypesof eqiliprnent,uppliesand grantsof licensingarrangementfsor
the manufactu oremaintenance of such items;
"6. Furtherdecidesthat,inordertomakefullyeffectivetheprovisions ofresolution748
(1992),allStatesshaii:
"(a)wuire the immediateand completeclosure of ail LibyanArnbAirlines offices
withintheirtemitories;
"@) prohibitany commercial transactionwith LibyanArabAirlines by theirnationals
or fromtheirterritosy,includingthebonouringor endorsement of any ticketsorother
documentsissuedby theakline;
"(c) prohibitby thek nationalsorfrom their territory,theenterhgintoor renewalof
arrangement sor:
"(i) themaking availablefor operationwithinLibya, ofanyaircraft os airczaft
cornponents ,r
"(ii) the provisioof engineeri ornmaintenance servicingof any aircraft or
aircraft cornponenwithînLibya;
"(d) prohibit,by theh nationalsor fromtheirterritory,the supplyof any materials
destjnedfortheconstruction mprovemen trmaintenanco efLibyancivilianorrnilitary
aki9eldsand associatedfacilitiand equipment,orof any engineeringor otherservices
or components desthedfor themaintenanceofanyLibyancivil or militarydelds or
associatedfacilities and equipment,except emergencyequipment and equipment and
services diitly relateto civiliaairtrafficçontml;
"(e) pmhibit, by their nationalsor from their territory,any provision of advice,
assistance,or training to Libyan pilots, flight engineersor aiicraft and ground
maintenancepersonnelassociated with the operationof &raft and aMelds within
Libya;
"(0 prohibit,by their nationalor £romtheirtersitory, any renewd of any direct
insurancefor Libyan aircmft;
"7. Confims that thedecisiontaken in resolution748 (1992) that di Statesshall
significantlyreducethe level of the staffLibyan diplornatimissionsandconsular postsincludesalImissionsandpostsestabfishedsincethatdecisionor afterthecoming
intoforc efthis resolution;
"9. Instruets the Cornmitteeestablishedby resolution 748 (1992) to dmw up
expeditiouslyguidehes for theimplementationof paragraphs3 tu7 of thisresoIution,
and toamendandsupplement, asappropriate,theguidelinesfor theimplementationof
resolution748 (1992),especiallyits paragra5(a);
"12. Calis uyn al Sltates,hcludingStatesnothembers of theUnitedNations,and all
internationalxgakations, toactstrictlyiaccordancewiththeprovisionsof thepresent
resolutIon,~otwiths~andingthe existenceor any rights orobligationsconferred or
imposedby any international agreemenoranycontractentere into orany licenseos
permitgrantsdprior totheeffectivethe of thisresolution;
"16.Expressesitsreadine tsreviewthemasures setforthaboveand inresolution748
(1992)with a view tosuspendhgthemimmediatelyIf theSecretary-Genedreportsto
the Councilthatthe LibyanGovernent has ensuredthe appeatanceof thase charged
with thebombingof Pan Am 103for trialbeforethe appropriateUnitedKingdomor
United Statescourtand has satisfietheFrenchjudicialauthoritieswithrespectto the
bornbingof UTA 772, andwith aview toliftingthemimrnediatelwhenLibya complies
fuUywith the requestsanddecisionsin resolutions731 (1992) and 748 (1992); and
requests the Secretaq-General,within90 days of such suspension,to repofl to the
Council on Lika's cornpliance withthe remaining provisionsof itsresolution731
(1992)and 748 (1992)and, in thecase of non-cornpliance,exvresses its resofve to
terminateimmediately thesuspensionof thesemasures;
"17. Decidesto remainseized of these measures."
1.44 Libyaobjectedtotheadoption ofResolution883on the samegeneralgroundsthat
it invokedinobjectingto theadoptionofresolutions431 and748. These arguments Include,
--teraliathefallowing:
-Libyahas fully cornplie.withResolution731exceptinregardto thedemand made by
the UnitedStatesandUnited Kingdom to sumnder thetwo suspects; -notwithstanduiitssubmissionof thismattertotheInternational.CourtofJustice,Libya
sparedno effortin seekina peacefulsolutionof thedisputemaking specificproposais
involvingthe use of theInternationalCouriof Justicorthe UnitedNations;
-Libya hasdechml itsreadinessto enterintonegotiationsunderthesupervisionof the
UN Secretary-Genera wliththecountriesconcemed inregardtoholdingtrialina neutral
country,47
1.45 Remlution883 was adoptedby a vote of eleven h favor (Brazil, Cape Verde,
France, Hungary ,Japan,New Zealand, Russian Federation,Spain,UnitedKingdom,Wted
States, Venezuela)none opposed and fourabstentions(China,Djibouti,Morocco , Pakistan.)
The foliowhg areverbatimexcerptsfrom the statementsmade by various representatives:
Brazi: "IEis ourviewthatal lesolutionsoftheSecurityGouncilmust lx compliedwith.
Resolutions731 (1992)and 748 (1992) -bothadoptedat a the whenBmil was
not a member of the SeeurityCouncil - areno different. The factthat the
resolutionsdeal with a uniquelyserious and complex case of international
temrism makesit di the more importantandurgentforthisCouncilto enforce
cornpliancewithitspreviousdecisionsinthimatter.Theresolutionnowadopted
isdhtly linked to thosepreviousdecisions,whoseimplernentatioitis intended
to promote.
"Itis also our view thatthestrong masures of sanction thatthis Councilis
ernpoweredto imposeunderChapter VLI .f theCharter constitutea last resort,
to be used only in exceptionallgravecitcumstances thatinvolvea clearand
direct thmt tointernationaleaceandsecurity. Itwas thusonlyaftercarefully
pondehg the extremelyseriousnatureof the case More us, as well as the
negativeconsequences thatwould ensueshoulétheCoizncX be.unableto act,that
we decidedto cast a positivevoton thisresolution.
Spain: "Despitethedeterrninedefforts of the SecretaryGenera.. .we must notethat
Libya has not fuUycompliedwith the dernands set forthin SecurityCouncil
resolutions131 (1492)and748 (1992).
47 Provisional VerbatimRecord,UnitedNationsSecurity Council,3312thmeeting, 11
November 1993,UN Doc. SfPV.3312,Exhibit 33,pp. 3-26. "Inthosecircurnstancestheadoption ofa new resoIutiowas ineviîable,First
itis necessato ensurerespectfor theobligationirnposby theUnitedNations
Charteronall Mernber StatetocornpIywith dmisionsof the SecurityCouncil.
Secondly, the events that lto resolutions731 (1992) and 748 (1992) are
particuiarserious. TheattacksagainstcommercialflightofPan Am and WA
arehomendouscrimes, which caused numerousinnocent victims,and their
presumd perpetratorsmustbebrought tojustiçe"49
Hungaq: llWeregretthat,becauseofdehying tacticsandunkeptpromisesandthegrowvlg
gap between verbalstatementsand concreteactions, this item is still on the
Council'sagenda. We regretthatfor thethirdtunetheCouncilhashadto meet
toreview thesituation.he reasonfor thisisLibya'sfailuredespitepersistent
effortsbytheSecrem-General, thecountriesrnembets of thehb League,and
otherStatesçoncemed,to comply with SecurityCouncilresolutions731'(1992)
and748 (19921,adopted,respectively,inJanuary andMaxchlastyear.
"Itisclear thatthe Councibadno choice butto adoptnew masures to ensuxe
respectforits twoearli.eresolutions. At theme the, as in othersirnifa
cases, wecanot concd our regretthatwe havehadto have recoursetoChapter
VII of the Charterto tightenthe sanctionsimposeon a Member Stateof the
Organintion, pmicularlysincethatStateis a countrywithwhiehHungaryhas
longhadmutually advantageoue sconomiccooperation 'O
Venezuela: "Ufortunately,thosechargeddidnotappear. This fact, togetherwiththe lack
ofa fuland effectiveresponsetothesequestsanddecisionscontaulediSecunty
Council resolution731 (1992)and 748 (1992),has Id the Councilto adopt
today's resolution, whichprovides for neand moredmstic measures. The
purposeof thesemeasuresis todemonstrate theinternationclommunity'sfi
resolvetopunishthose guiltyof comrnittinactsofternri~rn.'~'~
Jawan: "Japan,which issmngly opposedto terronsln in allitsforms, has appealed
repeated tlthe LibyanGovemment tu complywithSecwfiQ Counci resolutions
731(1992)and748(1992). If isindeedregrettablthat,despitesuehendeavours,
Libyahas failetodcomplywith the SscurityCouncil's requirementsand has
continuouslytriedto avoiditsinternatiolbligationsthroughequivocationand
delay.
49IbIb,p. 56. (translation)
50m, pp. 59-60.
51 m, p. 62. (translation) "Lasty@-, atthetimethatresolutions731 (1992)and 748 (1992)wereadopted,
it was understoothatthe SecurityCouncilwouldbe compelledto takefurther
masures if Libyadidnotcomplywiththem. Now, unfortunately,he Council
hashadno choicebut to adoptfurtherrneasurestogainLibya'scornpliance.
"JapanurgestheLibyan Governent to complyfully withthe relevant Security
Council resolutionwithout Eurtherdelay. It isin the hope of gainingthis
cornpliancehatmy delegationsupportedtheadoptionof thisnew resolution.In
themeantirne,Japanremainscornmitted toeffortsto fmd n solutiontothis
difficultsituatand,indeed,toeliminatediformsof internationtenorism."''
1.46 Amongother thzngsit shouldbenoted thatResolution883statesspecificallythat
thesanctionsimposed thereinwiil besuspended immediatelyif "theLibyan Governent has
ensuredthe appearanc ef those charged witthebombingof Pan Am 103 fortrial beforethe
appropriateUnitedKingdom or United tat tcosurts andhas satisfiedtheFrenchjudicial
authontieswithrespectto thebombingof WA." TheSecurityCouncilthus madevery cIear
to Libyathatthe appmce for triainthe UnitedKingdomor the United Statesof thetwo
suspectswas of thehighestimportanceto theCouncilandwas akey conditionfortheliftingof
sanctions. NonethelessLibya has re£usedto sumnder the suspects. The SecurityCouncil'sCondemation of theIBombhgof Pan Am 103and Its Othet
Actionsin thisCaseare Consistentwith itsLongstandingCornmitmentto Maintain
InternationalPace and Security by Condedg and Acthg AgainJt.International
Terrorism
1.47 The actionsofthe SscuritCouncilinthiscase wesetaken tofurther its
longstandingcornmitmenttomaintaininternationalpeacandsscurityby addressingthe
scourgeof internationterrorism. Ithas demonstratethis cornmitmentrepeatedly in the
last twenty-fiyears,w, asit hasaddress eostage-ang, airçrafthijackkg, other
temrist interferencewith internatiolivil aviation,amoregenerally,al actsof
internationterr~rism.~~On 31 January1992, ata SecuritCouncilsummitin New York at
whichthe rnemhrs of thCounci wererepresentedby theu heads of StatorGovernment,
53
Se, ex.,Resolution286, Unite NdationsSeeuritCouncil,1552ndmeetin9 g,
September1970, Exhibit 34 (expressingrave concernatthethreattuinnocentcivilialives
fmm thehi~ackingofakraft and any otherinterferencininternationtml and &g on
States"totakedl possible leplmeans toprevent"furtherhijackuigsoany other
interferencewith intemationaiciairtravel); Noteby the PresidentotheSecurity
Council,9 October 1985,UN Doc. SI17554,Exhibit35 (deploringthereporteddeathof a
passengeron thecmise shipAchille Lauroandcondemning "temrism inallisforms
whenever andby whomevercornmiW"); Resolutioa579, UnitedNationsSecurityCouncil,
2637thmeeting, 18 December 1985,Exhibit36 (redhg the SecurityGouncilPresicie nt's
October1985condemnation of alacts of terrorisandcondedg "unequivocaîlaU acts
of hostagetakingand abduction"); esolution635, United NationsSecurityCouncil, 2869th
meeting, 14June 1989,Exhibit37 (condemning "al lctsof udawful interferenagainstthe
securityof civil aviation"andurgingtheInternatiol ivil Aviation Organizat"to
intensifyitwork aimed atpreventingal1actsof temrisrnagainstinternationalcivil aviation
and inparticulaits workon devisinganinternationalrégimfor themarkingof plasticon
sheetexplosivesforthepurpose of detection"); Resolut687,UnitedNationsSecurity
Councfl2981st meeting,3 April1991, Exhibit38 ("Deplokg threatsmade by Iraqdurhg
thement cordlicto makeuse of terroisrnagainstargetsoutsideIraqand thetakingof
hostagesby Lrag").theSecurityCouncilanalyzed itresponsibilitiunder theCharterfor "themaintenanceof
internationpleaceandsecurity"and reiteratethatinternationl.errorismwasoneof those
responsibrlitieThefoilowing areexcerptsofthecomprehensivestatement regardingthe
responsibilitioftheSscurityCouncilmadeby theCouncii'sPresidenton behalfof the
rnembers of the CounciI:
"The SecurityCouncilmetat theHeadquarter sf theUnited NationsinNew
Yorkon 31Sanuary 1992,forthefirstthe at theleveIof Headsof Stateand
Government. The membersof theCouneil consideredwithinthe framework of the
cornmitmentto theUnitedNationsCharter, me responsibilityof theSecurity
Council inthemaintenanceof internationpeaceand security."
"Thernembers of theSecurityCouncilconsidesthattheirmeetingisa timely
recognit iftnefactthatthereare new favourableinternationlircumstancesunder
whichthe SscuriiyCounciihasbegun tofulfimore effectivelyits prîmary
responsibilitforthemaintenanc of internationleace and security.
"Cornmitmen tt CollectiveSecurie
"The membersof theCouncilexpresstheirdeep concernover actsof
internationatlemrism andemphasizethe need forthe internationlommunityto deal
eff-ively with aisuch a~ts."~
1.48 CitingthiSscurityCouncildecision, the Presidentof theCouncon29 July
1994 stronglycondemnedthe recentterroristattackinBuenosAires and London andstated
onbehaIf of theCouncil:
"The memkrs of the SecurityCouncildemandan immediate end toaL Euch
terrorisattacks. Theystresstheneed to strengtheinternationcooperationinorder
54Note bythe Presidentof theSecurityCouncîl,31 January1992,UN Doc. $123500,
Exhibit39, pp. 1-3. to take fuli and effective masures to prevent, combat andelirninateallforms of
terrorism, which affect the internationalcommunityas a whole. ""
1.49 The Security Council'sadoptionof Resolutions731, 748 and 883 was thus
squarely within its responsibilityand mandateto maintaininternational peaceand ~ecurity.'~
'' Statementby the President of the Security Council, 29 July 1994, UN Doc.
S/PRST/1994140,Exhibit 40.
56 The UN General Assemblyhas similarly condemnedinternational terrorism and
interferencewith international civil aviation., s, Declaration of Principles of
InternationalLaw ConccrningFriendly Relationsand Co-Operationof States in Accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations, Resolution2625 0, Annex, United Nations
Generai Assembly,25th session, 1883rdmeeting, 24 October 1970, Exhibit 41 ("Every state
has the dutyto refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participatinacts of civil
strife or terrorist acts in another Stateor acquiescingin organized activities within its
territory directed toward the commissionof such acts, when the acts referred to in the
present paragraph involvea thrat or use of force"); Aerial Hijacking or Interference with
Civil Air Travel, Resolution2645 0, United Nations General Assembly, 25thsession,
1914th meeting,25 November 1970, Exhibit 42 (General Assembly "[clondemns, without
exception whatsoever, allacts of aerial hijackingor other interference with civairtravel");
Measures to EliminateInternationalTerrorism, Resolution49/60, United NationsGenerai
Assembly, 49th session, 84th plenary meeting, 9 December 1994, Exhibit 43 ("The States
Members of the United Nations solemnly Mirm their unequivocal condemnationof ali
acts, methodsand practices of terrorism, as criminal and unjustifiable, whenever and by
whomever committed, includingthose whichjeopardue the friendly relationsarnongStates
and peoples and threaten the territorial integrity and security of States"). Chapter IV
Libya Continues toRefuse toComply with the Security Council'sRequirementthatit
Surrender.forTrialtheLibyanFugitivesAccusedof Bombiag Pan Am 103
1.50 Notwithstandingtherepeateddemandsof theSecurityCounciltosurrenderthe
two individualchargedwiththebombingof PanAm 103 fortrialitheUnitedStatesor the
UnitedKingdom, Libyacontinuesto defytheinternationclornmunit. The sanctionregime
imposedunderChapter Vn. by resolutio748 and 883 continueinforce,withthe oversight
The sanctionhave
of the speckdmonitoringcornmittestablisheby the SecuriCouncil.
beenreviewedevery 120 dayssinceApril1992,and theSecurityCouncilhas repeatedlyleft
thesanctionsinplace."
