Order of 14 April 1992

Document Number
089-19920414-ORD-01-00-EN
Document Type
Incidental Proceedings
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE 1971MONTREAL CONVENTION ARISING

FROM THE AERIAL INCIDENT
AT LOCKERBIE
(LIBYAN ARABJAMAHIRIYA v.UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL
MEASURES

ORDER OF 14APRIL1992

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE RELATIVE A DES QUESTIONS
D'INTERPRÉTATION ET D'APPLICATION
DE LA CONVENTION DE MONTRÉAL DE 1971

RÉSULTANT DE L'INCIDENT AÉRIEN
DE LOCKERBIE
(JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE c. ÉTATS-UNIS
D'AMÉRIQUE)

DEMANDE EN INDICATION DE MESURES
CONSERVATOIRES

ORDONNANCEDU 14AVRIL1992 Officia1citation
Questionsof Interpretationand Applicationof the 1971MontrealConven-
tionarisingfrom theAerialIncidentut Lockerbie(LibyanArab Jamahiriya
v.UnitedStates ofAmerica),ProvisionalMeasures,Orderof 14April1992,
1C.J.Reports1992,114

Modeofficielde citation:
Questionsd'interprétation et d'ade la conventiondeMontréalde
c. Etats-Unisdümérique),mesures conser,rdonnancedu 14avrilnne
1992,.I.J.Recueil 199114.

fhlesn~rnber608 1
Nodevent: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1992 YEAR 1992
14April
GeneralList
No.89 14April 1992

CASE CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE 1971MONTREAL CONVENTION ARISING

FROM THE AERIAL INCIDENT
AT LOCKERBIE

(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA V.UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION
OF PROVISIONALMEASURES

ORDER

Present: Uce-President ODA, Acting President; President Sir Robert
JENNINGS;Judges LACHS,AGO, SCHWEBEL ,EDJAOUIN,I,
EVENSENT ,ARASSOVG,UILLAUMES,HAHABUDDEE AG,UILAR
MAWDSLEY, WEERAMANTR RA,NJEVA,JIBOLAJ;udge ad hoc
EL-KOSHE RI~~~S~T~TVALENCIA-OSPINA.

TheInternational Court ofJustice,

Composedas above,
After deliberation,

Having regard to Articles41and 48ofthe Statute of the Court,andto
Articles73and 74ofthe Rules of Court, Havingregardto the Application bythe Socialist People'sLibyanArab
Jamahiriya (hereinaftercalled "Libya") filed in the Registryofthe Court
on 3 March 1992,instituting proceedings against the United States of
America (hereinafter called "the United States") in respect of "a dis-
pute . ..between Libyaand the United States over the interpretation or
application ofthe Montreal Convention" of23September 1971,a dispute
arisingfrom actsresultingin the aerial incident that occurred overLock-
erbie,Scotland, on 21December 1988,

Makesthe followingOrder:

1. Whereas by its above-mentioned Application Libya founds the
jurisdiction ofthe Courton Article 36,paragraph 1,of the Statute of the
Courtand Article 14,paragraph 1,ofthe Convention forthe Suppression
ofUnlawfulActsAgainstthe SafetyofCivilAviation done atMontreal on
23 September 1971(referred to hereinafter as the "Montreal Conven-
tion"), instrumentsto which Libyaand the United Statesareboth parties;

2. WhereasinitsApplication Libyareferstothe destruction ofPan Am
flight 103on 21 December 1988over Lockerbie,in Scotland; whereasin
itsApplication Libyafurther Statesthat

"On 14November 1991,a Grand Jury ofthe United StatesDistrict
Court for the District of Columbia, United States of America,
indicted two Libyannationals(the'accused') charging,interalia,that
they had caused a bomb to be placed aboard [that flight] ... which
bomb had exploded causing the aeroplane to crash";
and whereas Libya also refers, in this connection, to Article 1 of the
Montreal Convention,contending thatthe actsalleged bythe indictment
constitute anoffencewithin the meaning ofthat provision;

3. Whereas,initsApplication, Libyaclaimsthat the Montreal Conven-
tion isthe only appropriate conventioninforcebetween the Parties deal-
ing with such offences, and that the United States is bound by its legal
obligations under the Montreal Convention, which require it to act in
accordance with the Convention, and only in accordance with the Con-
vention, with respect to thematter involving Pan Am flight 103and the
accused ;
4. Whereas, in its Application, Libya submits that, while it has itself
fullycompliedwith al1ofitsownobligationsunder the Montreal Conven-
tion,the UnitedStateshasbreached and iscontinuingtobreach itsobliga-
tions to Libya under Article 5, paragraph 2, Article 5, paragraph 3,
Article7,Article 8,paragraph 2,and Article 11ofthe Convention which
provide asfollows :

"Article5. ..
.............................
2. Each Contracting State shall likewise take such measures as may be necessaryto establishitsjurisdiction overthe offencesmen-
tioned inArticle 1,paragraph 1(a),(b)and (c),and in Article 1,para-
graph 2, in so faras that paragraph relates to those offences,in the
casewhere the alleged offender is present in itsterritory and it does
not extraditehimpursuant to Article8to anyofthe Statesmentioned
inparagraph 1ofthis Article.

3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction
exercisedin accordance with national law."

"Article 7. The Contracting State in the territory of which the
alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be
obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the
offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its
competentauthorities forthe purpose ofprosecution. Thoseauthori-
ties shalltake their decision inthe samemanner as in the caseof any
ordinary offenceof a serious nature under the law ofthat State."

"Article8. ...
.............................
2. If a Contracting State which makes extradition conditional on
the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from
another Contracting State with which ithas no extradition treaty, it
mayatitsoption considerthisConvention asthe legalbasisforextra-
dition in respect of the offences. Extradition shall be subject to the
other conditionsprovided by the lawofthe requested State.

"Article 11. 1. Contracting States shall afford one another the
greatestmeasure of assistancein connection with criminal proceed-
ingsbrought inrespectofthe offences.Thelawofthe Staterequested
shallapply in al1cases.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1of this Article shall not affect
obligations under any other treaty, bilateral or multilateral, which
governsorwillgovern,inwholeorinpart, mutual assistanceincrimi-
na1matters";

5. Whereasitisstatedinthe Application that atthetimethe chargewas
communicated to Libya,or shortlythereafter, the accusedwerepresentin
the territory of Libya; that after being apprised ofthe charge, Libyatook
such measures as were necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offences charged, pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Montreal
Convention;that Libya alsotook measures to ensure the presence ofthe
accusedin Libyain order to enable criminal proceedingsto be instituted,
that it initiated a preliminary enquiry intothe facts and that it submitted
the caseto its competent authorities forthe purpose of prosecution; thatLibyahas not extraditedthe accused,there being no extraditiontreaty in
forcebetweenit and the United States,and no basis forthe extradition of
the accused under Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Montreal Convention,
sincethis provision subjectsextradition to the law of the requested State
and Libyan law prohibits the extradition of Libyan nationals; and that,
pursuant to Article 11,paragraph 1,of the Montreal Convention, Libya
has soughtjudicial assistancefrom the United States in connection with
the criminal proceedingsinstituted by Libya, withthe competent Libyan
authorities offering to CO-operate with the investigations in the
United States or in other countries, but that the United Statestogether
with its law enforcement officials have refused to CO-operatein any
respect with the Libyaninvestigations;

6. Whereas it is further alleged in the Application of the Libyan Gov-
emment that the United Stateshas clearlyshownthat itisnotinterestedin
proceeding within the framework ofthe Montreal Conventionbut onthe
contras. isintent oncompellingthesurrender to itoftheaccused,inviola-
tion of the provisions of that Convention; that, more specifically, the
United States,by its actions and threats against Libya, seeks,in violation
of Article 5,paragraph 2, of the Montreal Convention,to prevent Libya
from establishing its legitimatejurisdiction to deal with the matter; that,
byitsactionsandthreats,the United Statesseeks,inviolationofthe Mont-
real Convention, to prevent Libya from exercising the right conferred
upon itbyArticle5,paragraph 3,ofthat Convention,to exerciseitscrimi-
na1jurisdictionto dealwiththematterinaccordancewithitsnational law ;
that by seekingto force Libyato surrenderthe accused,the United States
is attempting, in violation of theMontreal Convention,to prevent Libya
fromfulfillingitsobligations under Article7ofthe Convention to submit
the case to its competentauthorities for the purpose of prosecution, and

that the effortsmade by the United States to force Libyato surrenderthe
accused also constitute a violation of Article 8,paragraph 2,ofthat Con-
vention under which extradition is made subjectto the laws of the state
from which extradition is requested; and that by refusing to provide
details of its investigationto the competentauthorities in Libyaor to co-
operate with them,the United Stateshas failed to fulfilthe obligationto
afford assistancein criminal matters to Libya,asprovided in Article 11,
paragraph 1,of the Montreal Convention, and has breached its obliga-
tions under that Convention;
7. Whereas Libya, in its Application, asks the Court to adjudge and
declare :

"(a) that Libya has fully complied with al1of its obligations under
the Montreal Convention;

(b) that theUnited Stateshasbreached,and iscontinuingto breach,
its legal obligations to Libyaunder Articles 5 (2), 5 (3),7,8 (2)
and 11oftheMontreal Convention; and 118 1971 MONTREAL CONVENTION (ORDER 14IV92)

(c) that the United Statesisunder a legalobligation immediatelyto
ceaseanddesistfrom suchbreaches and fromtheuse ofanyand
al1force or threats against Libya, including the threat of force
against Libya,and from al1violationsofthe sovereignty,territo-
rial integrity,andthepoliticalindependence ofLibya" ;

8. Whereas, later on 3 March 1992,the day on which the Application
was filed, the Libyan Governmentalso filed an "urgent request that the
Court indicateprovisional measureswhichoughtto betaken promptly to
preserve the rights of Libya", referring to Article 41 of theatute of the
Court and to Articles 73,74 and 75ofthe Rules of Court;and whereas in
that request Libya, referring to Article 74, paragraph 4, of theRules of

Court, also requested the President,pendingthe meeting ofthe Court, to
exercisethe power conferred on him by that provision to cal1upon the
Parties to actinsuch a way asto enable any Order the Court mightmake
on Libya's request for provisional measures to have its appropriate
effects;

9. Whereas in its request for the indication of provisional measures,
Libya,referringtothestatement offactsinitsApplication, allegedthat the
United Stateswas actively seekingto bypass the provisions of the Mont-
real Convention by threatening various actions against Libyain order to
compelLibya,inviolationoftheConvention, to surrenderits twoaccused
nationals; whereas Libya affirmed in the request that the United States
had indicated that it might seek or impose economic, air and other sanc-
tions against Libya if Libya did not comply with the demands of the

United States,andthatthe latter had refused to mle outthe use of armed
force against Libya; and that Libya considered that such actions would
clearlybeillegalandinappropriate under the applicable provisions ofthe
Montreal Convention,particularly when Libya was itselfcomplying in
full withthat Convention;

