Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) - Fixing of the time-limits for the

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The HagueTel(31~70 2-320). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.
Telefax(31~70~ 99 24). Telex 32323. Internet address: htwww.icj~cij.org

Communiqué

unofficial
for immediaterelease

No.2000/27
13 September 2000

Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention
arisingrom the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie

(Libyan Arab Jamahiriyav.United Kingdom}
(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America)

Fixingof the time-limits for the filing ofRejoinders by the United Kingdom
and the United States

• THE HAGUE, 13 September 2000. The President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
Judge Gilbert Guillaume, has fixed the time-limits for the filing of Rejoinders by the United

K.ingdom and thenited States of America in the cases conceming Questions of Interpretation and
Aoolication of th1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie
(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of
America).

By Orders dated 6 September 2000, the President, taking account of the views of the Parties,
ftxed 3 August 2001 as the time-limit for the filing of the Rejoinders.

The subsequent procedure was reserved for further decision in the two cases.

History of the proceedings

On 3 March 1992, Libya ftled in the Registry of the Court two separate Applications
instituting proceedings against the United Kingdom and the United States with regard
to "dispute[s]. conceming the interpretation or application of the Montreal Convention>) of

23 September 1971 for the Suppression ofUnlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.

In its Applications, 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 destructi.on of
Pan Am Flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988, in which
270 people died.Following these charges, the United Kingdom and the United States had
demanded thatLibya surrender the alleged offenders for trial either in Scotland or in the United

States and bad seised the Security Council of the United Nations. Libya maintained that, by doing
so, the United Kingdom and the Unitedtates had breached their legal obligations under the
Montreal Conventionnd bad to cease those breaches. lt added that the Montreal Convention was
the only instrument applicable to the destructionan Am aircraft over Lockerbie, that there
was no other convention concerning intemati.onal criminalforce which was applicable to
such issues between itself and the United Kîngdom, nor between itself and the United States, and
that, in accordance with the Montreal Convention, it was entitledeged offenders itself.

On 3 March 1992, Libya also asked the Court to indicate provisional measures to prevent
further action the United Kingdom and the United States to citto surrender the alleged
offenders before any examination of the merits of the cases. However, by Orders of 14 April 1992,
the Court, referring to resolution 748 which haddopted in the meantime by the Security - 2-

Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, found that the circumstances were not
such as ta require the exercise of îts power to indicate such measures.

By Orders of 19 June 1992 the Court fixed 20 December 1993 as the time-lîmit for the filing
of Memorials by Libya and 20 June 1995 as the time-limit for the filing of Counter-Memorials by
theUnited Kingdom and the United States.

Within the prescribed time-limits, Libya filed its Memorials, and the United Kingdom and
the United States then raised objections to the Court'sjurisdiction and to the admissibility of the
Lîbyan daims. They inter alia denied the existencef disputes between the Parties concerning the

interpretation or application the Montreal Convention and contended that, even if Lîbya could
make valid claims under that Convention, they were "superseded" by the resolutions of the Security
Council which, by virtue ofthe United Nations Charter, take precedence over ·ali rights and
obligations arising out of the Montreal Convention. Libya presented written statements of its
observations and submissions on the prelirninaryobjectionswithin the time-limits fixed by the Court
and public sittings were held from3 to 22 October 1997 to hear the oral arguments of the Parties.
In two separate Judgments of27 February 1998 on the preliminary objections, the Court found that
there existed disputes between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the

Montreal Convention and that it had jurisdiction to hear the disputes on the basisArticle 14, e
paragraph 1, of the Montreal Convention, which concerns the settlement of disputes over the
interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention. The Court also found the Libyan
claims admissible and stated that it was not appropriate, at that stage proceedings, to make a
decision on the arguments of the United Kingdom and the United States that resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council bad rendered these claims without abject.

By Orders dated 30 March 1998, the Court fixed 30 December 1998 as the time-limit for the

filingof the Counter-Memorials of the United Kingdom and of the United States. The time-lirnit
was subsequently extended to 31 March 1999 at the request of the United Kingdom and of the
United States. The Counter-Memorials were filed within the time-limitthus extended.

By Orders of 29 June 1999, the Court authorized the submission of Replies by Libya and
Rejoinders by theUnited Kingdom and the United States, fixing 29 June 2000 as the time-limit for
the filingofLibya's Replies. Libya'sReplieswere filedwitl:rinthe prescribed time-limit.

The full textof the Orders will shortly be avaîlable on the Court's website at the following
address: http://www.icj-cij .org •

Infonnation Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary+ 31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, InformationOfficer (+ 31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]