1.51 During thisperiod,Libyahas fromtimeto the suggestedthanotwithstanding
theexplicitrequirerneosf theSecuritCouncil,imight offeritnationalfor triainThe
Hagueorsome other location.58 recentlyas30 Mach 1995,however,in comection
j7&g Exhibits24-21;Note bythePresidenof theSecurityCouncil,10December
1993,UN Doc. S126861,Exhibit44;Note by thePresidentoftheSeçurityCounci l,Apd
1994 ,N Doc. SIPRST11994/ Ex8ibi45; Note bythePresidentofthe SecuritCouncd,
5 August1994,UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/ Ex1 bit46;Noteby thePresidentof the Security
Council,30 Novernber1994,UN Doc. SIPRSTI1994176, Exhibi47; Noteby the President
of the SecrirityCounc30,March1995, UN Doc. SIPRST11934114E , xhibit48.
'' See,u, Exhibit33, pp. 10, 25seeal50Letter date28July 1994fromthe
~ecre~~eneml Addressedtothe PresidentoftheSecuritCouncil,29 July1994,UN
Doc. 5/1994/900,Exhibit49(attachina lettexfromtheSecretaryof theGeneraPeople's
CornmitteeforForeignLison andInternationaCl ooperationof the SocidPeuple's
Libyan ArabJarnahiriyaaddress totheSecretary-Generaof 29 July1994,which suggested
thatthetrial mighbeheldin "anyArabcountry"or inTheHagueor "anyUnited Nations
premiseson the Europeancontinent");LettQted 9 Decernber1993 fromthe Charge
D'AffairesA.Z.ofthePermanent Missionof theLibyan ArabJarnahYiy to theUnited
Nationsaddressedtothe Secretary-General, 10Decembe1993,UN Doc. S/26859,Exhibit
(continued.)
.,a
52withthemost recentcontinuatioofthesanctio nhePresidentoftheSecurityCouncil
aFirmed,afterfnildiscussioarnongSecuritCounciEm ,embersthat"aftehearingailthe
opinionsexpressedinthecourseofthe consuhtions therewasno agreementhatthe
necessa coyditionsexistedforrn-cationof themasuresof sanctionsestablishedin
paragraphs3 to7 of&solution748."59
j8.continued)
50 (notinoptionsincludingFrance,'bthirdcountry,or "atheheadguartersofthe
InternationCourt ofJusticin TheHague").
59& Exhibit 48. Iconnectiowiththe most ment continuatioofsanctionsthe
United States, theUnitedKingdoandFmce issuedanothejointdeclaratioregardinthe
Secunty Council'requiremen thatheaccused be broughtto triintheUnitedKingdom or
the UniteStates:
DECLiUWTION DATED 30 MARCH1995 BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF -CE,
T'HEUNITED KINGDOM OF GREATBRITAIN AND NORTHIXN IRELAND AND
THE UNiTED STATESOF AMIXICA ON THE OCCASION OF TEE NINTH REVIEW
OF SANCTIONSlMPOSEO ON THE LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA BY T3E
SECURITYCOUNCIL IN ITS RES0LUTPON 748(1992) OF 31 MARCH 1992
France,the UnitedKingdomof Great BritaiandNorthern Ireland,anthe
UnitedStatesof Americareaffm theirjoindeclaratioof 5 August1994
(Sf19941938)andtheircommon detemination tobrhg tujustice those responsiblefor
thebombingsof flightPan Am 103andUTA 772.
The th StatesregrethatLibyahas stinot satisfitheFrench judicid
authoritiewith respectto thebombingof fight UTA 772.
Theyare comrnittetofulalndcomprehensiveenforcementof thesanctions
imposedon theLibyanArab Jamahiriya.
They also&I thattheLibyanArab Jamahiriymust commit itself
defdtivelyto ceashgaiifoms ofterroriactivityandalassistanctoterrorist
groupsand demonstrate,byconcreteactions, irenunciationoterrorism.
They seitemtethatinaccordancewiththe SecuritCouncilresolutions,the
Governmentof theLibyanArab Jamahiriyamustensurethe appearancof thetwo
(continued.) 1.52 Thus, theCouncilremains fullyseizedofthismatter,and willcontinueto
review Libya cornplianceevery 120dayspursuant toResolutions748 and 883. The
demands for thesurrenderofthe twoLibyan agents donot cornefrom theIaw enforcement
authoritiesor Governmentsofthe UnitedStatesandtheUnited Kingdomalone. Theycorne
from the internationlornmunity,speakingthrough theChapterVI1authorityof theSecurity
Council.
59(.continued)
hckerbie suspectsin the United Kingdomor United Stateswherethey will receivea
fairtrial. The thteStatesreaEirm thatalternatiproposalsfor triialThe Hague
or elsewheredonotmeet theSecurityCouneilrequirementsand aretherefore
unacceptable,
Letterdated30 March 1995 fromthe PermanentRepresentative sf Fmce, theUnited
Kingdomof GreatBitah and NorthemIreland andthe UnitedStatesof herica to the
UnitedNationsaddressed to theSecretary-Genera3l,0Much 1995,UN Doc. A1501128-
5119951247 ,xhibit51. Thethree Stateshadissued aDeclamsion tothesamegeneraleffect
on5 August 1994, & Letterdated 5 August1994 fromthe Representativeof France,the
UnitedKingdom of GreatBritain andNorthemLteland and theUnited StatesofAmerica to
theUnited Nationsaddressed totheSwretary-General,8 August 1994, UN Doc. N491299-
8119941938 ,xhibit59. PART II
l
THEOBJECTIONS OF THE INTED STATES TU THELIBYANAPPLICATION
COME WIïYIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE79
2.01 Onthe bais ofArticle79of theRulesof Court, thUnited Statesrequestthat
theCourt firsaddressitspreliminarobjectionswhich m the kindof objectionsthacan
1 and shouldbedispos&of underArticle 79,6 &0foreanyhrther proceedingsinthis case.
2.02 Theobjectionsof theUnitedStatesraisethefundamentalissueof theabsenceof
consentby theUnitedStatestotheseproceedingsbecauseLibya failto show asufficien'
connectionbetweenits claimand theMontrealConvention.Theobjections alsoraisethe
fundamentaiissueofthe Court'sjudicial hnctionrelationtotheresponsibilitiof the
otherprincipalorganof theUnitedNations undesthe Charterformaintainhgand sestoring
internationalpeaand security,intheview of theUnitedStates,thefactsasdescribaiin
documents oftheUnitedNations SecuritCouncil,includingthedocuments submittedtothe
Councilby the thresponsorsof SecurityCouncilResolutions731, 748 and883, byLibya
andby otherstates,aswellas thedeterminationsfthe Council,aresufficientforthe
purposeof thesprellminaryproceedings.
Articl'79of theRulesof theCourtprovides inpart:
"1. Any objectionbytherespondent to thejurisdictionof Court or tothe
adrnissibiiiof theapplicatioorotherobjectionthedecisionuponwhich is
quested beforeanyfurtherproceedingsonthe merits,shaflbe madein writing
withinthethe-lirnifixedfor thedeliveryoftheCounter-Mernoid. ...
"6. Inorder to enablethe Courto determinitsjurisdictioatthepreliminary stage
ofthe proceedings,theCourt,whenever necessarymayrequest thepartiestoargue
aliquestionsoflaw andfact,andto adduceallevidence,which bearon theissue." Chapter 1
Article79Covers a BroadRange of Objections
2.03 Article79authorîzes notonly objectionto thejurisdiction of theCourt and the
admissibilitofthe applicatiobutalso "anyotherobjectionthedecisionuponwhichis
requestedbeforefurtherpmcdings on the merits."TheUnite dtatesisrequestina
decisionon itobjectionsbeforethe= are any furtherproceedingsinthiscase.
2.04 The onlybasisforjurisdictiottiatLibyahas invokedin its Applicationis
Article14 oftheMontreal C~nvention.~'This was notedby the Courtin ItsOrder of 14
April199262 andis emphasizedbyLibyain itsMern~rial.~"e Unitd Stateswu
demonstratethatArticle14 of theConventiondoesnot confer on theCourtjurisdictionto
decidethedispute thais the subjectof thispmceeding.
2.05 In accordancewithArticle 36(1)of theStatute,the jurisdictionof Court
restson theconsentof theStateswn~erned.~~ In thiscase,onlythe MontreaiConvention is
-
61LibyanApplication,p. 8.
Case ConcerningOuestions of Inte-retationandApplicationof the 1971Montreal
Convention 'AriçinnfromtheAerialIncidentAt Lockerbie(Zibyav. United States).1C.J.
Re~ons 1992, p. 114at121 (hereinafter"OrderonProvisionalMeasures").
LibyanMernorial,paras.2.17 and3.12.
SeeAngllo-IraniaOii Co. mnited Kingdom v.Iran).Judgment .C.J. Reports1952,
p. 93,a6. 103; Ambatielos (Greecev. UnitedKingdom).Preliminary Obiections,
Judment. I.C,J. Rworts 1952, p. 28,atp. 38;Intemretntionof thePeace Tmties with
Bul~aria.Huneraw and Romania. FirstPhase.AdvisorvClpinion.1.C.J, Reports1950, p. 65,
atp. 71. As the Courtsaidin thePeace Treatiescase: "The consentof Statespartiestua
dispute,is thebasis of the Court'sjurisdiction in contecases."m. In Borderand
Transborder hed ActionlNicaraguav. Honduras).JurisdictionandAdmissibility,
Yudement, I.C.J. Rmorts 1988,p. 69, atp. 76the Court affmed theessentialnatureof its
responsibiiityto establtheconsent of theparti tosconferjurisdictiouponthe Court.profferedto show thatconsent.A Statecannotbe presumed tohave consent4 tojurisdiction
simplyon the basisof a mereassertionbyanotherStatethataparticuladisputeansesunder
oneof thoseconventions. As theCourt expresslheld in Ambatielos,"[i]tis notenoughfor
the claimantgovernmentto establiahrernoteconnectionbetweenthefacts of theclaimt'and
thetreatyupn which jufisdictiwas f~nded.~~ Theclaimantgovemmentmustestablish a
sufficienconnectionbetweenthe treatyandtheclaimssubmittedto theCourt.66As the facts
5, p.
10, atp. 18. Inthatcase, thequestionwaswhetherthe Courthadjurisdictionundera 1926
Treatyof Commerceand NavigationbetweentheUnited KingdomandGreece to decide
whethertheUnitedKuigdomwas underanobligationto submittoarbitratioa dispute
betweenthe two governments astothe validitoftheAmbatielos cb in so faas the cIh
was based onan 1886Treaty of Commerce andNavigation bernee tneparties. TheCourt
rejectedthecontentionby theUnitedKingdomthat beforetheCourtcould decide upon
wbitmtionit wasnecessaryfor theCourtto detemine whetherthe daim was actuallyor
genuinelybased uponthe 1886Treaty, holdingthatto dosowould be to substitutethe Court
imperniissiblforthe specialcommissionof arbitratiestablishdunderthe 1886 Treaty.
w, pp. 16-17. Intheuniquecircumstanceo sfthatcase,theCourtconcluded thatit must
detemine whetherthe arguments were "sufficienfylausibletoestablishacomection
betweenthe clairand the 1886Treaty. m, p. 18. Beforeconcludingthatit hadthe
junsdictiontoreferthedisputetothe specialcommission,the Couranalyzedtheparticular
claimto determineifitcame withinthe scop ef the1886Tay. m, pp. 16, 18. A few
year later,inacase iniolving a contractdisputebetweenUNESCOandfourformer
employees,the Court was askedtoaddressa similarquestionofInterpretatiregardhg the
relationshipof thecontract cI&s to theprovisionsof theStatuteof the Administrative
Tribunalof theInternationalnbourOrganjzation, Znthatcase,theCourt concluded: "[ilt
isnecessuy thatthe cornplaintshouldindicatesornegenuine~lationshipbetweenthe
cornplaintandtheprovisionsinvoked"andchmcterizedthe issueas "whether theterrnsand
theprovisionsinvokedappearto have a substantiandnotmerely anartXcial connexion
withthe refusaitorenewthecontracts."Judments of the AdministrativeTribunalofthe
IL0 uoon CornplaintMade a~aînsUNESCO, Advisorv@inion. I.C,J. Raofls 1956, p.
77, atp. 89.
" MilitaryandParmilitaryActivitiesin andagainstNicaraguamicarama v. United
States).Preliminary Objections.Judment. I.C.Reports1984, p. 392, app. 427-29. In
thatcase,theUnitedStates objectethata treatof Fnendçhip,Commerce and Navigation
relieduponby Nicaraguato establijurisdictionithosepmceedingswas irrelevantto the
subjectmatterof Nicaragua'sclaims beforetheCourtand,theref~re,providednobasisforsetout InLibya's Applicationandampiif~edin its Mernorialdemonstratethedisputethatis
the subjectof thesepmeedings doesnot anseundertheMontrealConvention and has no
reasonable connectionwiththatConvention.
2.06 Momver, it is thecontentionof theUnitedStatesthat,evenIf tCourt were
to fmdthatthere had been adisputeundertheMontrealConvention,theCourt nonetheless
should deche to exercisejurisdidonsinceno purposewouldnowbeserved by such
exerciseinview of the subsequentdecisionsoftheSscurityCouncbl.It is weUestablished
thateven where the Courtrnayhave jurisdictiooveran Application,ckcurnstancesmay
existwherethe Court may declinetoexercisesuchjurisdicti~n.~'Asthe Courtsaidin the
NorthernCameroons =se:
"'[The seisingofthe Court isone thing,the administxatiofjusticeisanother . It
istheact of theAppliçantwhichseisesthe Courtbut even iftheCourt,when seised,
fmds thatithasjurisdictiontheCourtis not compeliedinevery caseto exercisethat
jurisdiction.Thereareinherentlimitationsontheexerciseof thejudiciafunction
whichthe Court, asa courtofjustice,cm neverignore. There may thus bean
incompatibilitybetweenthedesitesof anapplicant,or, indeai, obothpartiestoa
case,on theone hand,and on theother handthedutyof theCourt to maintainits
judiciacharacter."
-
66(.~oitinued)
suchjurisdiction.Althoughthe Court concluded thatthetreatyprovideda basis for
jurisdictionItdidso on the bnsisof ananalysisofNicaragua claimsinLightof the
circurnstancesin whichNicaraguabmughtits Applicationto theCourtandthefacts asserted
by Nicaragua. A similaranalysisofLibya's clairriinlightof the citcumstanceinwhich
Libyabrought its Applicatioto theCourtandthefactsassertedby Libya establishthatthe
MontrealConventiondoes notsupport afmdingof jurisdictioin theseproceedings.
67 Case Concerning NorthernCamsroons(Camemon v. UnitedKingdom)Preliminary
ObiectionsJ,udmnent ..C.J,Reports1963,p. 15 atp.29 (citintheNottebohm case
(Liechtensteiv, Guatemala), PreliminaryObisctierns.C.3. Reports1953, p. 111aip.
122).While theCourtmusttakeinto accountcertainfactstodetermine whether thejuzisdiction
pledis onewhich theCourt'sjudicialfunetionpermitsittoe~ercise,~itis well established
thatthe Courtmayreach a declsionon thisquestionatthe preliminary objectiostage7'
2.07 Finall, itisthecontentionof theUnitedStatesthat theCourt, inthe exercise
of itsjudicialfunctionshoulddeche jurisdiction'overchallengesby Libyato theauthority
of theSecurityCouncil inthe exerciseof itfunctionsunderChapter VU of theCharter to
makedecisionsrelathg to the maintenanc endrestoration of internationl eaceand
security.Boththe SecurityCouncilandtheCourtare principalores of the United
Nations. The Court hasconsistentlyactedto sustaithe actionsofthe Secunty Council in
theperformance of its politifunctionsfor themaintenanca end reséorationf international
peaceand security.''Inthe absenceof a formalrequestbythe SecurityCouncil,the Court
wouldnothavetheauthoritygenedy toreviewthe actionsof the SecuritCounci ilthe
performance of its functionsunderthCharter forthe maintenanceos restoratioof
intemationd-paceand security.On theother hand,theCourt hastheauthorifyto interpret
themeanhg of particukr provisionsof SecurityCounçil resolutionsinorderto cWy the
bindînglegalobligationsto whichtheygive rise for Libyaandother stateunder the Charter. The CourtCsn Dispose ofthese Objectionsat thh Stage evenif an ObjectionRaises
Issu esatMight Touchupon the Merits ofthe Case
2.08 Paragraph 6 of Article 7of theRules of theCourtauthorizesthe Courtto
addressal legd andfamai questionsthatbar on the issueof apreliminaryobjection,even
totheextent ofadducing evidenceon suchquestions,inorderto disposeof thatobjection.
The histesyofthatprovisiondemonstrate shatitsessentiapurpose isto encouragethe Court
todisposeof casesat theprelimhary objectionstag-- evenwkereto do so maytouchupon
the rneriof the pr~medhg.~~
2.09 In the early 1970~in connectionwiththe consideratioof proposaistoenhance
theeffectivenessof theCourt,representativintheSixthCornmittee of theGeneral
Assemblycriticized theprevioupmctice of theCourt injoiningprelimkaryobjectionswith
themerits. The debatesin theSixt Chornmittewere surnma in1970 inthe analytical
repostof theCornmitteeto theGeneralAssembly asfollows:
"inparticularheview wasexpressed thatit wouldbe usefulfor the Courtto decide
expeditiouslyon aiquestionsrelatinto jurisdictiand otherpreliminary issues
whichmight be raisedbytheparties. The practicof reservingdecisionsonsuch
questionspendingconsiderationof themeritsofthe case hadmanydrawbacks and
hadbeen sharplycriticizediconnexionwiththe SouthWest Africa casesandthe
BarcelonaTractioncase" .73
'2Case Concerning CertainPhos~hate Landsin Nauru(Nauntv. Australia)Preliminaq
Obiections.1,C.J. Renort1992,p. 240 atp. 271-273 (separateopinionofJudge
Shahabudeen .)