10. Whereas in its request for the indication of provisional measures
Libya further submitted that inasmuch asthe dispute involvedthe inter-
pretation or application ofthe Montreal Convention,it wasfortheCourt
alone to rule on the validity ofthe actions of Libyaandthe United States
under that Convention; that only by granting provisional measures
enjoiningthe United States from taking such actionsagainst Libyawasit
possibleto prevent Libya'srightsfrom beingirreparablyprejudicedeither
in fact or in law; and that provisional measures were also urgently

required in order to cause the United Statesto abstain from any action
capable of having a prejudicial effect on the Court'secision in the case
and to refrain from taking any step that might aggravate or extend the
dispute,aswould surelyhappen if sanctionswereimposedagainst Libya
or forcewereemployed; 119 1971 MONTREALCONVENTION (ORDER 14IV92)

11. WhereasLibya,consideringthat theCourt'sjurisdiction inthe case

was prima facie established under the Montreal Convention, submitted
that there were no impediments to indicating provisional measures and
accordingly requested the Court to indicate forthwith provisional mea-
sures :
"(a) to enjointhe United Statesfrom taking anyactionagainst Libya
calculatedto coerce or compel Libyato surrender the accused
individualsto anyjurisdiction outsideofLibya;and

(b) to ensurethat no stepsaretakenthat wouldprejudice inanyway

the rights of Libyawith respecttothe legalproceedings that are
the subjectofLibya'sApplication" ;
12. Whereas on 3 March 1992,the date on which the Applicationand
the request for the indication of provisional measures were filed in the
Registry, the Registrar transmitted by facsimile to the Government of
the United States a certified copy ofthe Application,in accordance with
Article 40,paragraph 2,ofthe Statute and Article 38,paragraph 4, ofthe
Rules of Court, and a certified copy of the request for the indication of
provisional measures, in accordance with Article 73,paragraph 2, of the

Rules of Court;
13. Whereas,in accordance withArticle40,paragraph 3, ofthe Statute
of the Court and Article 42 of the Rules of Court, copies of the Applica-
tion weretransmitted tothe Members ofthe United Nations through the
Secretary-Generalof the United Nations, and to the other Statesentitled
to appear beforethe Court;
14. Whereas, by a letter of 6 March 1992,a copy of which was trans-
mitted to Libya by the Registrar, the Legal Adviser of the United States
Department of State, referring to the specific request made by Libya
under Article 74,paragraph 4,ofthe Rules of Court, in itsrequestforthe
indication ofprovisional measures, stated interaIiathat

"taking into account both the absence of any concrete showing of
urgency relating to the request and developments in the ongoing
action by the Security Council and the Secretary-General in this
matter ...the action requested by Libya ... is unnecessary and
couldbe misconstrued" ;
15. Whereas, on 12March 1992,the Registrar,in accordance with Ar-

ticle 69,paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, sent the International Civil
Aviation Organizationthe notification provided for in Article 34, para-
graph 3, of the Statute of the Court; and whereas on 25 March 1992,the
Registrar, in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Court, sent the
notification provided for in Article 63 of theStatute to the States, other
than thePartiestothedispute, which,onthebasisofinformationsupplied
by the depositary Governments,appeared to be parties to the Montreal
Convention of23September 1971 ;120 1971 MONTREALCONVENTION(ORDER 14IV92)

16. Whereas, the Court not including upon the Bench a judge of
Libyan nationality, the Libyan Government availed itself of the provi-
sions of Article31,paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court to choose
Mr. Ahmed SadekEl-Kosheri to sitasJudge ad hocin the case;

17. Whereas,havingregard to the wishesexpressed bythe Parties, the
Vice-Presidentofthe Court, exercisingthe functions ofthe presidency in
the case,fixed 26March 1992asthe date forthe opening ofthe oral pro-
ceedings on the request for the indication of provisional measures, in
accordance with Article 74,paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, and the
Parties wereinformed ofthis decision on 6March 1992;
18. Whereas on 26 March 1992,at the opening of the hearings on the
request for the indication of provisional measures, the Vice-Presidentof
the Court, exercisingthe functions ofthe presidencyinthe case, referred,
interalia,tothe requestmade by Libyaunder Article 74,paragraph 4, of
the Rules of Court and stated that afterthe most carefulconsideration of
al1the circumstances then known to him he had come to the conclusion
that it would not be appropriate for him to exercise the discretionary
power conferred on the President by that provision;
19. Whereasoralobservations ofthe Partiesontherequestfortheindi-
cation of provisional measures were presented, at public hearings held

pursuant to Article 74,paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, on 26,27 and
28March 1992,bythe followingrepresentatives :
onbehalfof Libya:

H.E. Mr.Ai Faitouri Sh.Mohamed, Agent,
Mr. Ian Brownlie, Q.C.,
Mr.Jean Salmon,
Mr. Eric Suy;
on behalfof the UnitedStates:
The Hon. Edwin D.Williamson,Agent,

Mr. Alan J. Kreczko,DeputyAgent,
Mr. BruceC. Rashkow,
Mr. Charles N. Brower,
Mr.Jonathan B.Schwartz;
and whereas during the hearingsquestions wereput by Judges,to which
the Parties subsequently replied in writing, within the time-limit fixed
pursuant to Article 61,paragraph 4,ofthe Rules of Court;

20. Whereas at the hearing held on 28 March 1992(morning), Libya

presented the followingsubmissions :
"Libya hereby confirms that it is requesting the Court to indicate
the followingprovisional measures :

(a) to enjoin... the United States ... from taking against Libya
measures calculated to exert coercion on it or compel it to sur- 121 1971MONTREALCONVENTION (ORDER 14IV92)

rendertheaccusedindividualstoanyjurisdiction outsideofLibya;
and
(b) to ensure that no stepsare taken that could prejudice in any way
the rights of Libya with respect to the proceedings instituted by
Libya'sApplications" ;
21. Whereas at the hearing held on 28 March 1992(afternoon), the

United Statespresented the followingsubmission:
"Mayitplease theCourt,

Onbehalf ofthe United States ofArnerica,to rejectthe request of
the Government of the Great Socialist People'sLibyan Arab Jama-
hiriya forthe indication of provisional measures of protection, and
not to indicate,anysuch measures";

22. Whereas Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Convention,
relied on by Libyaas basis ofjurisdiction in the case,reads as follows:

"Any disputebetween two or more Contracting Statesconcerning

the interpretation or application ofthisConvention whichcannot be
settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be
submitted to arbitration. If within six months of the date of the
requestforarbitration the Partiesarenabletoagreeonthe organiza-
tion ofthe arbitration, any one ofthose Parties mayreferthe dispute
to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with
theStatute oftheCourt";
23. Whereas, in its Application, Libya States that a dispute exists

between Libya and the United Statesas to the interpretation or applica-
tion oftheMontreal Convention;that ithasnotbeenpossibleto settlethis
dispute by negotiation; that a request by Libya to the United States for
arbitration ofthe dispute has beenrejected bythe United States,and that
the Parties havebeen unable to agreeon the organization of suchan arbi-
tration; and that in the light of the urgency of rectifyingthe continuing
violations by the United States of the Montreal Convention and the
UnitedStatesrefusaltoenterintoarbitration, the Court hasjurisdiction to
hear Libya'sclaimsarising under the Montreal Convention; whereas, in
its request for the indication of provisional measures, Libya submitted
thatthe Court's jurisdictioninthe casewasprima facieestablishedunder
the Montreal Convention; and whereasinthe course ofthe oral proceed-
ings,Libyaconfirmed those viewsand further contended thatthe various
conditionslaid down byArticle 14,paragraph 1,ofthe Montreal Conven-
tionhad beenfulfilled,including therequirementrelated to thesix-month

period; 24. Whereas,inthe courseoftheoralproceedings Libyaalsosubmitted
that the rights for which it soughtprotection wereestablished; that these
rights were the subject of the principal Application; that the circum-
stances disclosed a risk of imminentirreparable damage to these rights;
and that the exercise by the Court and the Security Council of their
respectivepowers did not in anyway conflict;

25. Whereas in the course of the oral proceedings the United States
contended that the requested provisional measures should not be indi-
cated because Libyahad not presented a prima facie casethat the provi-
sionsofthe Montreal Convention provide a possiblebasisforjurisdiction
inasmuch as the six-monthperiod prescribed by Article 14,paragraph 1,

of the Convention had not yet expired when Libya's Application was
filed; and that Libya had not established that the United States had
refused to arbitrate;
26. Whereas the United States also contended that Libya had not
demonstrated that provisional measures were necessaryto protect rights
at imminent risk of irreparable injury; that there was no proof that "the
United States was threatening Libyawith economicsanctions and other
actions,including the probability of recourse to the use of armed force",
as allegedby Libya;

27. Whereasthe United States alsoarguedthatthe requested measures
did not relate to the rights claimed in the Application; that Libya had
failedto establishthe possible existenceofthe rights it claimed under the
Montreal Convention; and that the requested measures would not pre-
servethe rights ofthe United States;
28. Whereasthe United States also contended thatthe SecurityCoun-

cilwas activelyseisedofthe situation which wasthe subject ofthe Appli-
cation and that therefore the Court should not indicate provisional
measures ;
29. Whereas the United States further contended that the requested
provisionalmeasureswereimproperlydirected to restrainingaction inthe
SecurityCouncil,includingparticipation by Member States;

30. Whereas,followingon the chargesbrought by a Grand Jury of the
United StatesDistrict Court forthe District of Columbiaagainstthe two
Libyannationals in connection withthe destruction of Pan Amflight 103,
the United States and the United Kingdom issued on 27November 1991
the followingjoint declaration :

"The British and American Governmentstoday declare that the
Government of Libyamust :

- surrender for trial al1those charged with the crime; and accept
responsibilityforthe actionsofLibyanofficials; - discloseal1itknowsofthiscrime,includingthe namesofal1those
responsible,and allowfullaccessto al1witnesses,documents and
othermaterial evidence,includingal1theremainingtimers ;

- payappropriate compensation.

