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

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address: http: // www.icj-cij.org

Communiqué
unofficial
for immediaterelease

No. 98/45
18 December 1998

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

Extension of the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorials

of the United Kingdom and of the United States

THE HAGUE, 18 December 1998. The Senior Judge of the International Court of Justice
(ICJ), Judge Shigeru Oda, acting President, bas extended by three months the time-limit for the
filing ofthe Counter-Memorials of the United Kingdom and of the United States of America in the
cases conceming the aerial incident at Lockerbie brought against them by Libya.

By Orders dated 17 December 1998, the new time-limit bas been fixed at 31 March 1999.

ln letters dated 8 December 1998, the United Kingdom and the United States, referring to
recent diplomatie initiatives, bad invited the Court to extend this time-limit.

Judge Oda took the above-mentioned decision after the views of Libya bad been ascertained
and taking into account the preliminary exchange of views held by the Court on the matter.

The subsequent procedure was reserved for further decision.

Background information

On 3 March 1992, Libya filed in the Registry of the Court two Applications instituting

proceedings against the United Kingdom and the United States of America conceming disputes on
theinterpretation or application of the Convention for the Suppression ofUnlawful Acts against the
Safety of Civil Aviation signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971.

Libya referred to charges made by the Lord Advocate of Scotland and an American
Grand Jury against two Libyan nationals suspected of having caused the destruction of Pan Am
flight 103 over the town ofLockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988, in which 270 people died.

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

The Security Council of the United Nations for its part adopted three resolutions (731, 748
and 883, two of which imposed sanctions) urging Libya "to provide a full and effective response"
to the requests of the United Kingdom and the United States "so as to contribute to the elimination

of international terrorism ".

ln its Applications, Libya argued that there was no extradition treaty between itself and the
United Kingdom, nor between itself and the United States, and that according to the Montreal
Convention it was entitled totrythe suspects itself. - 2 -

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

After Libya filed its written pleadings, the United Kingdom and the United States raised
objections to the Court'sjurisdiction and to the admissibility of the Libyan claims.

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

By Orders dated 30 March 1998,the Court fixed 30 December 1998 as the time-limitfor the
filingofthe Counter-Memorials of the United Kingdom and of the United States on the merits of

the dispute.

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

Information Office:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, Secretary of the Court (tel: 31-70-302 2336)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Information Officer (tel: 31-70-302 2337)
E-mail address: [email protected]