73Reviewof the Role of theInternationaCourtof Justice,Reportof theSixth
Cornmittee1, 1 Deçember1970, UN Doc. N8238, Exhibit52, p.19. This was repeatedthenextyear andwassurnmarize dsfoUows in the 1971reportofthe
l
Cornmittee:
"Mentionwasalsomadeof a suggestion thattheCour thouIdbe ençouragedto take
a decisionon preliminaryobjectionasquickly aspossibleandto refrainfromjoining
them to therneritudess itwas stnctlye~sential."~~
2.10 In 1972,theRules ofCourt wererevised toencourage decisionon questionsof
jurisdictionandadmissibilitypritothe meritsphase. Previously,theRulesexpressly
authorizedtheCourt tojoin theobjectionto the merits. Pamgrap5 of ArticI62 of the
1946 Ruleshad provided:
"After hearing tpartiethe Court shalgive itdecisionon theobjectionor shall
join theobjectioto themerits."
In1972,theRules selatinto preliminaryobjectionwere itevisetoehinate this express
authorkationand providehstead a mle iniendedtofacilitatetdispositioof such
objectionpriorto considerationothe merits,even ifthirequiredaddressingquestionsof
lawor factthatmaytouch uponthe mesits. The Court addeda new provisioninparagraph 6
thatprovides:
"In orderto enablethe Courttodetemine itsjurisdictioatthep~liminary stageof
the p,meedings,the Court,whenevernecessaty, mayreguestthe partiestoargueail
questionsof lawand fact, anto adduce aiievidence,whiçhbw on the issue."
As a previousPresidentof the Courtandmernbesof the Committeethatprepd the 1972
revisionof the Ruleshas stated:
74Reviewof the Role ofthe International Court JusticeReport oftheSixth
Committee,10 December 1971, UN GeneralAssembly Doc. Al8568,Exhibit 53,p. 21, "TheRule [adoptedin 19721 laysdownthat theCoua mustresolvethe questionof
jurisdictiobeforeenteringuponthemerits of thecase."75
2.11 Pmgraph 7of Article67 of the 1972Rules,which correspo todparagraph7
of Article79of thecumnt Rules,provides:
'Mer hearing thepartiestheCoud shail give its decisionin tform ofa judgrnent,
by whichit shaü either wpholdtheobjection,reject ordeclarehat theobjection
dues notpossess,in thecircumstancesofthe case,anexclusivelyprelzminaq
character. iftheCourtrejeetstheobjectionor declarethatitdoes notpossessan
exclusivelyprelhinarycharacter,it shallfmhe lirnitforfurtherproceedings."
2.12 Tbeserevisionshave been recognizd asintroducingone ofthemost important
amendment o the~ules.~~
2.13 Priortothese revisionsthe Court hadfelcompelled tojoin thissueof
jurisdictiotothemeritswheredetermination of apreliminaryobjectionreguired
considerationof questionof factos lathatmay beara closerelationshitosomeof the
issueson themeritsof thecase, As recogniz by theMember of theCourtwho was the
chahan ofthe Court'scornmitteethapropose.theserevisions and wasone of their
principalarchitects,pamgraph6 is intendto providea differentsolutionto such
"Inthepresence of suchanobjection,theCourt,Insteadof bringinginthe whole of
themeritsby means of ajoinder,would,according topa~agraph6, requesttheparties
75M. Uichs, "The RevisedProcedure of theInternational Court of Justice" in
theDevelo~mentof the Internationalgal Orderp. 21, atp.3 1 (F. Kalshovenetal.eds.
19803, Exhibit 54(emphasisinoriginal).
76 E.Jiménez deAréchaga ,TheAmendrnents to theRules of Procedureofthe
InternationaCourt of Justice," 67AmericaJournalof InternationaLaw, p. 1,atp. 11
(19731,Exhibit55; G. Guyomar,Commentaire duRèglement dela CourInternationalde
Justice: InterprétatintPratique,p.371(19721,Exhibit56. to argueatheprelîmhary stagthosequestions,eventhosetouchinuponthe I
rneritwhichbear on thejvrisdictionailssThus ,herewouldno longerbe
justificationleavinginsuspenseorforposponinga decisiononthequestionofthe
Court'sown juisdictio"n I
Simiiar,yProfess Goryomarconclude.:
I
"L'ab& 6 reconnaitAla Courledroitd'inviterles Parà debattrtoutpointde
faiou dedroit,etàproduiretoutmoyende preuveayanttraitàla questionde la
compétencede 12Cour,ceciafi nepermettrà cettdeznteredeseprononcer susce I
point astadepréliminaireelaprocédureL. 'accentsembleoncmis surla
nkessitkde statuersur la compéteevantd'entamerl'examende1Waire au fond :
c'es19un élkmentnouveauetvraPsemblablementresimportant. 1
E. Jhenez de Aréchagao~) . .note76,p. 13.
G. Guyomar, S. &. note76, p.371 ("Pmgraph 6 acknowledge he Court'sright
toinvitethePartieto debateanpointoffact or laandto produceanyevidencerelating
totheissueofthe Court'jurisdictioinordertoaliowtheCoud tomle onthispoht inthe
preliminq stageoftheprocedure. In thiswav, the emphasisappetobe placed on the
need toruleonthe matterof iurisdicpriorto underlakianexaminationof thecaseon
its rnerits. Thia new andseeminglyveryimportantelement."(ernphasiadded.) PART m
TEiEMONTREALCONVENTION PROVIDESNOBASISFORJURISDICTION
3.01 The onlyclaimedbasis of jurisdictiinthese proc&gs is theMontreal
Convention,Thereis, however, no disputbetween thepartiesregardhgtheinterpretation
or applicatiof thatConvention. Indty, thedisputeis betweenLibyaandthe Security
Councilregardingthemirernent underResoIutions 748 and883 for Libyatosurrenderfor
triaintheUnited Statesor theUnitedKingdomthe twoLibyan nationalaçcused of
involvementinthebornbingof Pan Am 103, Disputesregardingtheimplernentatioof
SecurityCouncilresolutlonarenot disputesrelatlngto the interpretor applicationof
theMontreal Conventionand do notcornewithinthejurisdiction of the Courtunderthat
Convention.
3.02 As Libyahas recognizdin bothits Applicatiand Mernorial, in ordfor the
Court tohavejurisdictionithicsase,thesubjectofthedisputewhich theCourt is askedo
addressmust relateto the interpretntionor appliof theMontrenl C~nvention.'~The
subjectof thedisputplacedbeforethe Courtby theseproceedings,however,doesnot selate
to theinterpretatiorapplicatioof thatConvention.ItconcernsLibya's objectionto
actionsoftheSecurityCouncilconcludingthattheresultsofcertaiinvestigationscleatly
irnplicateofficiais of the Libyan Governinthe bombingof PanAm 103;80deteminhg
that thfailureof Libyatodemonstrateits renunciatof terrorismandin pasticularits
79LibyanApplication,p. 8;Libyan Mernorialpara3.12.
SecurityCouncilResolution731,Exhibit1 8,preambularpm. 6.
64continuedfdure fuUyand effectiveto respondtotherequestsoftheUnitedStatesand the
UnitedKingdom thaLibyasurrendextheacçused Libyannationalfortrialconstituae
I
threattointernationpeaceand se~urity;~ecidingthattheLibyarGovernent must
complywithout hrtherdelaywiththosereque~ts a;' mposing sanctionon Libyapending 1
cornpliancewitthesereq~ests.~Libya'sdisputethereforeis clearly notwiththe United
I
StatesbutwiththeUnitedNationsSecuity Council.
''SscurityCouncilResolution748, Exhibi23, preambulapara.7; SecuritCouncil
Resolution883,Exhibit32, preambulaparas,2, 6.
82SecurityCouncilResolutio748, Exhibit23, para1; SecuritCounciIResolution
883,Exhibit32, para ..
g3SecuTityCounciIResolution748, Exhibit23, paras.3-7; SecurityCorincdResolution
883, Exhibit 30, puas. 3-7. Chapter1
TheMontrealConventionProvidesthe SoleAiiegedEasls for JurisdictionOver These
Froceedings
3.03 Article14 of theMontreal Conventionis thesole basiuponwhich Libyarelies
in its Applicatiosul ~emorial~ forthejurisdictioof theCourt overthese pmceedings.
3.04 Article14(L )rovides:
Any disputebetweentwo or moreContracthgStatesconcerningtheinterpretaüon or
applicatioof thisConventionwhichcannot be settlethrough negotiationshall,at
therequest of oneofthem, be submittedtoafbitrationIf withinsixmonths from the
date of therequesof arbitratithe Partieare unabletoagreeon theorgktion of
thearbitration,nyone of thosPartiesmayrefer thedisputeto theInternational
Court of Justicebyraguestinçonfomity with theStatuteoftheCourt."
Article 1confersjurisdictioonlyIn respectof disputeconcerningthe intetpretatior
applicatioof theMontd Convention. Consequently he Courtdoes not havejurisdiction
intheseprocedhgs in respectofany dleged violationbytheUnitedStatesof anyrights
Libyamay have underanyothersource oflaw,uicludingthe Chmer of theUnitedNations
or generalphciples of internationallaw. As the Permanet ourtofInternationaJustice
saidin theMavrommatis PalestinConcessionscase: "[tlhedisputemaybe of anynatuLe;
the languageof[Article26 oftheMandate for Palestineinthisrespectisascornprehensive
84LibymApplicationp , p.7-8.
85Libym Mernorial,para.3.12.
66aspossible..,butin everycaseit mustrelatto anLnterpretatior applicatioofthe
Mandate."86
3.05 Article14 oftheMontrealConvention establishasseriesofrequbents
whkh must bemet to estabiithe jurisdictionof the Court. Fandtforemostamongthese
quirements isthatthere mustbea disputebetweenthepartiesconcerningtheinterpretation
or applicationof theMontrealConvention.Intheviewof the Unite States,theclaims
made by Libyainits ApplicationandMemoLiaE thattheUnite Stateshasviolatedthe
Montreal Conventiondo not relato any disputebetweenthePartiesunderthat
C~nvention.~ ~ heyrelatetoLibya'scornplaintagainsttheactionof theSecurîtyCouncil
inrequiringLibyato surrenderthe twoaccusedLibyan nationalfortnd intheUnited States
or theUnitedKingdomandin imposingsanctio onsLibyapendingcornpliancewiththat
requirernent.
S~~vrommatis PalestineConcessions (Greecev.Gmt Britainl. P.C.I.J. Reports1924,
Series A.No. 2, p. 15-16.h thatcase,junsdictionwasassertedunderArticle26 of the
MandateforPaiestuie,which providedthatnon-negotiabledisputesarisingbetweenthe
parties"relatinto theinterpre~atornapplicationof theprovisionsof the Mandate"shallbe
submittedtothePermanent Court. To thatend, thePermanent Courtheldthatthe dispute
betweenthepartiesmustrelate to theMnridateinorderforitsexerciseofjurisdictito be
valid. w, p. 16.
g7The United Statedemonstratd at theprovisional asures stagethatLibyafaild to
establisa primafaciebasisforjurisdictiounderthe MontrealConvention.Orderon
ProvisionalMeasures,p. 126. The UnjtedStatessubrnittethatLibya'sassertionstothe
contmy notwithstandingt,herewasno disputbetweentheUnited Stateand Libya
hvolving thelnterpretatior applicatioofthe Convention. TheUnited Statesalso argued
thatthepurposeof Libya'sactionwasnot ta resolveanydisputeunder theMontreal
Convention buttopreventactiondirectedatLibya intheSecurityCouncil. Chapter Iï
Libya's ApplicationDoesNat. Set Out a Dispute Betweenthe PartiesOverthe
Interpretationor Applicationof theConvention
3.06 Libyahas set outinitsApplicatioandamplifml in its Mernorialthe alleged
subjectofthedispute.88Libya'sdaim thatthedispute concernsan interpretatioor
applicatioof theMontreal Conventionrats on thepremisethatthe SecurityCouncil's
demandsthatLibyasumnder the two Libyannational5 accuse of participatiIn the
bornbingof PanAm 103involve anintespretationor applicatiof thMontreal Convention.
In fac,thisis nottrue.The SecurityCouncilacted underthe Charterof theUnited Nations.
3.07 Whüe theMontseal Conventionis inforcebetweentheParties tothat
Convention,it doesnot followas Libya suggeststhatthe disputethatisthe subjectof this
proceedingrelatesto thatConventionandthat,therefore,the UniteStatesis "bound,inthe
matterspertainingto this subjeto,adheretu theprovisions"of the The
United Statehas nevermade daims concerningLibya's rightor obligationsunderthe
Montreal Conventionupon which a disputebetween thepartiesunderthe Conventioncould
be based.
3.08 LibyaassertsthattheUnite dtateshasbreached and iscontinuingtobreachits
legal obligationsto LibyaundeArticles5(21,5(3), 78121 and 11 oftheMontreal
''Libyan Application,pp.8-10;LibyanMernoriai,paras. 3.2-3.11.
89Libyan Mernorial,para.3.2 (translation).Insoconcluding,Libyaargud that"the
Montreal Conventionis theody relevantconventionbetween the Partiesthadealswiththe
offenses"involvedinthe bombing of PanAm 103. M. (translation)Convention. Article5(2)requireseachcontracthg stattotake suchmeasures asrnay be
necesq to "establishitsjurisdictiovercertainoffensernentionedintheConvention in
thecase where theallegedoffenderispresentinitstemitoryandwhere itdoes notextradite
theperson pursuanttoArticle8.Aïticle 5(33providesthatthe Conventiondoes notexclude
any crimimijurisdiçtioexercisedinawordanee witbnationalaw . Article7requiresa
contractkgstateon whose territoran allegedoffendeisfound and which doesnotextradite
him to submitthecase toits comptent authoritiesfor the purpofprosecution.Article8
containsprovisions~elatintoextraditioinrelationtooffensesunderthe Convention.
Article 11 requirescontractiStatestassistothercontractinstatesinconducting
investigationrelatintooffensesunderArticle1 of theConvention.
3.09 It isLibya'scontentionthatthe UniteStateshas soughttofrustratthe Ljbyan
Government's rightsunderthe aboveprovisionsby seekingthesurrenderof the twoaccused
Libyan agents.However,Mcle 55(2), (3)7,and 8(2)ofthatMontreal Conventiondo not
imposeany affirmativobligatioon theUnited Statesorany otberstatetoperform anyact
or refraifmm any actwith respecto thesetwo individuds.Mcle 11 is thonly
provision,among thoselistedinLibya'scornplaint,hatarguablyaddress any obligationof
any StateotherthanLibya.
3.10 Mcle 11quires contracthg statestoassisothercontracthgstates
comrnencingan investigatiof anoffenceunder theConvention.However, whateverright
Libya rnayhaveassertedunder thatArticle(orunderother articleintheMontml
Convention) forrefushg tosumnderthe two accusaifor triawas supersededbythe
decisionof theSecurityCouncilunder ChapterVII inResolutions748 and883. Spe~~cally,the decisiooftheCouncil thatthetwo suspectsbeçumndered fortri oltheUnitedStates
ortheUnitedKingdornobviouslysupersedes anyobligationto coopemtewithcontinued
investigatioand proceedingsinLibya. To the extentthatthere is anyconflictbetween
rightsdiegedlycreatedunderthe Montd Conventionandtheobligationsarisingunderthe
UnitedNationsCharterfromtheadoption bythe SecurityCouncilof Resolution748 and
883, theobligationsarisiunder theUnitedNationsCharter prevailby virtuofArticles25
and103 of theUnitedNationsCharter.
3.11 Libya assertthattheUnited Statesandthe UnitedKingdorndid notgive any
basisfortherequeststhatthe suspectbesurrenderd tuthernaW ghateverthe situationwith
regardto theoriginarequestsof theUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdom, sineethe
adoptionofResolution731, bothof thoseStateand theSecurityCouncil havebeen clear
thatthebasisforrequiringthesurrenderof thesuspectsis thresolutionof the Security
Council.