We expect Libyato complypromptly and in full";

31. Whereas the subject of that declaration was subsequently consid-
ered by the United Nations SecurityCouncil,which on 21January 1992
adoptedresolution 731 (1992),ofwhichtheparagraphshere material read

as follows :
"TheSecurity Council,

Deeply disturbed by the world-wide persistence of acts of interna-
tional terrorism in al1its forms, including those in which Statesare
directlyorindirectlyinvolved,which endanger ortakeinnocent lives,
have a deleterious effect on international relations and jeopardize
the security of States,

Deeply concemed by al1illegal activities directed against interna-

tional civilaviation, and affirmingthe right of ail States,in accord-
ance with the Charter ofthe United Nations and relevant principles
of international law, to protect their nationals from acts of inter-
national terrorism that constitutethreats to international peace and
security,
.............................
Deeplyconcemed overtheresultsofinvestigations,whichimplicate
officialsofthe LibyanGovernment and whicharecontainedin Secu-
rity Council documents that include the requests addressed to the
Libyan authorities by Fran~e'.~,the United Kingdom of Great Brit-
ain and Northern Ireland2. and the UnitedStates ofAmerica2, 4. in

connection with the legal procedures related to the attacks carried
out against Pan American flight103and Union de transports aériens
flight 772;
.............................
2. Stronglydeploresthe fact that the Libyan Governmenthas not
yetresponded effectivelyto the above requests to cooperate fully in
establishing responsibility for the terrorist acts referred to above
against Pan American flight 103and Union de transports aériens
flight772 ;
3. Urgesthe Libyan Government immediately to provide a full
and effective response to those requests so as to contribute to the

elimination of internationalterrorism; 32. Whereasin the course of the oral proceedings reference was made
byboth sidesto the possibilityof sanctionsbeingimminentlyimposed by
the SecurityCouncil on Libyain order torequire it, interalia,tosurrender
the accusedto the United States or the United Kingdom;
33. Whereas Libyacontended that provisionalmeasures wereurgently
required in order to cause the United Statesto abstain from any action
capable ofhaving aprejudicial effectonthe Court's decision in the case,
and morespecificallyto refrainfrom takinganyinitiativewithinthe Secu-
rity Council for the purpose of impairing that right to exercisejurisdic-
tion, which Libyaasksthe Courtto recognize;

34. Whereas on 31March 1992(three days after the closeof the hear-
ings)the SecurityCounciladopted resolution 748(1992)stating interalia
that the SecurityCouncil :

DeepZyconcemedthat the Libyan Government has still not pro-
videdafull and effectiveresponsetothe requestsinitsresolution 731
(1992)of 21January 1992,
Convincedthat the suppression of acts of international terrorism,

including those in which Statesare directlyorindirectly involved,is
essentialforthe maintenance of internationalpeace and security,

Determining,inthiscontext,that thefailure bythe LibyanGovern-
menttodemonstrate byconcreteactions itsrenunciation ofterrorism
and inparticularitscontinuedfailuretorespond fullyand effectively
to the requestsin resolution 731(1992)constituteathreat to intema-

tional peace and security,

............................
Actingunder Chapter VI1ofthe Charter,

1. Decidesthat the LibyanGovernment mustnow complywithout
any further delay with paragraph 3 of resolution 731 (1992)regard-
ing the requests contained in documents S/23306, S/23308 and
S/23309;
2. Decidesalsothat the Libyan Government must commit itself
definitivelytoceaseal1forms ofterroristaction and al1assistanceto
terrorist groups and that it must promptly, by concrete actions,
demonstrate itsrenunciation ofterrorism;
3. Decidesthat, on 15April 1992al1States shall adopt the mea-
sures set out below, which shall apply until the Security Council
decidesthatthe LibyanGovernmenthascomplied withparagraphs 1
and 2above ; 7. Calls upon al1 States, including States not members of the
United Nations, and al1international organizations, to act strictlyin
accordance with the provisions of the present resolution, notwith-
standing the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or
imposed byanyinternational agreement orany contract entered into
or any licenceor permit granted prior to 15April1992";
35. Whereas, by a letter of 2 April 1992,a copy of which was trans-
mitted to Libya by the Registrar, the Agent of the United States drew
the Court's attention to the adoption of SecurityCouncil resolution 748
(1992)the textofwhichhe enclosed; and whereas,inthat letter,the Agent
stated :

"That resolution, adopted pursuant to Chapter VI1of the United
Nations Charter, 'decides that the Libyan Government must now
complywithoutany further delaywithparagraph 3ofresolution 731
(1992)of 21January 1992regardingthe requests contained in docu-
ments S/23306,S/23308and S/23309'.Itwillberecalledthatthe ref-
erenced requests include the request that Libya surrender the two
Libyan suspectsin the bombing of Pan Am flight 103to the United
States or to the United Kingdom. For this additional reason, the
United States maintains its submission of 28 March 1992that the
request of the Government of the Great Socialist People's Libyan

Arab Jamahiriya for the indication of provisional measures of
protection should be denied, and that no such measures should be
indicated" :

36. Whereasdocument S/23308,to whichreferencewasmade in reso-
lution 748(1992),included the demands set out in paragraph 30 above;
37. Whereas the Registrar,on the instructions of the Court, informed
the Parties, on 4 April 1992,that, in accordance with Article 62 of the
RulesofCourt,the Court waswillingtoreceive,nolaterthan 7April1992,
any observationsthe Parties might wish to transmit to it on the possible
implicationsofSecurityCouncilresolution 748(1992)forthe proceedings

before the Court;
38. Whereas in its observations on Security Council resolution 748
(1992)presented in response to the Court's invitation,Libya contends as
follows :first,thatthat resolution doesnot prejudice the rights ofLibyato
requesttheCourt to indicateprovisionalmeasures, inasmuch asbydecid-
ing, in effect,that Libya must surrender itsnationals to the United States
andthe United Kingdom, the SecurityCouncil infringes, or threatens to
infringe, the enjoyment andthe exerciseofthe rights conferred on Libya
by the Montreal Convention and its economic, commercial and diplo-
matic rights; whereas Libya therefore claims that the United States and
the United Kingdom should so act as not to infringe Libya'srights, for
example by seeking a suspension of the relevant part of resolution 748
(1992); 39. Whereas Libyain itsobservationscontends, secondly,that the risk
of contradiction between the resolution and the provisional measures
requested ofthe Court by Libyadoesnot renderthe Libyanrequestinad-
missible, since there is in law no competition or hierarchy between the
Court and the Security Council, each exercising its own competence;
whereas Libyarecallsin thisconnection that itregards the decision ofthe
SecurityCouncil as contrary to international law, and considers that the

Councilhas employeditspower to characterizethe situationfor purposes
of Chapter VI1simply as a pretext to avoid applying the Montreal Con-
vention.
40. Whereas in its observations on Security Council resolution 748
(1992),presented in response to the Court's invitation,the United States
observesthat that resolution was adopted under Chapter VI1rather than
Chapter VIofthe Charterand wasframedasa "decision" and contended
that, giventhat binding decision,no objectwouldbeservedbyprovisional
measures;that, irrespectiveof the right claimedby Libyaunder theMont-
real Convention, Libyahas a Charter-based duty to accept and carry out
the decisionsintheresolution, and other StateshaveaCharter-basedduty
to seek Libya'scompliance; that any indication of provisional measures
would run aseriousriskofconflictingwiththeworkofthe SecurityCoun-
cil; that the Council had rejected (interalia)Libya'scontention that the
matter should be addressed on the basis of the right claimed by Libya
under the Montreal Convention, which Libya asks the Court to protect
through provisional measures; and that the Court should therefore
declinethe request;

41. Whereas the Court, in the context of the present proceedings on a
requestforprovisional measures,hasin accordance withArticle41ofthe
Statute,to consider the circumstancesdrawn to its attention asrequiring
the indication of such measures, but cannot make definitive findings
either offact or oflawon the issuesrelatingto the merits, and the right of
the Parties tocontest such issues at the stage of the merits must remain
unaffected by the Court's decision;
42. Whereas both Libya and the United States, as Members of the
United Nations, are obliged to accept and carry out the decisions of the
SecurityCouncil in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter; whereas
the Court, which is at the stage of proceedings on provisional measures,
considers that prima facie this obligation extends to the decision con-
tained in resolution 748 (1992); and whereas, in accordance with
Article 103of the Charter, the obligations of the Parties in that respect
prevail over their obligationsunder any other international agreement,
includingthe Montreal Convention;

43. Whereasthe Court, whilethusnot atthisstagecalledupon to deter-
mine definitively the legal effect of Security Council resolution 748

(1992),considersthat, whateverthe situationprevious to the adoption of
that resolution,the rights claimed by Libyaunder the Montreal Conven- 127 1971 MONTREALCONVENTION (ORDER 14IV92)

tion cannot now be regarded as appropriate for protection by the indica-
tion of provisionalmeasures ;
44. Whereas,furthermore, an indication ofthe measuresrequested by
Libyawouldbe likelyto impair the rights which appearprima facieto be
enjoyedbythe United Statesbyvirtue of SecurityCouncilresolution 748
(1992);
45. Whereas, in order to pronounce on the present request for provi-
sionalmeasures,the Court isnot calleduponto determineanyofthe other
questions which have been raised before it in the present proceedings,

including the question of its jurisdiction to'entertain the merits of the
case; and whereasthe decision givenin these proceedings in no waypre-
judges any suchquestion, and leavesunaffected the rights ofthe Govem-
ment of Libya and the Govemment of the- United States to submit
arguments in respect of any ofthese questions;
46. Forthese reasons,

Byelevenvotesto five,

Findsthat the circumstances of the case are not such as to require the
exerciseofitspower under Article41 ofthe Statuteto indicateprovisional
measures.

INnings;RJudgesLachs,Ago,Schwebel,Ni, Evensen,Tarassov, Guillaume,n-
Shahabuddeen,AguilarMawdsley ;

AGAINST :JudgesBedjaoui,Weeramantry,RanjevA a,jibolaJudgeadhoc El-
Kosheri.

Done in Englishand in French, the English textbeing authoritative, at
the Peace Palace,The Hague,this fourteenthday of April, one thousand
nine hundred and ninety-two,inthree copies,one ofwhichwillbeplaced
inthe archivesoftheCourtand the otherstransmitted to the Govemment

of the LibyanArab Jamahiriya and the Govemment ofthe United States
of America,respectively.

(Signed)Shigem ODA,
Vice-President.

(Signed)Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar.

Vice-PresidentODA,Acting President, and Judge NI append declara-
tions to the Order of the Court; Judges EVENSEN T, RASSOG VU, ILLAUME

17andAGUILAM RAWDSLE aYpend ajoint declarationto the Orderof the
Court.

Judges LACHand SHAHABUDDE aENend separateopinions to the
OrderoftheCourt.

JudgesBEDJAOUWI,EERAMANT RAN,JEVA,IBOLandJudgead hoc
EL-KOSHEaRppenddissentingopinionstotheOrderofthe Court.

(Initialled)S.O.
(Initialled)E.V.O.

Bilingual Content

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE 1971MONTREAL CONVENTION ARISING

FROM THE AERIAL INCIDENT
AT LOCKERBIE
(LIBYAN ARABJAMAHIRIYA v.UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL
MEASURES

ORDER OF 14APRIL1992

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE RELATIVE A DES QUESTIONS
D'INTERPRÉTATION ET D'APPLICATION
DE LA CONVENTION DE MONTRÉAL DE 1971

RÉSULTANT DE L'INCIDENT AÉRIEN
DE LOCKERBIE
(JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE c. ÉTATS-UNIS
D'AMÉRIQUE)

DEMANDE EN INDICATION DE MESURES
CONSERVATOIRES

ORDONNANCEDU 14AVRIL1992 Officia1citation
Questionsof Interpretationand Applicationof the 1971MontrealConven-
tionarisingfrom theAerialIncidentut Lockerbie(LibyanArab Jamahiriya
v.UnitedStates ofAmerica),ProvisionalMeasures,Orderof 14April1992,
1C.J.Reports1992,114

Modeofficielde citation:
Questionsd'interprétation et d'ade la conventiondeMontréalde
c. Etats-Unisdümérique),mesures conser,rdonnancedu 14avrilnne
1992,.I.J.Recueil 199114.

fhlesn~rnber608 1
Nodevent: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1992 YEAR 1992
14April
GeneralList
No.89 14April 1992

CASE CONCERNING QUESTIONS OF
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF
THE 1971MONTREAL CONVENTION ARISING

FROM THE AERIAL INCIDENT
AT LOCKERBIE

(LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA V.UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION
OF PROVISIONALMEASURES

ORDER

Present: Uce-President ODA, Acting President; President Sir Robert
JENNINGS;Judges LACHS,AGO, SCHWEBEL ,EDJAOUIN,I,
EVENSENT ,ARASSOVG,UILLAUMES,HAHABUDDEE AG,UILAR
MAWDSLEY, WEERAMANTR RA,NJEVA,JIBOLAJ;udge ad hoc
EL-KOSHE RI~~~S~T~TVALENCIA-OSPINA.

TheInternational Court ofJustice,

Composedas above,
After deliberation,

Having regard to Articles41and 48ofthe Statute of the Court,andto
Articles73and 74ofthe Rules of Court, COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

14avril
Rôle général
14 avril 1992 no89

AFFAIRE RELATIVE À DES QUESTIONS
D'INTERPRÉTATION ET D'APPLICATION

DE LA CONVENTION DE MONTRÉAL DE 1971
RÉSULTANT DE L'INCIDENT AÉRIEN
DE LOCKERBIE

(JAMAHIRIYA ARABE LIBYENNE c. ÉTATS-UNIS
D'AMÉRIQUE)

DEMANDE EN INDICATION DE MESURES
CONSERVATOIRES

ORDONNANCE

Présents:M.ODA,Vice-Présit,isantfonctiondeprésidentenl'affaire;
sir Robert JENNINP,résidentde la Cour;MM. L, GO,
SCHWEBEL B,EDJAOUI,I, EVENSEN,RASSOV G,UILLAUME,
SHAHABUDDE ENU,ILARAWDSLEW Y, ERAMANTRRAY, JEVA,
AJIBOLAj,ges; M. EL-KOSHEjI,ge ad hoc; M. VALENCIA-
OSPINA ,reffier.

La Cour internationale de Justice,

Ainsicomposée,
Après délibén chambre du conseil,

Vulesarticles41etu Statut dela Cour etlesarticles 73et74de son
Règlement, Havingregardto the Application bythe Socialist People'sLibyanArab
Jamahiriya (hereinaftercalled "Libya") filed in the Registryofthe Court
on 3 March 1992,instituting proceedings against the United States of
America (hereinafter called "the United States") in respect of "a dis-
pute . ..between Libyaand the United States over the interpretation or
application ofthe Montreal Convention" of23September 1971,a dispute
arisingfrom actsresultingin the aerial incident that occurred overLock-
erbie,Scotland, on 21December 1988,

Makesthe followingOrder:

1. Whereas by its above-mentioned Application Libya founds the
jurisdiction ofthe Courton Article 36,paragraph 1,of the Statute of the
Courtand Article 14,paragraph 1,ofthe Convention forthe Suppression
ofUnlawfulActsAgainstthe SafetyofCivilAviation done atMontreal on
23 September 1971(referred to hereinafter as the "Montreal Conven-
tion"), instrumentsto which Libyaand the United Statesareboth parties;

2. WhereasinitsApplication Libyareferstothe destruction ofPan Am
flight 103on 21 December 1988over Lockerbie,in Scotland; whereasin
itsApplication Libyafurther Statesthat

"On 14November 1991,a Grand Jury ofthe United StatesDistrict
Court for the District of Columbia, United States of America,
indicted two Libyannationals(the'accused') charging,interalia,that
they had caused a bomb to be placed aboard [that flight] ... which
bomb had exploded causing the aeroplane to crash";
and whereas Libya also refers, in this connection, to Article 1 of the
Montreal Convention,contending thatthe actsalleged bythe indictment
constitute anoffencewithin the meaning ofthat provision;

3. Whereas,initsApplication, Libyaclaimsthat the Montreal Conven-
tion isthe only appropriate conventioninforcebetween the Parties deal-
ing with such offences, and that the United States is bound by its legal
obligations under the Montreal Convention, which require it to act in
accordance with the Convention, and only in accordance with the Con-
vention, with respect to thematter involving Pan Am flight 103and the
accused ;
4. Whereas, in its Application, Libya submits that, while it has itself
fullycompliedwith al1ofitsownobligationsunder the Montreal Conven-
tion,the UnitedStateshasbreached and iscontinuingtobreach itsobliga-
tions to Libya under Article 5, paragraph 2, Article 5, paragraph 3,
Article7,Article 8,paragraph 2,and Article 11ofthe Convention which
provide asfollows :

"Article5. ..
.............................
2. Each Contracting State shall likewise take such measures as CONVENTION DE MONTRÉALDE 1971(ORDONNAN1 C4IV92) 115

Vularequêteenregistréa eu Greffe le3mars 1992par laquellela Jama-
hiriya arabe libyenne socialiste et populaire (ci-après dénommée la
«Libye ») a introduit une instance contre les Etats-Unis d'Amérique(ci-
après dénommés les«Etats-Unis») au sujet d'un ((différend entre la
Libye et les Etats-Unis concernant l'interprétation ou l'applicationde la
convention de Montréal»du 23septembre 1971,différend quitrouve son

origine dans desactes ayant aboutià l'incident aérien survenuau-dessus
de Lockerbie,en Ecosse,le 21décembre1988,
Rendl'ordonnance suivante:

1. Considérant que,dans sa requête susmentionnéel,a Libyefonde la
compétencede laCour sur le paragraphe 1de l'article36du Statut de la
Cour et leparagraphe 1 de l'article 14dela conventionpour larépression
d'actes illicites dirigés contre la sécuritéde l'aviation civile faite
Montréal le23 septembre 1971(ci-après dénommée la ((convention de
Montréal))), instruments auxquels la Libye et les Etats-Unis sont tous

deuxparties ;
2. Considérant que,dans sarequête,laLibyeseréfère à la destruction,
le 21 décembre1988,de l'appareil qui assurait le vol 103de la Pan Am,
au-dessus de Lockerbie, en Ecosse; qu'elle indique en outre dans sa
requêteque :
«Le 14novembre 1991,un jury demise en accusation dutribunal

fédéralde district du District de Columbia engagea des poursuites
contre deux ressortissantslibyens(ci-aprèsdénommé less((accusés
pouravoir,notamment,faitplacerunebombe àbord [decetappareil...,
bombedontl'explosionavaitprovoquéla destructiondel'appareil» ;
etqu'elleseréfèreégalemen t,cetégard,à l'article premierdela conven-
tion deMontréal,enaffirmantquelesallégationsfaisantl'objetdel'incul-
pation constituent une infraction pénale auxfinsde cettedisposition;

3. Considérant que, danssa requête, laLibyesoutient que la conven-
tion de Montréalest la seule convention pertinente en vigueur entre les
Parties quitraite detellesinfractions, etque lesEtats-Unis sont tenus par
les obligations juridiques résultant pour eux de la convention de
Montréal, lesquellesleur imposentd'agir en conformité avecla conven-
tion, et seulementen conformitéavecelle,pour lesquestions relativesau
vol Pan Am 103et aux accusés;
4. Considérant que,dans sa requête,laLibyeaffirme qu'alors qu'elle-
mêmea pleinement satisfait à toutes ses obligations au regard de la
conventiondeMontréallesEtats-Unisont violéetcontinuent deviolerles
obligations auxquelles ils sont tenus envers la Libye en vertu des para-
graphes 2et3de l'article5,de l'article7,du paragraphe 2de l'article8,et
de l'article 11de la convention,qui disposent que

.............................
2. Tout Etat contractant prend égalementles mesuresnécessaires may be necessaryto establishitsjurisdiction overthe offencesmen-
tioned inArticle 1,paragraph 1(a),(b)and (c),and in Article 1,para-
graph 2, in so faras that paragraph relates to those offences,in the
casewhere the alleged offender is present in itsterritory and it does
not extraditehimpursuant to Article8to anyofthe Statesmentioned
inparagraph 1ofthis Article.

3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction
exercisedin accordance with national law."

"Article 7. The Contracting State in the territory of which the
alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be
obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the
offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its
competentauthorities forthe purpose ofprosecution. Thoseauthori-
ties shalltake their decision inthe samemanner as in the caseof any
ordinary offenceof a serious nature under the law ofthat State."

"Article8. ...
.............................
2. If a Contracting State which makes extradition conditional on
the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from
another Contracting State with which ithas no extradition treaty, it
mayatitsoption considerthisConvention asthe legalbasisforextra-
dition in respect of the offences. Extradition shall be subject to the
other conditionsprovided by the lawofthe requested State.

"Article 11. 1. Contracting States shall afford one another the
greatestmeasure of assistancein connection with criminal proceed-
ingsbrought inrespectofthe offences.Thelawofthe Staterequested
shallapply in al1cases.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1of this Article shall not affect
obligations under any other treaty, bilateral or multilateral, which
governsorwillgovern,inwholeorinpart, mutual assistanceincrimi-
na1matters";

5. Whereasitisstatedinthe Application that atthetimethe chargewas
communicated to Libya,or shortlythereafter, the accusedwerepresentin
the territory of Libya; that after being apprised ofthe charge, Libyatook
such measures as were necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the
offences charged, pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Montreal
Convention;that Libya alsotook measures to ensure the presence ofthe
accusedin Libyain order to enable criminal proceedingsto be instituted,
that it initiated a preliminary enquiry intothe facts and that it submitted
the caseto its competent authorities forthe purpose of prosecution; that CONVENTIONDE MONTRÉALDE 1971 (ORDONNANCE 14IV92) 116

pour établir sa compétence auxfins de connaître des infractions
prévues aux alinéasa, bet c du paragraphe le'de l'article ler,ainsi
qu'auparagraphe 2dumême article,pourautantque cedernierpara-
graphe concernelesditesinfractions, dans lecasoù l'auteur présumé

del'uned'elles setrouve surson territoireetoùleditEtatnel'extrade
pas conformément à l'article 8 vers l'un des Etats visésau para-
graphe lerdu présent article.
3. La présente convention n'écarteaucune compétence pénale
exercéeconformémentauxloisnationales.»
«Article 7. L'Etat contractant sur le territoire duquel l'auteur
présumé de l'une des infractionsest découvert,s'iln'extrade pasce

dernier,soumetl'affaire,sansaucune exceptionet quel'infraction ait
ou non étécommise sur son territoire, à ses autoritéscompétentes
pour l'exercicede l'action pénale. Cesautoritésprennent leur déci-
sion dans les mêmesconditions que pour toute infraction de droit
commun de caractèregraveconformémentaux loisde cet Etat. ))

2. Si un Etat contractant qui subordonne l'extradition à l'exis-
tence d'un traitéest saisid'une demande d'extradition par un autre
Etat contractant aveclequel iln'estpas liéparun traité d'extradition,
il a la latitude de considérer la présente convention comme consti-
tuant labasejuridique de l'extradition ence qui concerne lesinfrac-
tions. L'extradition est subordonnéeaux autres conditions prévues
par le droit de1'Etatrequis.
'Y