3.12- Since 14November1991,when a U.S. federalgrandjury returnean
indictmentagainsAbdel BassetandLamenFbah, the UnitedStateshasbeenrequesting
thatLibya surrendethe twoaccused fortriaintheUnitedStatesor the UnitedKingdom.
m, para.3.20. Ztis importanto notethatLibyahasachowledged thatthe United
Statesand theUnitedKingdomhavenever soughtextraditioof theaccusedunderthe
provisionsoftheMontrealConvention or any otherextmditionagreement. Rather,asnoted
byLibya, they haverequestedtbatLibya "susrenderor otherwisedeliver thaccusedfor
triain the UniteStatesor theUnitedKingdom. Ibid,para.3.7.The United Statehasnever invokedtheMontrealConvention orargue thatLibyais
obiigatedtoextraditthesetwo indhidualunderthe ternis of theMonueal onv vent ion.^'
3.13 As Libyahas acknowIedged ,heUnitedStatesand theUnitedKingdom have
soughtto obtainthe surrenderof the accusedby recourseto SecuritCoumil afteLibya
refuse tdsurrenderthem v01untariIy.In fact, thSecusitCouncilneveracceptedLibya's
repeatedassertionsthatjurisdictionovertheauuseshouldbe treat asdalegaldispute
betweenLibyaandtheUnitedStatesunderthe MontrealC~nvention.~~
3.14 Libya'scornplainisnotbasedupon therequestfor thesurrenderof thtwo
accusedLibyanagents, butupon themeans thugh which the UnitedStateshassoughtto
advance thisrequest. Libyhas accusedtbeUnitedStatesof "coercivernethodsinvolving
"threats"againsLibya. However, evenif thiwere relevanttotheissueofthe Court's
jurisdictiooveraclah assertedunderthe MontrealConventio tn,UnitedStates
categoncallydeniesanysuggestionthatiusedorthreatened touseforce orin anyway
violat hedterritorialintegortpolitical,independeofeLibya inseekingthesurrenderof
thetwo accus4 Libyanagents. Theonly stepstheUnite Stateshastaken to further its
requestforthe sumnderof the two accused,asidefromthe normal politid actionsof
91 Morsover, themakingof such requeststoLibyadoes notwnstitutea violationomy
rightsthatLibyarnightpossessundertheMontrai Convention. Evenif theLibym
Governent could claima "righttotrythetwo accu& inLibya, thesimplerequestor
demandfor theisumnder does notinany wayaffect tha"right"andthereforedoes not
entajJ.thebreacof anycorrespondhg "obligation"nthepart of theUnitedStates.& I
Order on ProvisionaMeasures,p. 114, atpp. 136-37(jointdecldion of JudgesEvensen,
Tarassov,Guillaume, andAguu Mawdsley).
I
92 LibyanMernorial,para.2.16.
93 LibyanMemonal, para. 3.14.making representatioand seekingsupportfrom otherçountnes,have ben tojoin other
StatesinadoptingresolutionintheUnitedNationsSeçurityCouncil.
3.15 The actionof anindependenSttateinreferringa situatito theSecurity
Councilcannotlegitimatelbme the subject oacornplainbefore thisCourt.Thework
of theSecuritCouncilis thesesponsibilityof theGouncasa collectivebody,and the
actionsitakesare nottheactionsof its individmembers intheirnation&capaçitres,
Thus,proceedings inanddecisiunsd en bythe SecurityCounci clnnot give riseto a cause
ofactionagainstanindividualStateregardIesof themle itplayedin thework of the
CounciI.
3.16 Moreover, thereisnothing intheMontreal Conventionprohibithgpartiesfrom
subrnittinissuesfortheconsiderationothe SecuritCouncil,andnothingin the actionsof
the UnitedStateasa rnemberof the SecurityCouncilgives ristoa disputeover the
interpretationor applicatoftheMontrealConvention. Any disputethatLibyamay have
over theadoptionof Resolutions731, 748 o883 wouldbe with theSecurityCounci l,t
withthe UnitedStates,andthe SecurityCouncilis notandmot becornea partytothese
pmdings:
3.17 Priortotheadoptionof Resolution731, Libyaargued inthe SecurityCouncil
thatjurîsdictionovertheaccuseraise adlegal dispurelatinto the interpretatorn
applicationof theMontrealConventionwhichshould be addressd eitheinarbitrationor by
the Court,94Dudg thedebate intheCouncilon Resolution731, theUnite Sdtateandthe
94-SeeExhibit16,pp. 2-3; Exhibi19,pp. 13-15.
-
72UnitedKingdom denid thisdlegationbth maintahhgthatwhatwas atissuewas athreat
to internationalpeaand securitresultinfmmstate-spons oerrlori~rn.~~
3.18 As Libya suggest~,~"heEviember sfthe SecurityCounciiclearly understood
thatFrance,theUnitedKingdom and theUnitedStatesintendedthe quests forsurrenderof
the twoaccuse Ldibyms callefor byResuIution731 tobe bas& on theauthofityofthe
SecuriC tyuncilunderthe Unite datiansCbaxtertoaddressthreatsto internationpeace
and securîtratherthanunderanyprovisionof theMonueal Convention, Thus ,he Security
Councii,inunanimously adoptingResolutio731, didnot acceptLibya'scontentionsthatthe
matterbeforethe Counciiconstitutaddisputebetweenitand thesponsorsof Resalution731
andthatit wasinappropriatfortheCouncil todealwiththe mattermg ?ndeed,vkhlly
eveq rnemberof the Counci express tsddelegation'sunderstandithatResoIution731
addressedtheproblemof conbattinginternational err~risrTn.p~calof thestatementsis
95Exhibit19,pp. 80, 104-105.
97Nor didthe SecurityCouncilacceptLibya's argumentthatthe UnitedStateandthe
UnitedKuigdom were barredfromparticipatininthe CounciE'sebateon thismatterunder
Article27(J)ofthe Charter since theywerepartitothat"dispute".Exhibit 19,
pp. 24-25. Article 27(3) providesthat"Decisiofthe SecuntyCouncio lndl other
rnattersshallbe madeby anaffmative voteof ninemembersineludingtheconcurringvotes
of thepermanentmembers; providedthat,in decisionsunder ChapterVI..a partytoa
disputeshallabstainfromvoting" The United Stateandthe United Kingdominsistedthat
thematterbeforethe Courtrelatedtoa situationthatthratene. internatileaceand
sscurityandpartiçipateintheGouncil'sdebatewithoutobjectionfromother Memkn of
theCouncil.
98Exhibit19,pp.57 (Morocco) ,70-71 (Zimbabwe) ,2-73(Ecuado r6),Cape Verde),
84 (China), 87(Russia)89-91 (Hungq), 92-93 (Austria)94 (India),97 (Sapan),an98
(Venezuela).Compmble statementswere madeby membets of theCouncilin connedion
with theadoptionofResolution748, U. N. Doc. SlPV 3063, Exhibit21pp. 46 (Cape
(continuai..)thatof thePermanent Represenbtive ofIndia:"1 shouldstresshew thatthe Counci Il
specif~caiiyaddressingthequestionof internationlemfisrn."99
3.19 Thus, in resolutio731, the SecurityCouncilexpresse. its deeconcernover
both theworldwidepersistenceof actsof internationalemrisrn inallits formsincluding
thosein which Statesaredirectior indirectlyinvolved,andoverdlikgal activities
direct4 againstintemationacivilaviation.Itexpress4 its deteminationtoelhinate
internationalterrorismandurgedtheLjbyan Govemment immediately to providea fuii and
effectiveresponseto thequests of theUnited Statesand theUnitedKingdom "so asto
contributeto the ehination of internationatlernor"lm
3.20 Libya repeatedits argumentsrelatingttheMontrealConvention beforethe
SecurityCouncil duringconsiderationofResolutions748'01and 883.1M On neitheroccasion
did theSecurityCouncil accep Libya'sarguments. Each tirne,thSecurityCouncd
demanded thatLibyasurrender theaccused for triin theUnited Statesor theUnited
~ingdom. lM
98(.conthued)
Verde), 47 (Exador), 51, 59(Zimbabwe) ,6 (India),61 (Morocco), 74 (Japm),76
(Hungq), 78 (Austria),79-80 Wussia), 81 (Belgium),and 82 (Venezuda).
" 00bit 18,preambular paras.1,2, 6; pm. 3.
'O1Exhibit22, p. 13.
'O3SecurityCouncilResolution 748, Exhibit23, para.1;SecurityCouncilResolution
883,Exhibit 32, para.1. 3.21 The United StatehasneverinvokedtheMontrealConventionin itseffortsto
obtainthesumenderof thetwoLibyan nationdsaccus& of participatinthebmbing of
Pan Am 103. Moreoves, assuming arnuendo thattheMontrealConvention could be
constniedtoprovide Libya a ight trefus tesurrender thetwo accusedLibyans, sucha
nght couldno longerbeasserted followingtheadoptionof resolution748.Resolutions748
and 883 estabLisa legalobligatioforLibyawhich is entiselindependentof,and which
supercedes,any related righofLibyaundertheMontreal Convention.If Libyaobjectsto
theobligationtosumnderthetwoaccused penons, itobjectionsmust bedirectecsioleIto
theSscurityCouncii andnot tothis Court. ChapterIII
Libya's Disputeis not *th theUnited States,but withthe SecurityGouncil
3.22 The subjectofthisproding isa disputeoverwhetherLibyais requiredto
surrenderthetwo Libyan nationaisaccuse of involvementin thebombingof Pan Am 103
fortria iltheUnited StatesortheUnitedKingdom. This disputedoes notrelateto the
MontrealConvention.It relatetoLibya's obligationtocomplywith thedecisionsof the
SecurityCouncil. Libyadoes notassertthatthe Courtpossessesjurisdictito entertaia
disputebetweenLibya and the SecuritCouncil. NeithertheCharter northe Statutof the
Cour trovidessuchjurisdiction. ForthatreasontheCour tughtnotaliowLibya to abuse
theCourt'sjurisdictioto entertaindisputesthatdnotariseunderthe MontrealConvention.
3.23 WhileLibyarnighthave chosento arguethatitwas not obiigatetucomply
with Resolution731,which exhortedLibya toprovide afullandeffectiveresponsetothe
requestsofthe UnitedStatesand the UnitedKingdom ,olLibyamust complywith
Resolutions748and 883. Thoseresolutions 'specficaldemanded thatLibyacomplywith
therequestsof the UnitedStateand theUnited Kingdomfor thesurrenderof thetwa '
Libyans, andstatedthatthe SecuritCouncilwas actingunderChapter W ofthe Charter.
They arebindltigon everyMemberof theUnited Nations,including Libyaand thethree
sponsorsof theresalutinns.
3.24 TheresolutionsreguireLiibyato surrendetthetwosuspects,irrespective any
rightsLibya mightclah undertheMontrealConvention, and they imposeeconornic
IW Exhibit18, para.3.sanctionsonLibya inorderto compel itto complywiththatrequirement.Whatevermight
haveken the precisestandinof Resolution731previously,Resolution748 madecleatr hat
Libya wasnow legallyobligeto providea fuland effectivresponse tothe initirequests
of thethreegovernments.
3.25 PussuanttoArticle24 oftheCharter,Member Statesincludhg Libya,
conferrdon theSecurityCouncilthe pdary responsibilityof rnaintainiand restoring
internationalpeacandsecurityand agd thatin carryingoutitsdutiesunderthis
responsibilittheCouncil actson theirbehalf.lb5Article39 of the Charterprovidthatthe
Councd shaUdetemine the existencof any threattthe peaceand make recornmendations
or decidewhatmeasures shaUbe takentomaintainor restore internatiopleaceand
security .nlMerArticle 25, Libyaasa Memberof the UnitedNations,is bound to carry
outthe decisionsoftheSecurityC~uncil.'~ Moreover,inaccordance with Article 103of
'O5
Aai-le 24(lf of theCharteprovides:
"Inorderto ensurepromptand effectiveaciionby theUnited Nations,IMembers
confer ontheSecurityCouncilprimaryresponsibilityforthe maintenanceof
lnternationdpeaceand securityand agreethatin carryingoutits dutiesunderthis
xsponsibiiitytheSecurityCouncilactsontheirbehalf."
ID6Article39 of the Charterprovides:
"TheSecurityCouncil shaldeterminethe existence of anythreatothe peace, breach
of thepeace, oractof aggsessionandshd makerecomrnendations o,rdecidewhat
measusesshallbe takeninaccordan ciehArticles41and 42, to maintainor sestore
internationapeaceandsscurity."
lm Article 25 of theCharteprovides:
"TheMernbersof the United Nationsagreeto acceptand carryoutthe decisionsof
theSecurity Councilinaccordance withthepaesentCharter." Oder on
ravisionaMeasures,p. 126; Lena1Consequences for Statesof the Continued
(continued.)theCharter,''the obligationof Statesto acceandcq outdecisionsof theSecurity
Council underArticle25prevailover theobligationsof such Statesunderanyother
internationalagreement,includingtheMontreal Conventionlos Libya isrequjssdto
sursenderthetwo accusedfor triaintheUnitedStatesor United Kingdom,and other States
are requiredto implementthe sanctionsimposedon Libyaunderthose resolutiens.
3.26 Libya hasmade itabundmtly clearby itsactionsboth beforetheSecurity
Counciiandthis Courtthatthereliefit seeksis directeat theSecurityCouncil -not atthe
United StatesortheUnited Kingdom. Libyaobjets to the xequiremen hatit surrenderthe
-
l..continueci)
Presenc of SouthAfrica inNamibia(SouthWest Africa). Advisoq @inion. I.C.J.
Reports1971, p. 16at pp.52-53.
Further,Article48of the Charterprovides:
"1.The actionquird to carr outthe decisionsofthe SecurityCouncil forthe
maintenan ofcnternationapleaceand securityshaU betaken by aii thMembers of
theUnited Nationsor by some of them,as theSecurityCouncilmaydetermine.
"2.Such decisionsshd be&ed out by theMembersof the UnitedNations directiy
andthrougbtheiraction intheappropriateinternational.gencieof whichthey are
rnembers'.
losArtiicle103of the Charterprovides:
"lntheeventof a confiicbetweentheobligationsof theMembersof theUnited
Nations underthepresentCharter andtheirobligationsunder any otherinternational
agreement,theirobligationsunderthepresentChartershall prevail"
lm &g Orderon ProvisionalMeasures, p.126 ("Whereas bath Libyaandthe United
States,as Members of theUnited Nations,axe obligedto acceptandcarryoutthe decisions
of theSecurityCouncilinaccordance with Article25oftheCharter; whereas the Court,
which is atthestageof pracecdio nngsrovisionalmeasures,considersthat primafaciethis
obligationextendsto thedecisioncontaineilinresolurio748 (1992);and whereas, in
accordance withAïticle 103of theCharter,theobligationsof thePartiesinthatrespect
prevailover theirobligationsunderanyother internationalagreement,includingthe Montrd
Convention ... ")two accu& to the United Stateor the UnitedKingdom fortria aidto therneasures
imposedbythe Councilinorder to compelLibyatocomplywiththatrequirement.It bas
subrnittenumerous lette arsdmaderqeated staternentsto thSecunty Councilurgingthe
Council torefrain fromadoptingResolutions731,748 and883,
Section1. The Proceedings onLibya'sRquest for ProvisionaMeasures Demonstratethat
thisAction iabout Libya'sDisputewiththe SecurityCouncil -Not the UnitedStates
3.27 Libya statedduringthe oralproceedingson itç rsquesforprovisionamasures
thatthe relithatitwas seekingwas to preventthe Councilfrom imposingsanctionsto
compelLibya tosumnder thetwo suspects. As Counselfor Libyasaid:
"In ourreguestfor provisionalmeasureswe haveasked the Courtto holdthatthe
Respondents shouZdrefrainfrorntakinganyaction thacourd impmbly impair
Libya's righto have itnationalsprosecutedby itown judicialorgans. The attempt
madebythe Respondents to bringthiseonfïictwithitheambit ofChapterViT of the
Charter andfa takestepswithintheSecurityCouncilwith a viewto the takingof
collectivactionagainstLibya issuchas tojeopardizetherightsof Libya. Without
denyingtheSeciirityCouncil'srighttodeai withthismatterwithinthefrarnework of
ChaptesVI, Libyarequeststhe Cour to ordertheRespondentsto refrainfrom îaking
anyinitiativewithintheSecurityCounciIforthe purposeof impairingtherightto
exercisejurisdlctiothatLibyaasks the Courttorecognize"11°
As theCourtnoted, in its orderrejectiLibya' requestfor anindicationofprovisional
masures, Libyasowghtprovisional measures "inorderto causetheUnitedStatesto abstain
from any actioncapableof havingaprejudiciaeffecton the Court'sdecisioin thecase,
and morespe~ificailto refrainfromtakinga,nyinitiatiwithin theSecurityCounciifor the
Il0Case Concernin~Ouestions of InterpretatiandApplicationof the 1971Montreal
ConventionArising£romAerialIncident at hckerbie aibva v.UnitedStates), Provisional
Masures. Oral Amment. CR 9212, 26 Mar& 1992,p. 72. (translation)purpose ofirnpairinthatrightto exercisejurisdicti, hich Libyaasksthe Courtto
il111
recognize....
3.28 While the specificrequestsforreliefwercast in termsof theactionsof the
UnitedStatesand theUnited Kingdom, the actionthaLibya soughttoprevent was a
decisionbytheSecurityCouncil requiringLibyato surrenderthetwo accused and imposing
sanctionsandother rneasureto compel suchactionby Libya. Of course,itwas not withiti
the powerof theUnite dtatesortheUnitedKingdomto create sucha requirement onLibya
or toimpose suchsanctionsunder theCharter. OnlytheCouncil could make such a
decision.
Section2. Libya's MernorialDemonstratesthatthisAction Concerns Libvas Disputewith
theSecunt~ Council
3.29 Any doubtthat Libya'sdisputeiswiththe SeçuntyCouncii and not theUnited
StatesortheUnitedKingdomis removedby Libya'sMernorial. Nearly one-haLfofLibya's
lengthyMemonalis devoted tocontesthg SecurityCounci actions. In thisrespect,Libya
contendsthatthe resolutiundonot by th& tems ask thatLibya sumnderthe two
Order on PKivisiondMeasures, p. 124.