((ArticleII. 1. Les Etats contractants s'accordent l'entraide judi-
ciairela plus largepossibledans toute procédure pénale relativaux
infractions.Dans touslescas,laloiapplicable pour l'exécutiond'une
demande d'entraide est cellede 1'Etatrequis.
2. Toutefois,lesdispositions du paragraphe lerdu présent article
n'affectent pas les obligations découlant des dispositions de tout

autre traitéde caractère bilatéral ou multilatélui régitou régira,
en tout ou en partie, le domaine de l'entraide judiciaire en matière
pénale »;

5. Considérant qu'il est déclarédans la requête qu'au momentoù
l'inculpation a été communiquée à la Libye,ou peu de temps après,les
accuséssetrouvaient en territoire libyen; qu'après avoir été informédee
l'inculpation laLibyeapris lesmesuresnécessairespour établirsacompé-
tence aux fins de connaître des infractions alléguées,conformémena tu
paragraphe 2 de l'article 5 de la convention de Montréal;que la Libyea
aussi pris des mesures pour assurer la présence des accusésen Libye en
vue de l'engagementde poursuites pénales,qu'ellea ouvert une enquête
préliminaireafin d'établirlesfaits et qu'ellea soumisl'affairesesauto-Libyahas not extraditedthe accused,there being no extraditiontreaty in
forcebetweenit and the United States,and no basis forthe extradition of
the accused under Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Montreal Convention,
sincethis provision subjectsextradition to the law of the requested State
and Libyan law prohibits the extradition of Libyan nationals; and that,
pursuant to Article 11,paragraph 1,of the Montreal Convention, Libya
has soughtjudicial assistancefrom the United States in connection with
the criminal proceedingsinstituted by Libya, withthe competent Libyan
authorities offering to CO-operate with the investigations in the
United States or in other countries, but that the United Statestogether
with its law enforcement officials have refused to CO-operatein any
respect with the Libyaninvestigations;

6. Whereas it is further alleged in the Application of the Libyan Gov-
emment that the United Stateshas clearlyshownthat itisnotinterestedin
proceeding within the framework ofthe Montreal Conventionbut onthe
contras. isintent oncompellingthesurrender to itoftheaccused,inviola-
tion of the provisions of that Convention; that, more specifically, the
United States,by its actions and threats against Libya, seeks,in violation
of Article 5,paragraph 2, of the Montreal Convention,to prevent Libya
from establishing its legitimatejurisdiction to deal with the matter; that,
byitsactionsandthreats,the United Statesseeks,inviolationofthe Mont-
real Convention, to prevent Libya from exercising the right conferred
upon itbyArticle5,paragraph 3,ofthat Convention,to exerciseitscrimi-
na1jurisdictionto dealwiththematterinaccordancewithitsnational law ;
that by seekingto force Libyato surrenderthe accused,the United States
is attempting, in violation of theMontreal Convention,to prevent Libya
fromfulfillingitsobligations under Article7ofthe Convention to submit
the case to its competentauthorities for the purpose of prosecution, and

that the effortsmade by the United States to force Libyato surrenderthe
accused also constitute a violation of Article 8,paragraph 2,ofthat Con-
vention under which extradition is made subjectto the laws of the state
from which extradition is requested; and that by refusing to provide
details of its investigationto the competentauthorities in Libyaor to co-
operate with them,the United Stateshas failed to fulfilthe obligationto
afford assistancein criminal matters to Libya,asprovided in Article 11,
paragraph 1,of the Montreal Convention, and has breached its obliga-
tions under that Convention;
7. Whereas Libya, in its Application, asks the Court to adjudge and
declare :

"(a) that Libya has fully complied with al1of its obligations under
the Montreal Convention;

(b) that theUnited Stateshasbreached,and iscontinuingto breach,
its legal obligations to Libyaunder Articles 5 (2), 5 (3),7,8 (2)
and 11oftheMontreal Convention; and CONVENTION DEMONTRÉALDE 1971 (ORDONNANCE 14IV92) 117

ritéscompétentespourl'exercicede l'action pénale;que la Libyen'apas
extradéles accusés,du fait qu'il n'existepas de traité d'extradition en
vigueurentre lesEtats-Unis et elle-mêmen ,i debasepermettant l'extradi-
tion des accusés conformémentau paragraphe 2 de l'article 8 de la
convention de Montréal,puisque cettedispositionsubordonne l'extradi-
tion au droit de1'Etatrequis et que ledroit libyeninterdit l'extradition de

ressortissants libyens; et que, conformément au paragraphe 1 de l'ar-
ticle11de la convention de Montréal, laLibyea sollicitél'assistance des
autoritésjudiciairesdesEtats-Unisdanslaprocédure pénaleengagéepar
elle,lesautorités compétenteslibyennesoffrantdecoopéreraux enquêtes
menéesaux Etats-Unis ou dans d'autres pays,maisque les Etats-Unis et
lesresponsablesdel'application desloisdecepays ontrefusédecoopérer
d'aucune manière aux enquêteslibyennes;
6. Considérantqu'il estaussialléguédanslarequêtedu Gouvernement
libyen que les Etats-Unis ont clairement montré qu'ils n'entendent pas
agir dans le cadre fixé par la convention de Montréal, mais qu'au
contraire ilsentendent contraindre la Libye leurremettre lesaccusés,en
violationdesdispositions decetteconvention ;que,plusparticulièrement,
les Etats-Unis, par leurs actions et menaces contre la Libye,tentent, en
violation du paragraphe 2 de l'article 5de la convention de Montréal,

d'empêcherla Libyed'établirsacompétencelégitimepour connaître dela
question; que,par leursactions etleursmenaces,lesEtats-Unistentent, en
violation de la convention de Montréal, d'empêchelra Libyed'exercer le
droitquilui estconféré par leparagraphe 3del'article 5deladite conven-
tiond'exercersacompétencepénale pour connaître delaquestionconfor-
mément à salégislationnationale; qu'ententant de contraindre la Libyà
remettreles accusés,lesEtats-Unisessaient,enviolation de laconvention
de Montréal, d'empêcher lL aibyede remplirl'obligation que lui impose
l'article 7de la convention de soumettre l'affaireses autorités compé-
tentes pour l'exercicede l'action pénaleetque leseffortsdéployéspar les
Etats-Unis pour contraindre la Libye àremettre les accusés constituent
égalementune violation du paragraphe 2 de l'article 8de ladite conven-
tion aux termes duquel l'extradition est subordonnée au droit de 1'Etat
requis; et qu'en refusantde fournir les détailsde leur enquêteaux auto-

rités compétentesen Libye ou de coopérer avecelles,les Etats-Unisont
manquéau devoir d'entraide judiciaire envers la Libye stipuléau para-
graphe 1de l'article 11dela convention de Montréaletvioléleursobliga-
tions au regard de celle-ci
7. Considérant que laLibye, dans sa requête,prie la Cour de dire et
juger:

«a) que la Libye a satisfait pleinementà toutes ses obligations au
regarddelaconvention deMontréal;
b) quelesEtats-Unisontviolé,etcontinuent devioler,leursobliga-
tions juridiques envers la Libye stipulées aux articles5, para-
graphes 2 et 3, 7, 8, paragraphe 2, et 11 de la convention de
Montréal; 118 1971 MONTREAL CONVENTION (ORDER 14IV92)

(c) that the United Statesisunder a legalobligation immediatelyto
ceaseanddesistfrom suchbreaches and fromtheuse ofanyand
al1force or threats against Libya, including the threat of force
against Libya,and from al1violationsofthe sovereignty,territo-
rial integrity,andthepoliticalindependence ofLibya" ;

8. Whereas, later on 3 March 1992,the day on which the Application
was filed, the Libyan Governmentalso filed an "urgent request that the
Court indicateprovisional measureswhichoughtto betaken promptly to
preserve the rights of Libya", referring to Article 41 of theatute of the
Court and to Articles 73,74 and 75ofthe Rules of Court;and whereas in
that request Libya, referring to Article 74, paragraph 4, of theRules of

Court, also requested the President,pendingthe meeting ofthe Court, to
exercisethe power conferred on him by that provision to cal1upon the
Parties to actinsuch a way asto enable any Order the Court mightmake
on Libya's request for provisional measures to have its appropriate
effects;

9. Whereas in its request for the indication of provisional measures,
Libya,referringtothestatement offactsinitsApplication, allegedthat the
United Stateswas actively seekingto bypass the provisions of the Mont-
real Convention by threatening various actions against Libyain order to
compelLibya,inviolationoftheConvention, to surrenderits twoaccused
nationals; whereas Libya affirmed in the request that the United States
had indicated that it might seek or impose economic, air and other sanc-
tions against Libya if Libya did not comply with the demands of the

United States,andthatthe latter had refused to mle outthe use of armed
force against Libya; and that Libya considered that such actions would
clearlybeillegalandinappropriate under the applicable provisions ofthe
Montreal Convention,particularly when Libya was itselfcomplying in
full withthat Convention;

10. Whereas in its request for the indication of provisional measures
Libya further submitted that inasmuch asthe dispute involvedthe inter-
pretation or application ofthe Montreal Convention,it wasfortheCourt
alone to rule on the validity ofthe actions of Libyaandthe United States
under that Convention; that only by granting provisional measures
enjoiningthe United States from taking such actionsagainst Libyawasit
possibleto prevent Libya'srightsfrom beingirreparablyprejudicedeither
in fact or in law; and that provisional measures were also urgently

required in order to cause the United Statesto abstain from any action
capable of having a prejudicial effect on the Court'secision in the case
and to refrain from taking any step that might aggravate or extend the
dispute,aswould surelyhappen if sanctionswereimposedagainst Libya
or forcewereemployed; CONVENTIONDE MONTRÉALDE 1971 (ORDONNANCE 14IV92) 118

c) que les Etats-Unis sontjuridiquement tenus de mettre fin et de
renoncer immédiatement à ces violations etàtoute forme de
recours à la force ou àla menace contre la Libye,y compris la
menace de recourir àla force contre la Libye, ainsi qu'à toute
violation de la souveraineté,de l'intégrité territoriale etde
l'indépendance politiquedelaLibye» ;

8. Considérant que, plustard dans lajournéedu 3 mars 1992,lejour
même où larequêteaétédéposé lee, ouvernementlibyenaprésentéune
((demande urgente tendant à ce que la Cour indique quelles mesures
conservatoiresdes droits de la Libyedoivent êtreprisesàtitre provisoire
et sans délai,en se référantà l'article41du Statut de laCour et aux ar-
ticles73,74et75desonRèglement;etconsidérantquedanscettedemande
la Libye,se référantau paragraphe 4 de l'article 74 du Règlementde la
Cour, a prié en outrele Président, enattendant que la Cour se réunisse,
d'exercerlepouvoirquiluiétaitconféré par cetarticled'inviterlesParties
à agir de manièreque toute ordonnance de la Cour sur la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires de la Libye puisse avoir les effets
voulus ;

9. Considérant que,dans sademandeen indication demesuresconser-
vatoires,la Libye,renvoyantàl'exposédesfaitsfigurantdans sarequête,a
alléguéque les Etats-Unis s'efforçaient activement de contourner les
dispositions de la convention de Montréal en menaçant de recourir à
différentesactionscontrela Libyepour contraindre celle-ci,en violation
de la convention, à remettre ses deux ressortissants accusés; qu'il était
affirmédans lademandeque lesEtats-Unisavaientfaitsavoir qu'ilspour-
raienttenter d'obtenirouimposerdessanctions dans lesdomainesécono-
mique,aérienou autres contre la Libye,si celle-cin'obtempérait pas aux
exigencesdesEtats-Unis,etquecesderniersavaient refuséd'exclurel'uti-
lisation de la force arméecontrela Libye; et que la Libyeestimaitque de
telles actionsseraientmanifestement illégales etinappropriéesauregard
desdispositionsapplicables de la convention de Montréal, alorsenparti-
culierqu'elle-même sc eonformaitpleinement àladite convention;

10. Considérant que, dans sa demande en indication de mesures
conservatoires,la Libyeaffirmait enoutreque, dans lamesureoù lediffé-
rend concernait l'interprétation ou l'applicationde la convention de
Montréal,il incombait exclusivement à la Cour de statuer sur la validité
des actions de la Libyeet des Etats-Unis au regard de cette convention;
que seule l'indication de mesures conservatoires interdisant aux Etats-
Unis d'engagerlesactions considéréescontrelaLibyepouvait permettre
d'éviterque les droits de la Libye ne fussent irrémédiablementlésés,n
fait ou en droit; et que des mesures conservatoiresétaient aussirequises
d'urgencepour que les Etats-Unis s'abstiennent detoute action pouvant
avoir des effets préjudiciablessur la décisionde la Cour en l'espèce et
qu'ilss'abstiennentdetoute mesurequirisquerait d'aggraverou d'élargir
le différend,comme ne manquerait pas de le faire l'imposition de sanc-
tions contrela Libyeou l'emploide la force; 119 1971 MONTREALCONVENTION (ORDER 14IV92)

11. WhereasLibya,consideringthat theCourt'sjurisdiction inthe case

was prima facie established under the Montreal Convention, submitted
that there were no impediments to indicating provisional measures and
accordingly requested the Court to indicate forthwith provisional mea-
sures :
"(a) to enjointhe United Statesfrom taking anyactionagainst Libya
calculatedto coerce or compel Libyato surrender the accused
individualsto anyjurisdiction outsideofLibya;and

(b) to ensurethat no stepsaretakenthat wouldprejudice inanyway

the rights of Libyawith respecttothe legalproceedings that are
the subjectofLibya'sApplication" ;
12. Whereas on 3 March 1992,the date on which the Applicationand
the request for the indication of provisional measures were filed in the
Registry, the Registrar transmitted by facsimile to the Government of
the United States a certified copy ofthe Application,in accordance with
Article 40,paragraph 2,ofthe Statute and Article 38,paragraph 4, ofthe
Rules of Court, and a certified copy of the request for the indication of
provisional measures, in accordance with Article 73,paragraph 2, of the

Rules of Court;
13. Whereas,in accordance withArticle40,paragraph 3, ofthe Statute
of the Court and Article 42 of the Rules of Court, copies of the Applica-
tion weretransmitted tothe Members ofthe United Nations through the
Secretary-Generalof the United Nations, and to the other Statesentitled
to appear beforethe Court;
14. Whereas, by a letter of 6 March 1992,a copy of which was trans-
mitted to Libya by the Registrar, the Legal Adviser of the United States
Department of State, referring to the specific request made by Libya
under Article 74,paragraph 4,ofthe Rules of Court, in itsrequestforthe
indication ofprovisional measures, stated interaIiathat

"taking into account both the absence of any concrete showing of
urgency relating to the request and developments in the ongoing
action by the Security Council and the Secretary-General in this
matter ...the action requested by Libya ... is unnecessary and
couldbe misconstrued" ;
15. Whereas, on 12March 1992,the Registrar,in accordance with Ar-

ticle 69,paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, sent the International Civil
Aviation Organizationthe notification provided for in Article 34, para-
graph 3, of the Statute of the Court; and whereas on 25 March 1992,the
Registrar, in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Court, sent the
notification provided for in Article 63 of theStatute to the States, other
than thePartiestothedispute, which,onthebasisofinformationsupplied
by the depositary Governments,appeared to be parties to the Montreal
Convention of23September 1971 ; CONVENTIONDE MONTRÉALDE 1971 (ORDONNANCE 14IV92) 119

11. Considérantque la Libye,estimant que la compétencede la Cour
enl'espèceétaitprimafacie établieenvertu delaconvention de Montréal,
a soutenu qu'il n'existaitaucun empêchement àl'indication de mesures
conservatoireset apriéen conséquencelaCour d'indiquer sansdélai des

mesuresconservatoirespour :
«a) interdire aux Etats-Unis d'engager aucune action contre la
Libye visant à contraindre ou obliger celle-ci à remettre les
personnes accusées àuneautoritéjudiciaire, quelle qu'ellesoit,
extérieure àlaLibye;

b) veilleà éviter toute mesure qui porterait atteinte de quelque
façon aux droits de la Libye en ce qui concerne la procédure
judiciairefaisantl'objetdelarequêtelibyenne » ;
12. Considérantque le 3 mars 1992,date à laquelle la requête etla
demande en indication de mesures conservatoires ont été déposée asu
Greffe, le Greffier a transmis par télécopau Gouvernement des Etats-

Unis une copie certifiée conformede la requête, conformémena tupara-
graphe 2 de l'article 40 du Statut et au paragraphe4 de l'article 38 du
Règlementde la Cour, et une copie certifiéeconformede la demandeen
indication de mesuresconservatoires,conformémentau paragraphe2 de
l'article73du Règlementde laCour;
13. Considérant que,conformémentau paragraphe 3de l'article40du
Statut de la Cour et à l'article 42 de son Règlement,des copies de la
requêteont été transmises auxMembres des Nations Unies par l'entre-
mise du Secrétaire générad le l'Organisation des Nations Unies, ainsi
qu'aux autres Etatsadmis à esterdevant la Cour;
14. Considérant que,dans une lettre du 6 mars 1992dont copie a été

communiquée à la Libyepar le Greffier, leconseillerjuridique du dépar-
tement d'Etat desEtats-Unis s'est référéla demande spécifiqueprésen-
téepar laLibyeenvertuduparagraphe4de l'article74du Règlementdela
Courdans la demandelibyenne en indication demesuresconservatoires ;
que le conseillerjuridique a déclaré entre autres que,

acompte tenu àla foisde l'absencedetoute démonstration concrète
del'urgencerelativeà cettedemande etdel'évolutionquesuitactuel-
lement l'action du Conseil de sécuritéet du Secrétaire généraslur
cettequestion ..lesmesuresdemandéespar la Libye ..sont inutiles
etpourraient êtremal interprétées);

15. Considérant que,le 12mars 1992,leGreffier aadresséà l'organisa-
tion de l'aviationcivileinternationale, conformémentau paragraphe 3de
l'article 69 du Règlementde la Cour, la notification prévue au para-
graphe 3 de l'article 34 du Statut de la Cour, et que, le 25 mars 1992,le
Greffier,conformément àl'article43du Règlement,a adressélanotifica-
tion prévue à l'article 63 du Statut aux Etats, autres que les Parties en
litige, qui apparaissaient, sur la base de renseignements obtenus des
gouvernements dépositaires, comme étant parties à la convention de
Montréaldu 23septembre 1971 ;120 1971 MONTREALCONVENTION(ORDER 14IV92)

16. Whereas, the Court not including upon the Bench a judge of
Libyan nationality, the Libyan Government availed itself of the provi-
sions of Article31,paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court to choose
Mr. Ahmed SadekEl-Kosheri to sitasJudge ad hocin the case;

17. Whereas,havingregard to the wishesexpressed bythe Parties, the
Vice-Presidentofthe Court, exercisingthe functions ofthe presidency in
the case,fixed 26March 1992asthe date forthe opening ofthe oral pro-
ceedings on the request for the indication of provisional measures, in
accordance with Article 74,paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, and the
Parties wereinformed ofthis decision on 6March 1992;
18. Whereas on 26 March 1992,at the opening of the hearings on the
request for the indication of provisional measures, the Vice-Presidentof
the Court, exercisingthe functions ofthe presidencyinthe case, referred,
interalia,tothe requestmade by Libyaunder Article 74,paragraph 4, of
the Rules of Court and stated that afterthe most carefulconsideration of
al1the circumstances then known to him he had come to the conclusion
that it would not be appropriate for him to exercise the discretionary
power conferred on the President by that provision;
19. Whereasoralobservations ofthe Partiesontherequestfortheindi-
cation of provisional measures were presented, at public hearings held

pursuant to Article 74,paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, on 26,27 and
28March 1992,bythe followingrepresentatives :
onbehalfof Libya:

H.E. Mr.Ai Faitouri Sh.Mohamed, Agent,
Mr. Ian Brownlie, Q.C.,
Mr.Jean Salmon,
Mr. Eric Suy;
on behalfof the UnitedStates:
The Hon. Edwin D.Williamson,Agent,

Mr. Alan J. Kreczko,DeputyAgent,
Mr. BruceC. Rashkow,
Mr. Charles N. Brower,
Mr.Jonathan B.Schwartz;
and whereas during the hearingsquestions wereput by Judges,to which
the Parties subsequently replied in writing, within the time-limit fixed
pursuant to Article 61,paragraph 4,ofthe Rules of Court;

20. Whereas at the hearing held on 28 March 1992(morning), Libya

presented the followingsubmissions :
"Libya hereby confirms that it is requesting the Court to indicate
the followingprovisional measures :

(a) to enjoin... the United States ... from taking against Libya
measures calculated to exert coercion on it or compel it to sur- 16. Considérant que,la Cour ne comptant pas sur le siègedejuge de
nationalitélibyenne, le Gouvernementlibyen a invoqué les dispositions
du paragraphe 2 de l'article 31 du Statut de la Cour et a désigné
M. Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri pour siégeren qualité dejuge ad hoc en
l'affaire
17. Considérant que, compte tenu des souhaits exprimés par les
Parties, le Vice-Présidentde la Cour, faisant fonction de présidenten
l'affaire,afixéau26mars 1992ladate del'ouverturedelaprocédureorale
sur la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires,conformément
au paragraphe 3 de l'article 74,du Règlement, etque les Parties ont été
aviséesde cette décision le6mars 1992;