Il2Moreover, any effortby a stattocontroltheactionsofMernkrs of theSecurity
Counciiinregardto theexercisebytheCouncilof itsresponsibilito maiotainorrestore
internationaleaceand securityviolatesthoseprovisionofthe Charterthatdelegateto
members oftheCoitncilthisimportantresponsibillty.Article28(1makes clear thateach
Member of theCounci shlaUbe abletoperEonnthese functionscontinuously.
&, e.g, p,aras.2.16-2.386.1-6.141,7.4.
80suspects.I~Libya reliesin thisrespeon arguments thatby theuseof theterm"requests,"
theSecurityCouncilexpressed an intentionto excludefromthe reacofits resolutionsthe
"demands" of thesponsori stgtesthatthe twoaçcuse Libyan aationdsbe sumndered for
trial.Libyaalsorelies uponthe stâtementby some Membersof theCounciiexpressing a
hopethatthe crisiscouldbe resolved throughnegotiationor diplorna~yLibya's
contentionto thecontrarynotwithstandingt,hmembersof the SecurityCownciIunderstood
thatthe "requeststowhich resolution731refed includethe "demands"of thethree
sponsorsof theresolutionthatLibyasurrender thetwo accusedLibyan nationalsfortriain
theUnitedStates ortheUnite Kdingdom.
3.30 Libya contendsthat in refefnngtothe"requests"containedinthosedocuments
withoutmentioningthe "demands" of thethreesponsoringstatestheCouncilintended to
"distanceitselffrom thosedemands;thatthe Councilbysuchreferenceintended no more
than "areferencetothebilateralrelatiobetween these t ta tes,""^Tconstructionfliesin
theface of thtermsof resolution731 andtheconsiderationofthe matterin the Councll.
A. SecutitvCouncilResolutjon731
3.31 Resolution731 urgesLibya toprovidea fullandeffectiveresponseto the
rquests addressedto theLibyan authontieby France,the United Kingdom and theUnited
Libyaarguesthat theresalutionscannot,asa legamatter,beconsmed torequire
Libyato surrenderthe two suspects,incesuch adecisionby theCouncil wouId,in Libya's
view, violatetheUnitedNationsCharte ardpriaciplesofinternationlaw. &, u,
Libyan Memonal, paras.2.17, 2.31, 2.426.1,6.44-6.141. Seealsopms. 4.01-4.38,
below .
LibyaMemorial, parai5.16.
l6Libyan Mernorial, paras6.11. (translation(emphasisinoriginal)States. Those documentscontaindemandsthatLibyawrrenderthe two suspectsfor trial
inthe UnitedStatesor theUnitedKingdom. For example,the thre etateasserted:
"Thethree StateMm theircornpletcondemnation of temrism in di itsfoms
and denounce any complicityofStatesintemrisrn açts. Thethre Statesrd5m
theircornmitment toput anendto temirism.
"Inthisconnection,followingtheinvestigatioded out intothebornbingsof Pan
Am 103and UTA 772thethreeStateshavepresented specifidemands totheLibyan
authoritierelatedtothejudicialproceduresthatareundet way. Theyrequirethat
Libya cornplywith al hese demands,and, in additionthatLibyacommit itself
conctetelyand dcfinitivelytceaseailfoms of temrist actioand al lssistancto
terroristgroups. Libyamustpromptly ,y concreteactions,proveitsrenunciationof
terrorism"'l8
Moreover, theUnitedStates and UnitedICingdom jointlydeclared:
"TheBritishand AmencanGovernmentstodaydeclaretbt the Governent of Libya
mut:
- sumnder fortrialdithose chargedwiththecrime; and acceptresponsibi2ity
- for theactionsofLibyan officiais;
-
disclosealitknows ofthiscrime,includingthenamesof allthose
responsible, andallow fumess to di witnessesdocuments and other
materialevidence,includinallthe remainingtirners;
- pay appropriatecompensation.
3.32 The sponsorsof Resolution731 also madeclearintheir statementin
connectionwith the adoptionoftheresolutionthatitquests toLibya includedspecificcilly
Exhibit9, p. 2;Exhibit8, p.9. Thejoint declarationdiffereonlyintheBritish
insertionof "complete"before"responsibXlity."the"demands" to sumnder the two suspectsfortriacintained in thdocuments thatthey
submittedtathe Counçil. ThePermanent Repsesentativeofthe UnitedStates,
Mr, Pickering,describedwhatwas intendedby referencesto the "requestthatare the
subjectof Resolutio731:
"The resolutiojusadapted respondstoa specialsituationthatbas been brought
before this Council. mnkesa straightforwar d uest ofLibya:that itcooperate
fuUy intuming overits offrciawhohave been UldictBor imphcated inthese
bombings andthatit takeconcreteactionsto eonducitselfin aa law-abidingState.
...The resolutionprovidesthatthepeopleaccusedbe skply and directlyturneodver
to thejudicid authoritiesof thetwo Governmentwhichare cornpetentunder
internationallawto try
Makingclearthat use oftheterni"requests"was not intendeorirnderstoodto
theCouncilfrom the"demands" set outin thdocuments subrnitteta theCouncilby the
threesponsor Msr. Pickerinadded:
"Untii now, Libyhas refus4 to respondto thoserequestandhas soughtto evade
itsresponsibditi=andto procrastinat121
SimilarlySirDavid Hannay, thePermanent Representativof theUnitedKingdom referred
to the"demandso "fthetb sponsoringpartiesin temsof "requeststo Lib~a.'~~
3.33 So toowith thestatementof thIkputy PermanentRepresentativeof France,
Mr. Rochereaude le Sablière:
"Inthesecircurnstances,Francehopesthatheunanimou msction of theinternational
cornmunit ,yexpressedby theSecuritCouncil initsresolution731 (992) ...wilZ
inducetheLibyan authorititu respondvery quicldyto theses-uestsothejudicid
lZ0Exhibit19, p.79. (Ernphasisadded.)
lZ1m.
'22fiid, pp.102-103. authoritiesconductintheinvestigatiointotheheinousattackscommitted against
UTA flight772 and Pm Am flight103 ...."lu
3.34 Moreover, the discussiothatoccud in theCounciiin regar to Resolution
731 makes no senseif thterm "requests"is construedsasto excludethe "demands" set
outin documents thatthethreesponsoringstatessubdtted to thSesurityCouncil.Thus,
Libyaobjectedto theproposedresolutionbecauseitcontravend whatLibya viewedas its
rightsunder thMontreal Conventionand generaiprincipleof internationlaw to refuste
sursenderthetwo a~cusA.'~~ Inaddition,someMernbers of theCouncil expressedconcern
thattheresolutionnotbeviewed asa gened precedentbecauseof the implicationsthat such
a precedentrnighthaveforthelaw goveniing extraditiof nationds.'" Infaçt,the
sponsoringstatesworkedwiththesestate tosensurethattheproposed resolutionwouldnot
estabiish suchprecedent. As thePermanent Representativof Venezuelastated:
'me countriesthatsponsoredthisresolution-theUnited States,Franceandthe
UnitedKingdom - worked withthegroup of non-alignedcountrierepreseni tethe
Councilandmadetheclear declaration thatthisresolutioisexceptionaby its nature
andcannotbeconsidered inany way asa precedentbut isonlyfor thosecasesin
wbich statesareXnvolvedinactsof terrori~rn."'~~
A resolutiothat wasunderstoodto excludethe"demandso "f thesponsoringstatesforthe
surrendexofthe two suspectd Libya nationalswouldnothaveprovoked such concems.
3.35 Finally, Libyasuggeststint statemebyssomemembersof the Security
Councildurhg the discussionrelatitothepeacefulresolutionof disputes,including
lu ad, p.82. (translation) (Emphasiadded.)
24b, p.104.
'" Exhibit19,pp. 58 (Morocco),37 (CapeVerde), 96 ('India, nd101(Venezuela).
126IbJd,p.101.referenceto arbitratiunder Article 14ofthe MontrealConventionand therole setoutfor
theSecretary-Genera inder theresolution,confm Libya'sview thattherewasno intention
on thepartof the Counciltoaddressthe demands oftheth sponsoringstatesthatthetwo
accusaibe surrenderd fax trial. These rnembers, howeverwere simply expressingthehope
thatthiscrisiwould lx resolvd throughnegotiationor diplomacy, assistedbythe
Secretary-Genera lursuantto therole assignehim under theresol~tioo.'~'
3.36 Thus,ResoIution731 requestedthe Secretary-Genedto "seekthecooperation
of Libyato providea full andeffectiveresponsto therequests"of theUnitedStatesandthe
United Kingdom.The reportsof theSecretary-Generd pursuanttothe resblutioindicate
thatthe "requeststo Libya towhich thatresorutionreferwereunderstood toincludethe
"demands"of thethree sponsoringstatesthaLibyasumenderthetwo suspectsfor trial,
B. Rmorts of theSecrem-General mirsuantto SscutitvCouncil Reso'iutio731
3.37 The Secretary-Gened submittedtwo reports on bis efforts,bothof which
address thdrequisemen thatLibyasurrender the two suspects.Inhis second reportthe
Secretary-Genera oluthed thepointsthatthethree sponsoringstaterequestedhim toconvey
to Libyan authorities whichincluded:
"(d) ThethreeGovernmentshaveno objectionto thehand-overof the suspectsand
theinformationrequestedtakZngplacethroughtheSecretary-Genesao lf theUnited
Nationsinaccordance with ..resolwtion731 .1992).'128
12'wd, pp. 57 (Yemen),59-60 (Morocco), 71 (Zimbabwe), 77'(Cape Verde), 85
(China),96-97 (India),ad 102 (Venezuela).Thereportalsoouthed the responsemade byLibyato thepointsconveyedby the
Secretary-Generaoniiehalfof thethree sponsorhg states.Those pointsreferto
contradictorcornmento sfLibym officiaion thepossibilityof handhgover thetwo
suspects.The SecrebryGeneml concluded:
"Fromtheforegoing,it willlx seenthatwhile 731 hasnotyet beencamplied with,
there hasken certainevolutionin thipositionof theLibyan authoritie... "lZ9
3.38 Any doubtthatthe Council lntendedby itreferenceto the"requests"toLibya
toincludethedemandsof thethreesponsoring Statestosumender thetwo suspects fortrial
was laidto resby Resolutions748 and883.
C. SecuritvCouncilResolution748
3.39 It wasin responsetoLibya'sfailuretocornplywith thoserequeststhatthe
Council imposedsanctionsonLibya inResolution748 with aview to compelhg Libyato
comply. As the Permanent Representativeof theUnitedStatesstatedinconnedon withthe
adoptionof Resolution748:
"We havecaiied upon Libyato comply withthe four requestsincludedin
resolution731 (1992): turnoverthetwo suspectsin thebumbing ofPan Am 103for
trialin eithetheUnited Statesor theUnitedKingdomandmeetthedemandsof
French justice., .
"Overtwo rnonthsagothis Council,actingon behalf of theinternational
community,unanimously urgedthe LiibyaGovernment toprovide afull andeffective
response to thefourdemands.This remlution alsornakesclear the Coiincil'sdecision
thatLibyashouldcomplywiththesedemands. As we sadlyhow, allefforts bthe
Secretaty-Generalt,he Leagueof ArabStatesandindd many othersto bringabout
43, para.6. InResolution748, theCouncilcontinuai themle of the
Secretary-Genera aldalso decidedto reviewthemeasuresimpose$on Libya atleastevery
120 days inlightofthe cornpliancby theLibyanGovernent withthe demands of the
Council andany reportsby theSecretary-Genera lnhis effortstoobtainsuch cornpliance.
SecurityCouncil Resolution748, Exhibit23. Libya'scornpliancehavebeen blocked by Libya'scontinuhgrefusal to cooperatewith
thespecificrequestsmade inresolution731 (1992)""O
3.40 The Councilspecificallymadea deteminationtha thefaiiureof theLibyan
Government todemonstrate its renunciationterroism andin particularits continued
failuretorespond fuUyandeffectivelyto therequestsin resolution731 constitutadht to
internationalpeaceand securi.13'Havingmade such adetemination,theCouncil,acting
under ChapterVII of the Charter, decidedthattheLibyanGovernment must complywiththe
requests,132pebg out in theprocess thatthe requestto whichit mferred arethose
describedin SscurityCoud documents 133
D. SecuritvCouncilResolution883
3.41 Finaliy, Resolution883stateevenmore defdtively theintentionof the
Councilin Resolutions73 1and 748 torequireLibya to surrenderthetwo suspects. In that
resolution,theCounci aff'innedResolutionç731and748; expressed its deeconcern that
Libya hasnot fullycornpliedwiththese resolutionsdemanded"onceagain" thatLibya
comply withthe resolutions;anddecidedto impose additionaleconomicsanctions to mmpel
Libyancornpllance. Indeed, Libyain atguing that thCouncislhouldnotimposesanctions
suggestedthatitalso understoodthatResolution731 referr todthedîmands of thethe
statestosurrenderthe suspectsfortrii altheUnited Statesor theUnited Kingdom. Thus,
the PermanentRepresentativeof Libyastated:
I3OExhibit22, p. 66.
I3lSecurityCounçilResolution 748, Exhibit23, preambula prara.7.
'j2Secunty CouncdResoIution748, Exhibit23, paras.1, 13.
13'Exhibits9, 10 and 11. "However,the mth of thematteristhattheLibyarJamahiriyahasfuilyrespondedto
SecurityCouncilxesolution731 (1992). Tonlypointthat=mains outstandinis
theproblemthatmse fromthedemandby theUnited StatesofAmerica andthe
UnitedKingdomthatthe two allegedsuspectsbe extraditdTbisisaprobIem that
remainsunsolvedbecauseof alegalwrangleoverwhkhcountryhas thecornpetence
inlawto try thetwo personaccusedof involvemeninthebombin gf PanAm flight
103overLocke*, S~otland.'~~~
The CounciIalsoexpressietsxeadinesto reviewtheeconomicsanctio witha view to
suspendhg themimmediatelyiftheSecretary-GenerarepostetotheCouneil thatheLibyan
Governent hadensuredtheappearanceof tbetwo suspectfortnal in theUniteStateor
the UniteKingd~rn. A'st~eDeputyPermanent Representativof Francesaidh
connectiowiththe adoptioof Resolution883:
"The thre ponsorsof theresolutiohavebeen accuse of havhga hiddenagenda
againsttheLibyanregime. Thetextof theresolutt iont urCouncL hasjust
adoptedshows thatthatis noso,andit pavesthwayfora speedysolution. If the
LibyanGovemment cooperateseffectivelywimycountry jdsiciauthoritiein
theUTA 772case, and Ifit handsoverto thecompetentcourtsthetwo suspectsin
13' Exhibi32, para.16provides:
"The SecurityCouncil,
"16. EXDESS~iSts readinessto reviewthemeasuresetfortabove andin resolution
748 (1992)witha view to suspendiigthem immediateithe Secretary-General
reportstotheCounci tlattheLibyanGovemmenthasensuredthe appearancof
thosechar@ withthebombing of PanAm 103 fortriabefore theappropriaUnited
Kingdomor UnitedStatescourtandhassatisfiedtheFrenchjudiciaI authoritieswith
respectto thebombing of WA 772, andwith aview to liftingthemimmediately
when Ljbyacompliesfuliywiththerequestsanddecisionin resolutio731 (1992)
and748 (1992);and mjests theSecretay-Genesal,within90 dayof such
suspensiontoreporttotheCounci onLibya'scornpliance iththeremaining
provisionof Itsresolutions73(1992)and748 (1992)and,inthe caseofnon-
cornplianceexDressesits resolveto terminateimrnediatdsuspensioof these
measures;. . . ." theattackon Pan Am 103, the Gouncilwiii immediatebe abletoadopta resolution
suspendhgtheimplementati~o nfaüthesanctions."'36
This provisionwhichsemes to encourageLibya tosumder the twosuspects,ernphasizes
theunderstandhg oftheMembersof the CouncilthatLibya is quird underthe resolutions
totak uch action, Sincetheadoptioof Resolution883,the SeeurityCouncionfour
occasionshasreviewedLibyan cornpliance ittherequirementsimpasedby theCouncilin
Resolution748. The sanctionshaveremainedunaltereand continueineffect. PART IV
EVEN IF THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION, ITSHOULD DECLIN3 TO EXERCISE
JURISDICTION IN TRESE PROCEEDINGS
4.01 Even iftheCourt wereto concludethatLibya'sApplicationestablishedsome
respectadisputerelatintotheinterpretationor applicaofotheMontrealConvention and
thatthe~equkments of Article 1ofthe Montreal Conventionhadbeenmet, theCourt
nonetheIessshoulddeche toexercisjwrisdictiintheseproceedings. The actionsto
whichLibyaobjectsare theactionof theSecurityCounciIinResolutions731,748 and 883,
deteminhg that Libya'sfailuto respondfullyand effectivetotherequeststhat Libya
surrenderthetwo accusedfortriaintheUnited Stateor theUnitedKingdomçonstitutesa
threatto internatiopeaceand securitdecidingthatthe Governent of Libyamust
comply withtfiasquests, and iniposingeconomicsanctionsandothermasures to cornpel
Libyato complywiththose reque~ts T.'~reliefsoughtbyLibya invitetheCourt to
challengethebindingdecisionsothe Council;otherwise, the Testforrelief is
meaningless.ndaçademic.