18. Considérantquele26mars 1992,lors de l'ouverturedes audiences
surlademandeenindication demesuresconservatoires,le Vice-Président
de la Cour, faisant fonction de président en l'affaire, s'estréfére,ntre
autres,à la demande formuléepar la Libyeen vertu du paragraphe 4 de
l'article74du Règlementetadéclaréqu'après avoirprocédé àun examen
trèsattentif de toutes les circonstancesalorsportées sa connaissance il
étaitparvenuàla conclusion qu'iln'yavaitpas lieu pour lui d'exercer le
pouvoirdiscrétionnaireconféré au Présidentpar cettedisposition;
19. Considérant que, lors des audiencespubliques tenues les26,27 et
28mars 1992conformémentauparagraphe 3del'article74du Règlement
de la Cour, des observations orales sur la demande en indication de
mesuresconservatoiresont étéprésentép ear les Parties

au nomdela Libye:
par S.Exc.M. A1 Faitouri Sh.Mohamed, agent,
M.Ian Brownlie,Q.C.,
M.Jean Salmon,
M.EricSuy;

au nomdesEtats-Unis:
par l'honorable Edwin D.Williamson,agent,
M.AlanJ.Kreczko,agentadjoint,
M.BruceC.Rashkow,
M.Charles N.Brower
M.Jonathan B.Schwartz;

et qu'àl'audience des questions ont étéposéespar desjuges, auxquelles
les Parties ont ultérieurement répondupar écrit,dans le délai fixéà cet
effet conformémentau paragraphe 4 de l'article 61 du Règlementde la
Cour;
20. Considérantqu'à l'audience du 28 mars 1992(matin) la Libye a
conclu comme suit :

«La Libye confirme qu'elle demande à la Cour de bien vouloir
indiquer lesmesuresconservatoiressuivantes :
a) d'enjoindre..aux Etats-Unis ..denepas prendre contrela Libye
de mesures calculéespour exercer sur elle une coercition ou la 121 1971MONTREALCONVENTION (ORDER 14IV92)

rendertheaccusedindividualstoanyjurisdiction outsideofLibya;
and
(b) to ensure that no stepsare taken that could prejudice in any way
the rights of Libya with respect to the proceedings instituted by
Libya'sApplications" ;
21. Whereas at the hearing held on 28 March 1992(afternoon), the

United Statespresented the followingsubmission:
"Mayitplease theCourt,

Onbehalf ofthe United States ofArnerica,to rejectthe request of
the Government of the Great Socialist People'sLibyan Arab Jama-
hiriya forthe indication of provisional measures of protection, and
not to indicate,anysuch measures";

22. Whereas Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Convention,
relied on by Libyaas basis ofjurisdiction in the case,reads as follows:

"Any disputebetween two or more Contracting Statesconcerning

the interpretation or application ofthisConvention whichcannot be
settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be
submitted to arbitration. If within six months of the date of the
requestforarbitration the Partiesarenabletoagreeonthe organiza-
tion ofthe arbitration, any one ofthose Parties mayreferthe dispute
to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with
theStatute oftheCourt";
23. Whereas, in its Application, Libya States that a dispute exists

between Libya and the United Statesas to the interpretation or applica-
tion oftheMontreal Convention;that ithasnotbeenpossibleto settlethis
dispute by negotiation; that a request by Libya to the United States for
arbitration ofthe dispute has beenrejected bythe United States,and that
the Parties havebeen unable to agreeon the organization of suchan arbi-
tration; and that in the light of the urgency of rectifyingthe continuing
violations by the United States of the Montreal Convention and the
UnitedStatesrefusaltoenterintoarbitration, the Court hasjurisdiction to
hear Libya'sclaimsarising under the Montreal Convention; whereas, in
its request for the indication of provisional measures, Libya submitted
thatthe Court's jurisdictioninthe casewasprima facieestablishedunder
the Montreal Convention; and whereasinthe course ofthe oral proceed-
ings,Libyaconfirmed those viewsand further contended thatthe various
conditionslaid down byArticle 14,paragraph 1,ofthe Montreal Conven-
tionhad beenfulfilled,including therequirementrelated to thesix-month

period; forcerà livrer lesindividus accusésà quelquejuridiction que ce
soithors delaLibye ;et
b) de faireen sorte qu'aucune mesurene soitprise qui puisse porter
préjudicede quelque manière aux droits de la Libye en ce qui
concernelesinstancesintroduites par lesrequêtesdelaLibye» ;

21. Considérant qu'à l'audiencedu 28 mars 1992 (après-midi) les
Etats-Unisont conclu comme suit:

«Plaise à la Cour
rejeter la demandeen indication de mesures conservatoiresprésen-
téepar le Gouvernement de la Grande Jamahiriya arabe libyenne
socialisteetpopulaire, et ne pas indiquer detellesmesures»;

22. Considérantque leparagraphe 1de l'article 14de la convention de
Montréal,que la Libyeinvoque commebase de la compétencede la Cour
dans la présente affaire,est ainsilibellé:

«Tout différend entre des Etats contractants concernant l'inter-
prétation ou l'applicationde la présente convention quine peut pas
êtreréglépar voie de négociationest soumis à l'arbitrage, à la
demande de l'un d'entre eux.Si,dans lessixmoisqui suivent la date
de la demande d'arbitrage,lesparties ne parviennent pasà semettre
d'accord sur l'organisation de l'arbitrage, l'une quelconque d'entre
ellespeut soumettrele différend àla Cour internationale de Justice,
en déposantune requête conformémenatu Statut de la Cour»;

23. Considérant que,dans sa requête, laLibye déclare qu'il existeun
différend entre elle et les Etats-Unis concernant l'interprétation ou
l'application de la convention de Montréal;qu'iln'a pas étépossible de
réglercedifférendpar voiedenégociation; qu'unedemande adresséepar
elleauxEtats-Unisenvued'un arbitrage du différenda été rejetéepar les
Etats-Unis,etque lesPartiesn'ont pas pu semettre d'accord surl'organi-
sation d'un tel arbitrage; et que, eu égaàl'urgencequ'ilya à remédier
auxviolationscontinues de la convention de Montréalpar les Etats-Unis

etaurefusdecesderniersdesoumettreledifférend à l'arbitrage,laCoura
compétencepour connaître des réclamations que la Libye présenteen
vertu delaconventiondeMontréal;considérantque,dans sademande en
indication de mesuresconservatoires,la Libyea faitvaloir que la compé-
tence de la Cour dans la présente affaireétaitimafacie établie envertu
dela conventiondeMontréal;etconsidérant qu'au coursdelaprocédure
oralela Libyea confirmécesvueseta soutenu en outreque lesdifférentes
conditions prévuespar leparagraphe 1de l'article 14de la convention de
Montréal avaient été rempliesy, compris les exigences relativesau délai
de six mois: 24. Whereas,inthe courseoftheoralproceedings Libyaalsosubmitted
that the rights for which it soughtprotection wereestablished; that these
rights were the subject of the principal Application; that the circum-
stances disclosed a risk of imminentirreparable damage to these rights;
and that the exercise by the Court and the Security Council of their
respectivepowers did not in anyway conflict;

25. Whereas in the course of the oral proceedings the United States
contended that the requested provisional measures should not be indi-
cated because Libyahad not presented a prima facie casethat the provi-
sionsofthe Montreal Convention provide a possiblebasisforjurisdiction
inasmuch as the six-monthperiod prescribed by Article 14,paragraph 1,

of the Convention had not yet expired when Libya's Application was
filed; and that Libya had not established that the United States had
refused to arbitrate;
26. Whereas the United States also contended that Libya had not
demonstrated that provisional measures were necessaryto protect rights
at imminent risk of irreparable injury; that there was no proof that "the
United States was threatening Libyawith economicsanctions and other
actions,including the probability of recourse to the use of armed force",
as allegedby Libya;

27. Whereasthe United States alsoarguedthatthe requested measures
did not relate to the rights claimed in the Application; that Libya had
failedto establishthe possible existenceofthe rights it claimed under the
Montreal Convention; and that the requested measures would not pre-
servethe rights ofthe United States;
28. Whereasthe United States also contended thatthe SecurityCoun-

cilwas activelyseisedofthe situation which wasthe subject ofthe Appli-
cation and that therefore the Court should not indicate provisional
measures ;
29. Whereas the United States further contended that the requested
provisionalmeasureswereimproperlydirected to restrainingaction inthe
SecurityCouncil,includingparticipation by Member States;

30. Whereas,followingon the chargesbrought by a Grand Jury of the
United StatesDistrict Court forthe District of Columbiaagainstthe two
Libyannationals in connection withthe destruction of Pan Amflight 103,
the United States and the United Kingdom issued on 27November 1991
the followingjoint declaration :

"The British and American Governmentstoday declare that the
Government of Libyamust :

- surrender for trial al1those charged with the crime; and accept
responsibilityforthe actionsofLibyanofficials; 24. Considérant qu'au coursdelaprocédure oralelaLibyeaégalement
soutenu que les droits dont elle sollicitait la protection étaient établis;
quelesditsdroitsconstituaientl'objet delarequêteprincipale; quelescir-
constances faisaient apparaître le risque qu'un préjudice imminent et
irréparable soit causéauxdits droits; et que l'exercicepar la Cour et par

le Conseil de sécurité de leurs pouvoirs respectifs ne suscitait en aucune
manièreun conflit;
25. Considérant que lors de la procédure orale les Etats-Unis ont
soutenu qu'il n'yavait pas lieu d'indiquer les mesures conservatoires
demandées parce que la Libye n'avait pas établi, primafacie, que les
dispositions de la convention de Montréal pouvaient constituerune base
de compétencedans la mesureoù ledélaide sixmoisprescrit par lepara-
graphe 1 de l'article 14de ladite convention n'étaitpas expiré lorsdu
dépôt dela requêtede la Libye; et que la Libye n'avaitpas établique les
Etats-Uniseussentrefusél'arbitrage;
26. Considérant queles Etats-Unis ont soutenu aussi que la Libye
n'avaitpas démontréque des mesures conservatoiresétaient nécessaires
pour protéger des droits qui couraientun risque imminent de préjudice
irréparable;et qu'iln'y avait aucune preuve que «les Etats-Unis mena-
centla Libyede sanctionséconomiqueset d'autresmesures,y compris la

probabilitédu recours à l'emploidela forcearmée»,commel'alléguaitla
Libye;
27. Considérant que les Etats-Unisont également fait valoirque les
mesures demandées étaient dépourvues de lien avec les droits invoqués
dans la requête; quela Libye n'avaitpas établi l'existence possible des
droits qu'elle prétendait tenirde la convention de Montréal; et que les
mesures demandées ne sauvegarderaient pas les droits des Etats-Unis;
28. Considérant que les Etats-Unis ont soutenu, en outre, que le
Conseil de sécuritéétait activementsaisdie la situation qui faisaitl'objet
de la requêteet que la Cour ne devait donc pas indiquer de mesures
conservatoires ;
29. Considérant que les Etats-Unis ont soutenu, de plus, que les
mesures conservatoires demandées tendaient indûment à entraver
l'action au Conseil de sécurité, y comprisla participation d'Etats

Membres ;
30. Considérant que, àla suitedesinculpations lancéespar un jury de
mise en accusation du Tribunal fédéralde première instance des Etats-
Unis pour leDistrict de Columbia contre lesdeuxressortissants libyensà
propos de la destruction de l'appareil qui assuraitle vol Pan Am 103,les
Etats-UnisetleRoyaume-Uni ont,le 27novembre 1991,publiéladéclara-
tion communesuivante :

«Les Gouvernements britannique et américain déclarentcejour
que le Gouvernementlibyendoit :
- livrer, afin qu'ils soient traduits en justice, tous ceux qui sont
accusésde cecrime et assumerla responsabilitédesagissements
desagentslibyens ; - discloseal1itknowsofthiscrime,includingthe namesofal1those
responsible,and allowfullaccessto al1witnesses,documents and
othermaterial evidence,includingal1theremainingtimers ;

- payappropriate compensation.