4.02 Libyaargues thateveniftheresolutionsby the2 terms purpotoimpose a
requiremen o surrenderthetwo accusedthoseresolutioncouldnot prejudiceLibya's
rightsunderthe Charterandinternationla^.'^^Ineffect, Libyseekstohave theCourt
review theactionoftheSecurityCounciiin adoptingthe resolutiinsLighof the
'37Seegaras.3.29-3.41,above.
138LibyanMernorial,paras.6.44-6.136.
90provisionsof theCharter. Such a review inthesecontentiouspmceedings, wherethe sole
aliegedbasisof jurisdictiois theMontreal Convention,wouldbe incompatible withthe
functionof theCourt undertheCharter. For tliisrason, theUnited Statesdoes notbelieve
thatthe Courtshould conductsuch areview,even thoughtheUnited Statesis conf~dentthat
theCouncilhad fullauthorityforitsactions. ChapterI
A Decisionby the Court toAcceptJuiisdiction intheseProceedirigsisIncompatiblewith
the Functionsof the Court
4.03 The actionstowhichLibyaobjects in theseproceedingsaredecisionsof the
SecurityCounçiltakeninthefuIfdlmentof its duties underChaptVa: ofthe Charterwith
respectto threatsto internatileaceand security.As a resultanyjudgment by theCourt
in regarto therightsandobligationsof thePartiesunder tMontreaiConvention cannot
have anypradcai consequen foe sibya.
4.04 Itis dficulttoconceivehowthe Court couldadd~ss Libya'sclaimson the
meritsof Libya"Applicationby anBnterpretatioor applicatiof theMontrealConvention.
To gmt Libya reliefthe Courtnecessarrlwouldinvolve itself areviewof the authority
of theSe~uritCouncii tomake thedecisionscontainedinResolutions748and 883. That
questionis, howeverfarbeyond an "intespretatior applicatioof thMontreal
Convention,"theonlysubjectmatterover which theCourt'sjuridictionaliegedlextendsin
thismattes,Moreover, any judgmentby theCourt in regardto thesemattercanoniy serve
a politicpurpose thawouldbeinconsistent withthejvdiciacharacterand functionof the
Coud.Section1. Anv Judgmentthatthe CourtMightRenderWouldBe WithoutPractical Effect
andWouldErnbroil theCourtin a PoliticalDispute.
4.05 Any decisionof the Courtin thesepmceedingscouIdhaveno bindingforce
excep as betweenthePaatiesandinrespect of thiparticulacase.' 3utit is nottheUnited
States(or the United Kingdom)thatrequires Libto sumnder the two accuseo d,that cm
lift theconomicsanctio andsothermasures imposedonLibyaby Resolutions748 and883
to cornpesucha surrender. Itis onltheSecurity Councilwhich cando so.
4.06 Of course,Libyais freto requestandthe Courthas authontytuissue
declaratoryrelief.owever, anydeclaratoryreliefthat theCourt couprovideinthese
proceedingswould not beconsistentwiththejudicial functiontheCourt. As the Court
saidin the NorthernCameroons case:
"ThattheCourt may ,inan appmprîatecase,makea declaratorjudgment, is
indisputable.The Courthas,however,already indicatedthaeven if,whenseisedof
anApplication, t:iCourtfmds thatithasjurisdiction,it is notobfigeexerciseit
inall cases.IftheCourtis satisfiedwhateverthe natureofthereliefclaimed, thatto
adjudicateon themerltsof anapplicatiowould be inconsistewithits judicial
function,itshouldrefusetodo s~.''~~
4.07 If the declaratorrelieLibyaseeks is limitto theinterpretatiand
applicatioof theMontrealConventionandignoresthe effectof ResoIutio748 and 883 on
therightsand obligationsof theParties, theCourt'sdeciscan onlybe of academicinterest
and,therefore,wouldnot be appropriatto the Court'judicidfynction.""
"' Article 59 of the Statuteof theInternatCourtof Justi pceovides: "Thedecision
of the Courthasno bindingforceexceptbetween thepartiesandinrespectof thatpdcular
case."
14Vase Concemine The NorthernCameroons {Cameroonv, UnitedKingdom)
FVeLiminaw Ob-iections,udgrnent.I.C.JRmorts 1963,p. 14 ap. 37.
See ibid,p.35. 4.08 Ifthedeclamtory reliefLibyaseeks addressesthe legalitofSecurityCouncil
actions, it woulgo beyondaninterpretationor applicationof theMonW Conventionand
wouldinvolve an hterpretationand applicatioofthe Charter. Forthe SecurityCouncil,
which isnot aparty tcthepmwedhg, theeffectoftheCous's pronouncemenw touldnot be
bkding. The judgment,therefore,couldnot have any practicaeffectonthe obligationof
Libya under ChapterVIL ofthe United NationsChartesandunder SecurityCouncil
Resolutions748 and883 tosurrenderthe two accusedpersons.
4.09 It is clearthatLibya,nonethelesse& suchan ophion to further itpolitid
effortstoreverseResolutions748 and 883. Acceptuigjurisdictionin thesecontentious
pmdings for thatpurposerisksrnoving theCourt beyondFtsjudicialEunctionandont0 the
politicalplane.As theCourt has stated:
"Itmay be alseagresd .. thatafterajudgment isrendered,the usewhich the
successfulpaxtyrnakesofthejudgment is matter which fiesonthe political andnot
onthe judiciaplane. But itisnotthe functionofa courtrnerelytoprovidea bais
forpoliticalactionif noquestionofactudlegalrightsisinv~lved."'~~
Consequently,açceptingjurisdictioin theseproceedingsIsincompatiblewith thejudicid
character othe Court.Section2. The CourtShouldDeclineto ExerciseJurisdictiointhis Braceedin~toAvoid
un der min it^e Abilitvof thSecuritvCounciltoMaintain and RestoreInternationaPace
andSecuritv.
4.10 A decisionbythe Courtto exercisjurisdictiointheseproceedingsfor the
purposeof pmvldingLibyawiththeopporhinity tochdenge decisions ofthe Security
Councilmade underChapterWI of theCharterwould be con- to theCourt'sconsistent
practicof suppottingtheSecuriiyCounçilin theexerciseof itph- responsibiliiyunder
the Charterformaintahhgandrestoringinternationalpeaceandsecurity.
4.11 TheCourthasody twicespecificallyaddress thdquestionof itsautho&y to
reviewthe actionsoftheother principaorgansof theUnitedNations. In both instances,the
Court was actinginresponseto a requesforanadvisoryopinionfmm anotherprincipal
organ seekingtheCourt'sviews&fore decidinguponwhat actionthatorganwouldtakein a
specificsituationIn=ch instanc teeCourtheld thatitdoes notpossessthe generalpower
toreview theactionsofotherprincipalUnitedNations organs.
4.12 Inthe Expensescase,the GeneaalAssembly requestedthe Courtto givean
advisoryopiniononthe questionofwhethertheexpendituresauthorizedby theGeneral
Assembly regardtopeacekeegingoperationsinthe Congo and the MiddleEastconstituted
expensesof the United NationsOrg-tion withh therneaning ofArticle17 of the Charter.
In thosepmceedngs, aquestionaroseas to thejunsdictionof the Couto review the
authorityofthe UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly toinitiatesuchoperationsThe Court
concluded,based uponthe debatesinthe Generd Assembly, thattheGeneral Assembly"took ifor grantedthat thCourt" wouldconsider such questionsI .1m4iving atthat
conclusion,the COUR said that:
"Itis notobe assumd thattheGeneral Assembly wouldthus seekto fetteos
hamperthe Court inthedischargeof itjudicialfunctions.
Howevex, in addressingthese issuetheCourm tore generallconcluded:
"Inthelegalsystemsof States,there is oftensomeprocedurefordeteminhg the
validityoeven a legislativeogovemental açt,butno andogou~ procedureisto be
foundin thestructureof the UnitedNations. Proposaismadeduringthedraftingof
theChartertoplaceultimateauthorityto interprthe CharterintheInternational
Courtof Justicwere not acceptedtheopinionwhichtheCourt is incourseof
renderingisanadvisory ophion."
4.13 TheCourtreiteratedtheseviews Uithe advisoryopinionit renderd inhgal
Consesuencesfor Statesof theContinued Presenceof SouthAfriea inNamibia(SouthWest
Africa). Inthatcase,the SecurïtyCouncilrequestedtheCourt torender anadvisory opinion
on thelegalconsquences forstateof theactionsof theUnitedNations inregard to
SouthwestAfiica.lQ6
4.14 Astbe Courtnoted:
"The requestis puforward by aUnited Nationsorgan withreferenceto itsown
decisionand itseekslegaladvicefromthe Court ontheconssquencesand
implicationofthesedecisions"14'
143CertainEx~ensesof theUnitedNations. AdvisorvOpinion. I.C.J. Reports1942, p.
151 atp. 157.
'45IbJd, p. 168.(Ernphasiis original.)
146Legd Consquences forStatesof the ContinuedPresenc oeSouthAfica in Namibia
(SouthWest Africa)I.C.J. Reports1971, p.16atpp. 17-18.
14'm, p. 24.Thus, the Court wasexpresslyaskedbythe SecurityCounci tlcommenton resolutions
adqted bythe Councilin theexerciseof "whatitdeemed to beits pdary sesponsibility,
themaintenance ofpeaceandsecurity."14'
4.15 Inthatcase,it was arguedthatthe Courshouldnot assumepowers of judicial
reviewover theactionstakenby otherprincipalorgansoftheUnitedNationswithout a
specificrequestotha effect, antha the= hadbeen no speçifirequest. The Courtstated
that:
"Undoubtedly the Courtdoes notpossesspowers ofjudicialreviewosappealin
respectofthe decisiontakenby theUnited Nationsorgansconcemd ...
However,in theexerciseofitsjudiciafundon andsinceobjectionshave been
advancedthe Court i,thecourseof itsreasoning,wiU considertheseobjections
beforedeteminhg anylegal consequencesainsingfromthoseresolutions.
The Court's decisiotoconsiderobjectionswastaken withznthecontextof therequestby
theSeçurityCouncilforanadvisoryopinionwhiçhneithesZimitd thernannerin whîch the
Courtcuuldrespondto that requestnorimpugnedstaternentsofotherstntesthatthe rquest
was broad enoughto encompass anyquestionsreasonablyarisinginçonneEUo withthe
4.16 A decisioby the Courttoexerçisejurisdictiointhepresentpmeedings
wauld be inconsistentwiththCourt'slong establishedpractiin contentioucasestogive
fullbackingto the effortsof theCouncilto maintainor restoreinternatleace and
securityandnot tointerferwiththe çonsequencesof theSecuritCouncil'sdecisionthata
particulnsituationconstitutethreattosuchpeace andsecurity. We the Courthasdecidedthatitand theSecurityCouncilmay properlyexercisetheirrespectivfunctionswith
regardtothe sanieinternationl isputeor situationthlsCourthasnever exercis isd
independenatuthonttto undermineorin anyway impingeupon orfrustrate thedecisioof
theSecunty Councilin deaPUigwiththreatstointernationpeaceand securityThis is
exactIywhatLibyais callingupon theCourtto do sinc eoother resulcan provideLibya
withthereliefitis seeki.g
4.17 UnderChapter V1Iof the Charter,theSecurityCouneilalonehas theauthority
tu detemine thaa situationinvolvesthreat tinternationalpeaceandsecurityandto make
IegaUybindingdecisionsregardhg themeasures tobetaken in responsetosuch threats.
Suchdeteminations and decisionnecessady tequireapolitidjudgment bas4 on an
assessrnentf the Uelyconsequen cethecontinuationofaparticularsituation. A
decisionbythe Courtto acceptLibya'sinvitation reopen theCouncil'sdecisionsusing
contentiouproceedj nnssitutedundertheMontrealConvention, would invitesuch
challengeta theactionsofthe Councilinother casesandwould introduceuncextaintinthe
exerciseofthe Council'sfundamentarlesponsibiliformaintabhg and restorhg
internationgleaceandsecurity.It wouldbringinto questionthefinâli anda~thontyof
every actioof theSecurityCounciiunderChapter W, andthusprovide abasis for
chaiiengingon a protractedbasis, effortsof the intemationai communirestoreor
maintaininternationalce and security.
Militarvand ParamilitanActivitieinand anainstNicmma Nicarapua v. United
States)PfeEiminawObiections.Jud~ment.1.C.J. Reports 1984,pp. 435-36;Case
ConceminaUnited StatesDinlomaticandConsularStaff inTehran Wnited Statesv.Iranl,
Judgrnent ,.CJ. Rmarts 1980,pp. 21-22;Ae~ean SeaContinentalShelfCase (Greecev.
Turkevl.lnterirnMeasuxes.I.C.J.Reports 1976,p. 27. 4.18 The Court hasconsistentlresistealleffortstatakaectionsthatcouldweaken
the abilityof the SecurityCounctoperform thisvitataskon behalf of theinternational
community ,andshouldcontinueto doso inthese prwseedings.Thus, even iftheCourt had
jurisâictionundetheMontrealConvention, inthecircurnstanceof thiscaseitmay and
shoulddeclineto exercisethatjurisdictian. ProfessorRosenne baswritten,theCourt, in
its capacitas aprincipalorganof theUnite Ndations:
"mustcooperateinthe attahment of the aimsof theOrganizatioandstnve to give
effectothe decisionsoftheotherprincipalorgans,and notachieveresultswhich
would renderthem nugator y'''
Anotherscholar hascommented:
"Eventhoughthesituation caninvolvemany interesthgjusticiableissues,
adjudicatioby theCourt, pendhg proceedingsin the Council,couldunnecessdy
complicateand aggravatthe situationAccordingly,insuch a situation,insteadof
promothgthepeacefulsettlementof disputestheCourtcould endanger the
maintenanceof internationpeace andsecurit, thevery backboneof the
orgbtion "15'
In eachcase where a likeissuhadbeen broughtto theCourt i,actedto supportthe
SecurityCo~ncil.'~~As descrlbedby JudgeTmi inthe Aepean Seacase:
"Forif it is tme andcertainthatthe Courtan independentandjudicial orga...it
isno lessme thatitisan integrapartof the UnitedNations.... /
"Thatbehg so, thepresent Court whiie rnaintainingits independence,shonot fail
totakeint considerationthisbasictnrth, namelythatit an integralpartof the
S. Roseme, The Law and Fracticeof thInternationaCourt,p. 70 (1985),Exhibit
60.
152T. Elsen, LitispendenceBetweentheInternational ourtof JusticeandtheSecurity
Council,p. 69(19861,Exhibit61.
lS3Case Concernin~United StateDiplornaticandConsular Staf fnTehm Wnited
Statev. Iran)Judment. I.C.J. Reports 1980,pp. 20-21;&ean Sea Continental Shelf
Case[Greece v. Lurke~l,Judgment.I.C.J. Reports1978, p. 3. United Nations. TheCharter,whosegenesis marird a new stageinthecourse of
history,feabressomeessentialdifferencesincornparisowiththeprovisionsof its
predecessor, theCovenantoftheLeague of Nations.Thosedifferencesweredue to
thenewsituation whichStatesand pwples had tofaceon accountof theconsequenees
of theSecondWorldWar andof thedevelopmentswhich pded or triggeredits
outbreak.
"There is nonecessithere toconsiderthesedifferenceindem. Onemaycontent
oneselfwiththeaKmation that, byvirhieoftheCharter, theSecurityCouncilbears
anessentialresponsibrliforthe maintenan oceeace andsecuïity.The Court, if
circurnstancessorequireoughtto collaboratintheaccompfishmen tfthis
fundamentam l ission'-1u
4.19 Because jurisdictioninthisproceedingibasedsolelyon theMontreal
Convention,theCourt can avoidenteringintoLibya'sdisputewiththe SecuritCounci and
avoidtherisksthatsuch actionbythe Courtcould haveon theabilityof the Council to
maintainor restosinternationpleaceand securityAny decisionbytheCourt toaiiow
Libyato challengeintheseproceedingstheauthoxityoftheSecurityCouncilto adopt
Resolutions731, 748and883 wouId encoumge Stateagainstwhich theSecunty Council
proposesto takeor bastakenactionunderChapter V11to initiateproceedinagainsta
-
rnemberof the Councilunderanytreaty oneven the mostattenuateofjurisdictionbases in
thehopeof fmstratingsuch actionSuch a decisiowouldseriouslyweakeatheCouneil's
abiiittom&tain peaci and securitinfuturecircumstanceswhich areunforeseenand
unf~reseeabl ehe'~ourt, asaCO-relativerincipalUN organwiththe SecurityCouncil,
sboulddeçlinetoacceptjurisdictionin this matter.
'5Aegean Sea ContinentaS helfCase[Greecev .Turkev),Inte- Measures,1.C J.
Rmorts 1976,p.3 atp.33.
lS5See statemenof thePermanent RepresentativoftheUnited Kingdomduring the
debateinthe Councd relatingto theadoptioofResolution748, Exhibit 22, pp, 68-69. Chapter 11
The Security Councilhas Fuii Authorityto Require Libya to Surrenderthe Two
Accused Fersons
4.20 inits Memoial, Libyachallenges the authorityof the SecurityCounciitomake
thedetermination snd decisionswntainedin Resolutions731,748 and 883, arguhg thatthe
resolutionviolateArticles1(1)and 2{7) of theCharteand thatrecoursetu ChapterVU
constitutea misuseof thepowerof theCouncil. Forthereasonsdiscussedabove, theCourt
shoulddeclineto undertakesuch areview. NonetheIess,the UnitedStatesdoesnot wish to
leaveLibya's contentionunanswersd and providesthe followinginfornation fothe record.
4.21 Libya'sarguments ignorethe mandateof the SecuritCouncil underthe Charter
to act, on ùehaof allMembersof theUnited Nations,effectivelto exerciseits
responsibilitformaintainhg andrestoringinternationalpeaceandsecurity" In
Resolution731, basedon its cornmitmentto elhinate intemationatemnsm "15'the
SecurityCouncilurgedthe LibyanGovernmentimrnediatelyto provide a fullandeffective
responseto therequestsof theUnited Stateand the UnitedKingdom tosurrenderthe two
accused for InResolution748, basedon its detemination thatthe Libya'sfailuto
demonstrateby cancreteactionitsrenunciationof terrorisand particularlitscontinued
failuretorespondfullyand effectivelyto the requestsconstitutea "threatto international
lf6UnitedNationsCharter, Article 24.
'" SscurityCouncY Resolution731,Exhibit18,preambular para.7.
158m, para. 3.peaceand security,"'"thSecurityCouncildecidedundeï ChapterVil of theCharterthat
Libya mustcomplywithout anyfurther delaywiththoseq~ests.'~~ In Resolution883, the
Council,expressingis determinatioto eliminateinternatiolerrorismandacting once
againunderCbapter VII of theCharter,demanded thatLibyacornptywithoutany further
dday with thetems of Resolutions731and 748 and imposaiadditiona anctionson Libya
inan effort tobtainsuchcornpliance. Thedeteminationsof threatto internatiopeace
andsecuritybythe ody body expresslyautiiorizand,indeai dicectedunderthe Charter ta
make suchdeteminations,16 'rovidesthelegalbasisunderthe CharterfortheCounciE to
make a decisionunderÇRapter VIIthatrequiresLibyato sumender thetwo suspectsfor trial.
inthe UnitedStatesostheUnitedKingdom,notwithstandinA g rticle2(7).
Section 1. TheActionsof theSecuritvCouncilareFullvConsonantwithPrincir~leosf
Justicend Internationalaw
4.22 Libya arguesthatthe SecuntyCouncilResolutionsviolateArticlel(1 )ecause
-
theyignorethereguirement thatanyeffortto brhg aboutanadjustmentor settlementofan
internationaldisputeorsituationin eonfonnity with prhciples jusricand international
law. More'specifically,Libyaarguesthattheresolutionsviolateprinciplesof justiceand
internationallabecausetheyignorewhatLibya perceivesis its nght under theMonireal
Conventionandgeneralprinciplesof internationallawto exercisejurisdictionothetwo
159SecurityCouncilResolution748,Exhibit22, preambula r ara.7.
Ibom, para.1.
16'
UnitedNationsCharter,Article39.
102accused.' Libyaalsoargues thatanyrsquirementto surrenderthetwo accuse4 to the
United Stateor theUnifedKingdom fortrialwould hftingeArticle1(1)by violatingthe
rightof theaceusedto afab trial lndthepresumption of innocencetowhichtheyare
entitleunder internationlaw.lM Thesimple Lesponse tttheseargumentsis thattheydo
notaddress enforcementactionbythe SecuntyCouncil under ChapterW.
4.23 As Libyaachowledges:
"Itis tnie tunder thetermsof Article1(1),cornpliancwiththe principlesof
justiceandinternationallais aquirement only fox theadjustmentorsealement of
situationordisputes;itdoes notapplyto the "collectimasures for thprevention
and fernovalofthreatstothepeace " entionedinthefmt partof the
Libyaproposes toignorethedistinctionsbetweenactionsoftheCouncilunder ChapterVI,
dealingwiththe"Peaceful SettlementofDisputes"between statesandChapter VII ,eaiing
with "ActionwithRespectto Wts to thePeace, Breachesof thePeace andActs of
Aggre~sion. By'igriorinihis distinctiLibyaignore tsesimcance of ChapterVII of
the Charter.
162LibyanMernorial,paras. 6.64-6.83,Article 1 of the UnitedNationsCharter
provides:
"ThePurposes oftheUnitedNations are: (1)Ta maintaininternationalpeaceand
security,anto thatend;to take effectivecollective masures for the pteventionand
remuval of threattopence, andforthe suppressionof actof aggressionor other
breachesof the peace, anto brhg aboutby peacefulmeans, and inconformitywith
theprjnciplesofjusticeandinternationallaw, adjustmeor setüementof
internationaldisputeorsituationswhich rniglead toa breach of thpeace..."
Zjbyan Mernorial,paras.6.78-6.79.
164md, paras.6.82.
1M IbA, paras.6.70-6.6 7.8,. 4.24 LibyaconsistentlmaintainedbeforetheGouncil thatthequestionof
jurisdictiototrythe twoaccused relatetoa IegaldisputebetweenLibya andthe United
States(andtheUnited Kingdom) in relatioto thehterpntation andapplicationof the
MontrealConventionandrhattheCouncil,therefore,shouldrefrain £rom takingactionunder
Chapter VII seekinto compel thesumndexof thetwo accused pendhg negotiation,
mbitrationand,finallyactionbythis Courtin theseprocdings. The Councilhas
repeatedlydeclinetu arxeqtthosearguments andfiasactedto compelLibya tosurrenderthe
two accused. As Libya ach~wledges, theCouncil actedunderChaptex Va to determinethat
Libya'scontlnuedrefusalto cornplwiththesequests oftheUnited StatesandtheUnited
Kirigdom constituteathreatto internationleace andsecurity.
4.25 Despitefailingin its effortopersuadetheCouncii totreatthismattersimply
asa disputeunder ChapterVI, Libya,nonetheless,seks tohave theCourtapplythe
requirementsof ChapterVI toactionstakenbythe Council underChapter VI?. Such action
wouldrequirethe Cour toignore thefundamentaldistinctiocontalnedin theCharter
rehtingto theauthorityoftheCouncil. As Libya admits,theactionsofthe CounciJunder
ChapterVI are recornrnendatory .he situationiMferentunder ChapterW. Not only
havethe CouncilbddecisionusnderChapterWi resultedinbindinglegd obligationsfor
member statestheyhave alsoresuItedinobligationthatsupersde existingcon£licting
obligationsofthosestateunderotheragreements,such astheMontrai Convention.
4.26 Thus, Articl103 expresslyprovidesthatintheeventof any mnflictbetween
the obligationsof menibeStateunder the Charteand theirobligationsnder "any otherinternationl greement, their obligationsunder the Chartersprevai.67 Whateverthe
situationof the PartiesrindertheMontrd Conventiopriorto the adoptioofResolution
748, aftetheadoptionof thatresolutiontheirCharter obligatiunderthe decisionsothe
Councilprevail.6'
4.27 'Ibthe extentthatprinciplesof justicemuldbe stodencompass arequirement
torespe cxistingagreements,Articl103 demonstratesthattheSecurityCouncilwas notto
berestral lyiedchprinciples inmakingdecisionsunderChapterW. Nor should such
phciples be sonarrowly consmed. The phciples are sufficientlyflexitoencompass
actionstakenby theCouncilto restoreandmaintaininternationalpeacandsecuritywhich
is thefustandprimarypurposeof the UnitedNations.
4.28 The SecuntyCouncil didnotacqt Libya'sclairnsthatsurrenderofthe two
suspectsfortrial woulviohte theirrightstafairtrialora presumptionoftheirinnocence
based uponphciples of justicand internationlaw. A tri altheUnited Kingdom or
UnitedStateswould encompass thehigheststandardofjusticeandfairnessuicludinstrict
adherenceto thepresumptionof innocenc e .seduponinformation suppliedby theUnited
Kingdom andthe UnitedStates,theSecreîary-Gened respondedin detaiin1993to
questionsposed by the LibyanGoverment regardingthe proceduresto be foilowed attrXd
andtheprotectionsthatwouldbe guaranteed tothetwo defendants.Tbeseprotections
includetherighttochallengepotentid jurorsperernptoriorforcause,the nghtto examine
and challengephysicalevidence,therightto cross-examinegovernent witnesses,and the
-
lb7
SeePart IIIabove.
Order onProvisionalMeasures,p. 126.
105righttotestifyor rernaisilentMoreover,defendants alsohavetherîght to appealthetrial
court'sverdicto anappeilatecourtwberejudges cm review thetriaproceedingsin orderto
detemine whether thetrialcourtpmperlyobservedthedefendant's rights.The Libyan
Governent found the Secretnry-Gened'sresponse tobe "adequat e ndacceptable.
4.29 Inanyevent, thedecisiontorequirethe sumndet of thesetwo individualswas
made by theCouncil inthe exerciseofitsdutieunder theCharter forthemaintenanceof
internationpeace andsecurity. Any cornplaintthaLibyamayhave agaifistheSscurity
Councilshould betaken upwiththe SecuritCounciland not withtheUnited States[andthe
UnitedKingdom) by referencetotheMontreal Convention.
Section2. The Actions oftheSecuritvCouncil do not ViolatArticle2M of the Charter
4.30 Libya argues thatinquiring ittosurrenderthetwo accused, theCouncil has
actedconw totheprinciplecontallieinArticle2(7) of theCharteragainsthkwentlon in
matterswhich areessentiallywithinthedomesticjurisdictionoa state.17Once again,there
isa simpleresponse toLibya's objectionZn factthe principlagainstsuch interventionis
subjecttoanexception. Article217)pmvides:
"~othi nontahzd in the presentCharteSM authorizethe UnitedNationsta
intemene inrnatterswhichare essentiallywithinthe domesticjurisdictof any state
or shdi requiretheMembersto submitsuchmatters to settIemenunder the present
Charter;butthis vrinciple shanotwreiudicetheapplicationof enforcernentmasures
under ChariterVIL"
(Emphasis added.) And, asLibyaacknowledges:
-,
-
16'Mbit 31, Annex,p. 2.
LibyanMernorial, paras, 6.85-6.98.
106 "Thesecm be no doubt,then, thatwhen athreattopeace &ses, Article2(7)mot
prevent the Council.fromhandlingthe matter"17'
4.31 Libyawvs thata state'juridiction overitnationalsforpurposesof
prosecuthgchbal casesand, particularly, therigofa statetorefuseextradition,ia
matterwhichis essentidiy withinthedomesticjurisdictionof astate."'2s argument
ignoresthe interestswhich theinternationlommunityhas inthe prosecutionof individuals
whose actionsthreateninternationpleaceand secuity,and the determinationby theSecurity
CouncilthatLibya's continuedfajlurtu renounce terronsm and inparticulato fully and
effectivelrespond totherequestsof theUnitedStates(andthe UnitedKingdom)to
sursenderthetwo suspectsçonstitutesuchathreat. The Council, in facthastaken vigorous
actionwithregard toaddressingthe criminalbehaviorof individualsmostrecently withthe
establishmenut nderChapterVI[ of spial tribundsto investigateandprosscutewar crimes
inthe former Yugoslaviaand Rwanda.17 3 heresolutionssettingup thesetnbunalsrequire
statestoturnoverindividualsfor tria174No exceptionis providedor intendedfor a
member sa's ownnationals.
Tdb ,para.6.88, (translation)
'72m, paras. 6.91-6.93.
lT3Resolution827, UnitedNationsSecurityCouncd,3217th meeting,25May 1993, UN
Duc. SIRES182 E7,hibit57;Resolution955, United NationsSecurityCouncil, 3453rd
meeting,8 November 1994,UN Doc. S/RES/955, Exhibit 58.
174 Exhibit57, para.4 (decidingthatali Statshall caoperate withrequestsfor
assistanc£rom the Internationalribunalforthe Former Yugoslavia,which rnight include
quests forthe surrenderortransferof theacçusedto the Internationl ribunai);Exhibit
58, para.2 (same decisionapplicabletothe InternationaTribunalforRwanda). -, m,
ibid,p. 14,Rule28(2) ("StatesshallcompIywithoutunduedelaywith any requestfor
-
assistancoran orderissuedby a TrialChamber ,cluding,but notlimitedto ...(e) [tlhe
surrenderor thetransferofthe accusedto the International Tribufor Rwanda").Section3. The SscurityCouncilhas Acted withinits Authoritv
4.32 Libya challengestheautfiorofytheCounci tlmake the determinatiothat
Libyanactionsconstitutathreattopeace,arguing thamaking suchadeterminationwas a
misuseof thepowerof theCouncil Libyareststheseargumentson itsviewof Resolutions
731 and748 thattheCounciEwas not respondinto anythreatteinternationleaceand
security,butwas simplymahg thedetermination to investitself withthe authormakeo
thedecisiontoreguireLibyato sumnder thetwo ac~uJed.'~~ nceagain,Libya made.these
same argumentstothe Counci andtheCounciirefused to accepthem.
4.33 The SecurityCouncilobviouslyhada strongbasisuponwhichto concludethat
Libya'sactionsconstihtda threatointernational eacandsecuritytherebyjushfying its
decisionsunderChapterVII oftheUnitedNationsCharter. The Governments of three
Mernbers of theSecuntyCouncilhaverepeated slyghtLibya'sfulcooperationintheir
investigatiof thetemristdestructioof PanAm 103 and UTA 772withoutsuccess.With
respecttoPan Am 103, two Libyannationalwere formalIyaccusedby afeûeral gmd jury
in theUnitedStateand by theProcuratorFiscalfoDumfriesand GalEoway,Scatland,of
having sabotagedPanAm 103,murdering 270individualsThe Governments of theUnited
StatesandtheUnite Kingdom reguestedthe Governent ofZibya tosurrenderthetwo .
individualfor triaolfacthe chargesmade againstthem.The two governmentsalso
providedthe SecuritCouncilwithcopiesof thecourtpaperswhichprovidedthe detailof
theaccusationagainstthetwo Libyanagents,which includednumemuschargesimplicatbg
17'LibyanMernorial,paras.6.108-6.129.Libyaalsochallengestheactionsofthe
Counçilon thegtoundsof "proportional.y m, paras.6.103-6.104.(translation)the Libyan Govement, includinaccusationthattheLibyanJSOhad purchasedthe timers
used inthePanAm 103 bmbing; thatthetwo accusedLibyanagentswere officers and
operativeof theJSO andwere utilhing tresourc andfacilitiof the natiofLibya;
thatoneof theLibyanagentshadpurchasedthecIothingusedinthe suitcasecarryithe
bornb;andthatthetwo Libyan agentand thekco-conspiratorcausedthatsuitcato be
introduceas baggageon Pan Am 103, causingthe destructofntheplaneasitflewover
Zockerbie,Scotland.
4.34 Afterrecavingthesefonnal accusatioand reviewingthcSeclaratiosnd
requestof theUnitedKingdom,United StatesandFrancethatLibyawmnder the two
accusedfortrial,thSecurityCouncil.in Resolut731expressedconcern overthe fact that
theinvestigationimplicaofficiaioftheLibya n~vernment ,tong~IydeploseLibya's
failureto respoeffec;ivelto thoserequestsandurged the LibyanGoverment
irnrnediatelyto prova "fulandeffectivresponsetothosereguestssoasto contnbuteto
theeliminatioofinternati toerrlo~isrn In""d~oingthe SecuritCouncilindicatedthat
itwas deeplydisturbedby"theworld-widepersisteo fcectsofinternationaltemrisinail
itsforms;includinthoseinwhich Statearedirectlor indirectlyin~dved,"and was
deeplyconcemedby "aliUegalactivitiesdirectedagainstinternationalcivil aviaAqs1S0
Exhibi38,preambular para,6.
rm, Pm. 2.
178m, para.3.
179Tbb,prmbular para. 1.
"O m, preambularpara ..noted above,theSecurityCounci hls repeatedlydeplore. and condemnedintemationd
texrofismfindhg that it constitatthreattointernationleaceand security. WhenLibya
didnot complywith therequestsof otherrnemberof theUnitedNations andwiththe
SecurityCouncil'sresolution,tSecurityCounci wlasjustifiainfmding subsequentlin
Resolution748that Libya'actionsconstitutda threato internatioleace ad security.
4.35 In Resolution748, the SecurityCounçexpress itsconvictiothat the
suppressionofinternationalacof temrism indi its formswasessentiafor the
maintenanceof internationpeaceand sec~rity'~ndemphasized theneed forthe
internationd comrnunityto ddeffectivelywitaUsuch acts182The Councilalsareaffjinned
theobligatioof aS ItateunderArticle 2(4of theChuter torefrainfromorganizing,
instigating, assis,orparticipatinintehst actsin anothestatel@and express tsd
concern thatheLibyan Goverment had yettoprovidea fuUandeffectiveEsponse tothe
requestsputfornard inRemlution731.1M
4.36 Fin*, inResolution883,theCouncilonce againpsesentedtheconsiderations
formingthe basisfor its detemination. The Councilreiterateconcems overthe safety
of internationai civil a~iation,''~the peof actsofinternationterrorism" and the
Exhibit23, pmbular pm. 4.
'" m, preambula rara.5.
u, preambularpara.6.
lM m, preambulnrpara.3.
Exhibit32, preambulaparagraph 3.
lpdm, preambularpara.2.investigatiowhich implicatedLibyanGovernent officiaiinthebombing of Pan Am
103,la'andit Mmed itcondemnation ofallactsof unlawfulinterferencagainstthe
securityof internationlivil aviatilg8
4.37The SecurityCouncilwasjustzed inrnakllithe determinationunderChapter
VII oftheUnitedNationsCharterthat sucha situaticonstitutea thmt to thepeace and
security andinrequinngLibyatutakeactions(such as thesurrendesof thepersans
responsible)thatmightavertfurthethreatstothepeace. Theauthority to takthose actions
is comrnitteexclusiveltathe SecurityCouncilby tbeCharter.
4.38 Intheend,Libya is left withthfactthattheCouncilmadeits determination
andacted upon it. Thatiswhatthe Charter tequiresioxder for thedecisioofthe Council
to be bindinonLibya. Libya'sdisputeis withtheCouncilover theimplementatioonf
Resolutions748and883 notwith theUnited StatesundertheMontrealConvention.
187rt)i pr,ambukpara6 ..
IpBm, preambularpara 4. PARTV
EVlEN IFTHE COURT EXERCISESJIIRISDICTEON I,TSHOm DECIDE,AS A
PRELJMINARY MATTER,THkT 'SRE DECISIONSOF THE SECURllTYCOUNCIL
PW?,ÇLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT BP LIBYA
5.01 Even8 the Courtdecidethatithasjurisdictioverthe Zbym cornplainand
thatishouldnot decline exemisethatjurisdiction,it shoulddecasa,prelimhaq
matterthatthedecisiorof theSecurityCounciIprecludethe relief sobyLibya,
whateverthe meritsof tLibyan argumentsçoncemingtheMontreal Convention.
5.02 TheprscedingPartsof this submissionestablishthatLibyais requnder
Resolution731,748 and 883,tosumnder theaccusedpersonsfortriaiinthe UnitedStates
ostheUnitedKingdom,andfhatthisrequirement takeprecedenceoverany contrary
obligationsof thepartiesflowhg fromMontreal Convention.Thisconclusion iclear
fromthe face of theinstrumentsndreguiresno inquirybthe Courtintothenumerous
andvery compljcatefactualandlegdissuesthawould needto beaddressedwerethe Court
topmeed toa reviewofthements of Libya'sargumentconcerningtheMontrd
Convention.
5.03 Such adifficultandlengthypmess would, rnoreover, bewhowithout
purposeifin theendtheCour toncludesthaLibyamustcornplywiththe CounciI's
decisionsand surrendesthetwoaccusedpersonfortriainthe UniteStatesor theUnited
Kingdom. The UnitedStatesandtheUnited Kingdom have,on the basisotheSecurity
Council'sdecisioninsisteon thesurrendeoftheaccus& andhave refusedtocooperate
withLibya'ssuppose a.temptstobvestigatandprosecutethematterelsewhere. Whateverobligatiotocooperatewith Libyarnayhave existedunder Article11of theMonUeal
Convention,suçh obligatiohasbeen supersedesby the demandsof theSecurityCounci tat
Libyasumnderthetwo individualsto theUnited Statesor theUnitedKingd~rn. ''rs is
particukly thecasewhere thedemands of the SecurityCouncîa~e bas& uponits concern
thatthe evidenceimplicatestheLibyan Governent inthecrimesandwhere the Security
Councilhas also require€batLibyacooperatewith theUnitedStatesand theUnited
Kingdom intheprosecutionby thoseStateof thetwo individ~als.'~~
5-04 Under these circurnstances,Libya'sdemandforadeclamtion by theCourtas to
rightsandobligationsof the partiesunder theMontrealConventifies intheface of
cornmon sense,judicia.econornyandthe Rules ofCourt. It is clearly withinthepowerof
the Courttoavoidunnscessaryexamination of irnmaterilnd more difficulegalandfactud
issues.Indee dtwas exactIrfor that purposethatthRulesof the Courwererevisedin
1972. The previouspnictice of theCourtijoinuigpreliminq objectionstothements, for
example in-thSouthwestAfrica casesand theBarceIonaTractioncase,was severely
criticize19'
5.05 In responsto suchcriticism,thRules of Courtwere revisedin1972to
encourage deçisionon preljminaq objsctionpriorb themeritsphase by authorizinthe
18'Exhibit23,para.1.
19*Resolution748 requiredLibyato comply withparagraph3 of Resolutio731
regardingthersquestst~Libya setoutinspecfi ccrrespondencweithLibya. Security
Council Resolutio748, Exhibit23,para.1. Those requestsincludtherequestthatLibya
"disclosediitshows of thiscrime,hcludingthenamesof aU those responsibleanddiow
full accestoal l itness, documents,andothermateriaividence,includindltheremaining
tirners." SecurityCounci. esolution731, Exhibit18,para.3Exhibit9, Annex.
191See paras.2,Ol-2- 13ove.Court toaddressdl legd andfactual questionsthatbearon thissueofa prehlnary
objection,evento theextentof adducingevidenceon such questions,in orderto disposeof
thatobjection. Under Artic79of theRuleçof Court t,e Courtrnayhear apreliminary
objection"tothejurisdictionothecourtor to theadrnissibdiof the application,or other
objectionthe decisionuponwhichis requesteMore any hrther proceedhgs on thernents.
. . .."The objectionthatthreliesoughtby Libyais inconsistentwiththemandatory
decisionsif thSecurityCouncilclex1y faiiwithintheambitof Article 79.
5.06 Accos$inglyifthe casecm bedisposedof (astheUnited Statessubrnits)on
thebasisofpreliminaryobjectionsasprovidedunder Article79, iisincumbent onthe Court
todoso. TheUnited Statethereforerequeststhe Courtifit deteminestoexercise
jurisdictiin thiscasetodecide asa prehinary matterthatthedecisionof theSecurity
Councilprecludeandrender indevant anyreliefsoughtbyLibyapursuantto the Montreal
Convention. CONCLUSION
Libya'sargumentsnotwithstanding ,wo thingssemain cl=: Resolutions748 and
883by theirtermsrequireLibya tosurrenderthe two accusedandimpose economic
sanctionsand othermasures onLibya to cornpl.cornpliancwith thatquiLement; and the
def Libya is rsquestingis relieffmm the operationof those resolutions. Havingfatoed
convince theCouncîlto refrai£rom adoptingtheresolutionsLibya now seeks toobtain
relieby thisproceedingagainstthe UnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdompurpostedly under
theMontrealConvention. Thisthe Court shouldnot permit. Libya'sdisputeis not withthe
United Stateor the UnitedKingdom inrelationtothe intetpretatior applicationof the
MontrealConvention biiis withthe SecurityCouncilinregardto Resolutions748 and883. SUBWSION
The UnitedStateof Amenca quests thattheCourt upholdtheobjectionsothe
UnitedStatestothejurisdictioftheCourtand declinto entertainthecase.
20 June1995
ConradK. Harper
Agentof theUnitedStates
of America EXHIBITSTO TEE MEMORIAX OlFTEE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Exhibit 1. Letter dated 23 December1991 £rom the Acting
Permanent Representativeof the United States of
America to the United Nations addressed to the
Secretary-General (United Nations Document A/46/83-
S/23317).
Exhibit 2. United Nations Press Release: Security Council
CondemnsDestruction of Pan Am Flight 103 (United
Nations Document ~~/5057; 30 December1988).
Exhibit 3. United States Code, Title 28, Çections 1861 through
1869.
Exhihit 4. United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Rules 6 through 9.
Exhibit 5. Jury Çelection Plan for the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (as amended
through 9 September 1993).
Exhibit 6. U.S. Department of JusticeMemorandum: Summary of
Criminal Procedure in Federal Criminal Cases in the
United States.
Exhibit 7. United States Code, Title 18, Section 32
(Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities).
United States Code, Title 18, Section 844 (Malicious
destruction of property used in or affecting
interstate or foreign commerce,causing deaths) .
United States Code, Title 18, Section 2332
{Terrorist murders of United States nationals
outside the United States; this section was codified
as United States Code, Title 18, Section 2331 until
October 29, 1992).
United States Code, Title 18, Section 371
(Conspiracy to commit criminal- offense).
Exhibit 8. Letter dated 20 December 1991 from the Permanent
Representative of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and NorthernIreland to the United Nations
addressedto the Secretary-General (United Nations
Document ~/46/826-~/23307; 31 December1991).Exhibit 9. Letter dated 20 December 1991 from the Permanent
Representativeof the United States of America to
the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-
General (UnitedNations Document A/46/827-5/23308;
31 December 1991) .
Exhibit 10. Letter dated 20 ~ekember1991 from the Permanent
Representative of France to the United Nations
addressed tu the Secretary-General (A/46/825-
S/23306; 31 December 1991).
Letter dated 20 December 1991 from the Permanent
Exhibit 11. Representatives of France, the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United
States of America to the United Nations addressed to
the Secretary-General (UnitedNations Document
A/46/828-~/23309; 31 December 1991) .
Exhibit 12. Letter dated 17 November 1991 from the Permanent
Representativeof the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
(United Nations Document ~/46/660-5/23226;
20 November 1991).
Exhibit 13. Letter dated 20 November 1991 £rom the Permanent
Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya tu the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
(UnitedNations Document~/46/844-S/23416;
13 January 1992).
Exhibit 14. Letter dated 8 January1992 from the Permanent
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-Generalo the
(UnitedNations DocumentA/46/841-~/23396; 9 January
1992).
Exhibit 15. Letter dated 17 January 1992 fram the Permanent
Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriyato the
United Nations addressed to the President of the
Security Council (UnitedNations Document S/23436;
17 January 1992) .
Exhibit 16. Letterdated 18 January 1992 from the Permanent
Representative of the LibyanArab Jamahiriyato the
United Nationsaddressedta the Presidentof the
SecurityCouncil (United NationsDocument S/23441;
18 January 1992).
Exhibit 17. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
Against the Safety of International Civil Aviation,
done at Montrealon 23 Septerber 1971.Exhibit 18. Resolution 731, United Nations Security Council,
3033rd meeting, 21 January 1992 (United Nations
Document S/RES/731) .
Exhibit 19. Provisional Verbatim Record of the Three Thousand
and Thirty Third Meeting of the Security Council
(UnitedNations Document S/PV.3033; 21 January
1992).
Exhibit 20. Report by the Secretary-General Pursuant to
Paragraph 4 of Çecurity CouncilResolution 731
(United Mations Document S/23574; 11 February 1992).
Exhibit 21. Further Report by the Secretary-Generak Pursuant to
Paragraph 4 of Security Council Resolution 731
(United Nations Document SJ23672; 3 March 1992).
Exhibit 22. ProvisionalVerbatim Record of the Three Thousand
and Sixty-ThirdMeeting of the Security Council
(UnitedNations DocumentS/PV.3063; 31 March 1992).
Exhibit 23. Resolution 748, United Nations Security Council,
3063rd meeting, 31 March 1992, (UnitedNations
Documents/RE~/748).
Exhibit 24. Note by the President of the Security Council
(UnitedNations Document S/24424; 12 August 1992).
Exhibit 25. Note by the Presidentof the Security Council
(UnitedNations Document S/24925; 9 Deceder 1992).
Exhibit 26. Note by the President of the SecurityCouncil
(UnitedNations Document SJ25554; 8 April 1993).
Exhibi't 27. Note by the President of the Security Council
(United Nations Document S/26303; 13 August 1993).
Exhibit 28. Letter dated 13 August 1993 from the representatives
of France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America to
the United Nations addressed to the Secretasy-
General (United Nations Document A/48/314-5126304;
13 August 1993).
Exhibit 29. Letter dated 22 September 1993 £rom the Permanent
Repreçentative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the
United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General
(United Nations Document 51'26500;28 September
1993).Exhibit 30 United States cable dated 22 September 1993 from
Washinaton, D.C. to United StatesMission to the
~kited~~ations,New York.
Exhibit 31. Letterdated 1 October 1993 from the Permanent
Representativeof the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
(UnitedNations Document S/26523; 1 October 1993).
Exhibit 32. Resolution 883, United Nations Security Council
3312th meeting, II November 1993, (UnitedNations
Document S/REs/883).
Exhibit 33. ProvisionalVerbatim Record of the Three Thousand
Three Hundsed and Twelfth Meeting of the Security
Council (UnitedNations Document S/PV.3312;
11 November 1993).
Exhibit 34* Resolution 286, United Nations Security Council,
1552nd meeting,9 September1970.
Exhibit 35. Note by the Presidentof the Security Council,
(United NationsDocument S/17554; 9 October 1985).
Exhibit 36. Resolutiùn 579, United Nations Security Council,
2637th meeting, 18 December 1985.
Exhibit 37. Resolution 635, United Nations Security Council,
2869th meeting, 14 June 1989.
Exhibit 38. Resolution 687, United Nations Security Council,
2981st meeting, 3 April 1991.
Exhibit 39. Note by the President of the Security Council
(UnitedNationsDocument S/23500; 31 January 1992).
Exhibit 40. Statement by the President of the Security Council
(United Nations Document ~/~~~T/1994/ 4; 29 July
Exhibit 41. Declarationon Principles of InternationalLaw
ConcerningFriendlyRelationsand Co-operation Among
States in Accordancewith the Charter of the United
Nations, Resolution2625 (XXV),United Nations
General Assembly, 1883rd PlenaryMeeting, 24 October
1970.
Exhibit 42. Aerial Hijacking or Interference with Civil Air
Travel, Resolution 2645 (XXV), United Nations
General Assembly, 1914th PlenaryMeeting,
25 Nevember 1970.Exhibit 43. Measures to EliminateInternationalTerrorism,
Resolution 49/60, UnitedNations General Assembly,
84th Plenary Meeting, 9 December 1994 (United
Nations DocumentA/~ES/49/60;17 February 1995).
Exhibit 44. Note by the Presidentof the Security Council
(UnitedNations DocumentS/26861; 10 December 1993).
Exhibit 45. Note by the Presidentof the Security Council
(UnitedNations Document~/P~~T/1994/18;12 April
1994).
Exhibit 46. Note by the Presidentof the Security Council
(UnitedNations Document S/PRST/1994/41; 5 August
1994).
Exhibit 47. (United Nat,ionsDocument~/~~~~/1994/76;un30 November
1994).
Exhibit 48. Note by the Presidentof the Security Council
(United Nations Document ~/~~~~/1995/14; 30 March
1995).
Exhibit 49. Letter dated 28July 1994 from the Secretary-General
addressedto the Presidentof the SecurityCouncil
(UnitedNations Document S/1994/900;29 July 1994).
~xhibi-t50. Letter dated 9 December1993 from the Chargé
D'AffairesA.I. of the PermanentMission of the
Libyan Arab Jarnahiriyato the United Nations
addressedto the Secretary-General(UnitedNations
Document S/26859;10 December 1993).
Exhibit 51. Letter dated 30 March 1995 from the Permanent
Great Britainand Northern Ireland and the United
States of America to the United Nationsaddressedto
the Secretary-General. (United NationsDocument
A/50/128-S/1995/247; 30 March 1995).
Exhibit 52. Review of the Role of the InternationalCourt of
Justice, Reportof the Sixth Committee (United
Nations Document A/8238; 11 December 1970).
Exhibit 53. RJustice, Reportof theheSixth Committee (United
Nations Document A/8568; 10 December1971).Exhibit 54. M. Lachs, "The Revised Procedure Of the
InternationalCourt of Justic t' in Essays on the
Developmentof The International Legal Order,
pp. 21, 31 (1980).
Exhibit 55. E. Jiménez deArechaga, "The men&ents to the Rules
of Procedure ofthe InternationalCourt of
Justice,"67 American Journal of International Law,
pp. 1, 11, and 13 (1973) .
Exhibit 56. G. Guyomar,Commentairedu Réglernent de la Cour
Internationalede Justice:Interprétationet
Pratique, p. 371 (1972).
Exhibit 57. Resolution827, United Nations SecurityCouncil,
3217th meeting,25 May 1993 (United Nations Document
Exhibit 58. Resolution955, United NationsSecurityCouncil,
3453rdmeeting, 8 November 1994(United Nations
DocumentS/RES/955).
Exhibit 59. Letter dated 5 August 1994from the representatives
of France, the United Kingdom of Great Britainand
Northern Ireland and the United States ofAmerica to
the United Nationsaddressed tothe Secretary-
General (UnitedNations Document A/49/299-
S/1994/938;8 August 1994).
Exhibit 60. S. Rosenne, TheLaw and Practiceof the
InternationalCourt,p. 70 (1985).
Exhibit 61. T. Elsen, LitispendenceBetween the International
Court of Justiceand theSecurity Council, p. 59
(1986)
Preliminary Objections submitted by the United States of America