We expect Libyato complypromptly and in full";

31. Whereas the subject of that declaration was subsequently consid-
ered by the United Nations SecurityCouncil,which on 21January 1992
adoptedresolution 731 (1992),ofwhichtheparagraphshere material read

as follows :
"TheSecurity Council,

Deeply disturbed by the world-wide persistence of acts of interna-
tional terrorism in al1its forms, including those in which Statesare
directlyorindirectlyinvolved,which endanger ortakeinnocent lives,
have a deleterious effect on international relations and jeopardize
the security of States,

Deeply concemed by al1illegal activities directed against interna-

tional civilaviation, and affirmingthe right of ail States,in accord-
ance with the Charter ofthe United Nations and relevant principles
of international law, to protect their nationals from acts of inter-
national terrorism that constitutethreats to international peace and
security,
.............................
Deeplyconcemed overtheresultsofinvestigations,whichimplicate
officialsofthe LibyanGovernment and whicharecontainedin Secu-
rity Council documents that include the requests addressed to the
Libyan authorities by Fran~e'.~,the United Kingdom of Great Brit-
ain and Northern Ireland2. and the UnitedStates ofAmerica2, 4. in

connection with the legal procedures related to the attacks carried
out against Pan American flight103and Union de transports aériens
flight 772;
.............................
2. Stronglydeploresthe fact that the Libyan Governmenthas not
yetresponded effectivelyto the above requests to cooperate fully in
establishing responsibility for the terrorist acts referred to above
against Pan American flight 103and Union de transports aériens
flight772 ;
3. Urgesthe Libyan Government immediately to provide a full
and effective response to those requests so as to contribute to the

elimination of internationalterrorism; CONVENTIONDE MONTRB DE 1971 (ORDONNANCE 14IV92) 123

- divulguertous lesrenseignementsen sapossessionsurcecrime,y
compris les noms de tous les responsables, et permettre le libre
accèsàtous lestémoins,documentsetautrespreuvesmatérielles,
ycompristous lesdispositifsd'horlogerie restants
- verserdesindemnitésappropriées.

Nous comptons que la Libye remplira ses obligations prompte-
ment et sans aucune réserve»;

31. Considérantque lateneur de cettedéclarationa ensuite été exami-
néeparleConseilde sécurité del'Organisation des Nations Unies,lequel
a adopté,le 21janvier 1992,sa résolution731 (1992),dont les passages
pertinents selisent commesuit:

NLe Conseildesécurité,
Profondémenttroublépar la persistance, dans le monde entier,
d'actesdeterrorisme international soustoutes sesformes,ycompris
ceuxdanslesquelsdesEtatssontimpliquésdirectementouindirecte-

ment, quimettent endanger ou anéantissent desviesinnocentes,ont
un effet pernicieux sur les relations internationales et peuvent
compromettre la sécuritédes Etats,
Gravementpréoccupé par tous les agissements illicites dirigés
contrel'aviationcivileinternationale et affirmant le droit detous les
Etats,conformément à la Charte des Nations Unies etauxprincipes
du droitinternational, deprotégerleursnationaux desactesdeterro-

rismeinternational qui constituent une menacà la paix etàla sécu-
rité internationales,

Profondémentpréoccup pér cequirésultedesenquêtesimpliquant
des fonctionnaires du Gouvernement libyen et qui est mentionné
dans les documents du Conseil de sécurité qui font état des
demandes adressées aux autorités libyennespar les Etats-Unis
d'Amériq~e~.~>~ l, France et le Royaume-Uni de Grande-

Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord 2.3liéesaux procédures judiciaires
concernant lesattentatsperpétrés contrelesvolsdela Pan American
et del'Union de transports aériens,

2.Déplorevivementle fait que le Gouvernement libyen n'ait pas
répondu effectivement àcejour auxdemandes ci-dessusdecoopérer
pleinement pour l'établissement des responsabilités dansles actes

terroristes susmentionnés contre les vols 103de la Pan American
et772de l'Union de transportsaériens;
3.Demandeinstammentauxautoritéslibyennesd'apporter immé-
diatement une réponse complèteeteffective àcesdemandes afin de
contribuer àl'éliminationdu terrorisme international; 32. Whereasin the course of the oral proceedings reference was made
byboth sidesto the possibilityof sanctionsbeingimminentlyimposed by
the SecurityCouncil on Libyain order torequire it, interalia,tosurrender
the accusedto the United States or the United Kingdom;
33. Whereas Libyacontended that provisionalmeasures wereurgently
required in order to cause the United Statesto abstain from any action
capable ofhaving aprejudicial effectonthe Court's decision in the case,
and morespecificallyto refrainfrom takinganyinitiativewithinthe Secu-
rity Council for the purpose of impairing that right to exercisejurisdic-
tion, which Libyaasksthe Courtto recognize;

34. Whereas on 31March 1992(three days after the closeof the hear-
ings)the SecurityCounciladopted resolution 748(1992)stating interalia
that the SecurityCouncil :

DeepZyconcemedthat the Libyan Government has still not pro-
videdafull and effectiveresponsetothe requestsinitsresolution 731
(1992)of 21January 1992,
Convincedthat the suppression of acts of international terrorism,

including those in which Statesare directlyorindirectly involved,is
essentialforthe maintenance of internationalpeace and security,

Determining,inthiscontext,that thefailure bythe LibyanGovern-
menttodemonstrate byconcreteactions itsrenunciation ofterrorism
and inparticularitscontinuedfailuretorespond fullyand effectively
to the requestsin resolution 731(1992)constituteathreat to intema-

tional peace and security,

............................
Actingunder Chapter VI1ofthe Charter,

1. Decidesthat the LibyanGovernment mustnow complywithout
any further delay with paragraph 3 of resolution 731 (1992)regard-
ing the requests contained in documents S/23306, S/23308 and
S/23309;
2. Decidesalsothat the Libyan Government must commit itself
definitivelytoceaseal1forms ofterroristaction and al1assistanceto
terrorist groups and that it must promptly, by concrete actions,
demonstrate itsrenunciation ofterrorism;
3. Decidesthat, on 15April 1992al1States shall adopt the mea-
sures set out below, which shall apply until the Security Council
decidesthatthe LibyanGovernmenthascomplied withparagraphs 1
and 2above ; CONVENTION DE MONTRÉALDE 1971(ORDONNAN1 4EIV92) 124

32. Considérant que, lors de la procédure orale,les deux Parties ont
évoquéla possibilitéimminente que le Conseil de sécurité impose des
sanctionsàla Libyeafin deluienjoindre,entreautres, delivrerlesaccusés
aux Etats-Unis ou au Royaume-Uni;
33. ConsidérantquelaLibyeasoutenuquedes mesuresconservatoires
devaient êtreindiquéed s'urgenceafin d'obtenir quelesEtats-Unis s'abs-
tiennent detout actesusceptible d'avoirun effetpréjudiciablesurladéci-
sion de la Cour en l'espèceet, plus précisémentq, u'ils s'abstiennent de
prendre aucuneinitiative dans lecadre du Conseildesécuritépour porter
atteinte au droit d'exercersajuridiction que la Libyedemandeà la Cour
dereconnaître;
34. Considérant quele 31mars 1992(troisjours après la clôture des
audiences), le Conseil de sécurité aadoptéla résolution748(1992),par
laquelle, entreautres,leConseil de sécurité

Gravementpréoccupd ée ce que le Gouvernement libyen n'ait pas
encore donné une réponse complète eteffective aux demandes
contenues dans sarésolution731(1992)du 21janvier 1992,

Convaincuquel'élimination desactes deterrorisme international,
ycompris ceuxdans lesquelsdesEtatssontdirectementouindirecte-
ment impliqués, est essentiellepour le maintien de la paix et de la
sécuritéinternationales,
.............................

Constatant,dans cecontexte,queledéfautdelapart du Gouverne-
ment libyende démontrer,par des actesconcrets,sarenonciation au
terrorismeet,enparticulier,sonmanquementcontinu àrépondre de
manièrecomplèteet effectiveaux requêtescontenuesdansla résolu-
tion 731 (1992)constituent une menace pour la paix et la sécurité
internationales,
.............................

Agissantenvertu du chapitre VI1dela Charte,
1. Décideque le Gouvernement libyen doit désormais appliquer
sans le moindre délai le paragraphe 3 de la résolution 731 (1992)
concernant les demandes contenues dans les documents S/23306,
S/23308 et S/23309;
2. DécideaussiqueleGouvernement libyendoit s'engageràcesser

de manière définitivetoute forme d'action terroriste et toute assis-
tance aux groupesterroristes et qu'ildoit rapidement, par des actes
concrets,démontrersa renonciation au terrorisme;
3. Décidequetous lesEtatsadopterontle 15avril 1992lesmesures
énoncées ci-dessouq sui s'appliquerontjusqu'à ce que le Conseil de
sécurité décide quele Gouvernement libyen s'est conforméaux
dispositions des paragraphes 1 e2 ci-dessus; 7. Calls upon al1 States, including States not members of the
United Nations, and al1international organizations, to act strictlyin
accordance with the provisions of the present resolution, notwith-
standing the existence of any rights or obligations conferred or
imposed byanyinternational agreement orany contract entered into
or any licenceor permit granted prior to 15April1992";
35. Whereas, by a letter of 2 April 1992,a copy of which was trans-
mitted to Libya by the Registrar, the Agent of the United States drew
the Court's attention to the adoption of SecurityCouncil resolution 748
(1992)the textofwhichhe enclosed; and whereas,inthat letter,the Agent
stated :

"That resolution, adopted pursuant to Chapter VI1of the United
Nations Charter, 'decides that the Libyan Government must now
complywithoutany further delaywithparagraph 3ofresolution 731
(1992)of 21January 1992regardingthe requests contained in docu-
ments S/23306,S/23308and S/23309'.Itwillberecalledthatthe ref-
erenced requests include the request that Libya surrender the two
Libyan suspectsin the bombing of Pan Am flight 103to the United
States or to the United Kingdom. For this additional reason, the
United States maintains its submission of 28 March 1992that the
request of the Government of the Great Socialist People's Libyan

Arab Jamahiriya for the indication of provisional measures of
protection should be denied, and that no such measures should be
indicated" :

36. Whereasdocument S/23308,to whichreferencewasmade in reso-
lution 748(1992),included the demands set out in paragraph 30 above;
37. Whereas the Registrar,on the instructions of the Court, informed
the Parties, on 4 April 1992,that, in accordance with Article 62 of the
RulesofCourt,the Court waswillingtoreceive,nolaterthan 7April1992,
any observationsthe Parties might wish to transmit to it on the possible
implicationsofSecurityCouncilresolution 748(1992)forthe proceedings

before the Court;
38. Whereas in its observations on Security Council resolution 748
(1992)presented in response to the Court's invitation,Libya contends as
follows :first,thatthat resolution doesnot prejudice the rights ofLibyato
requesttheCourt to indicateprovisionalmeasures, inasmuch asbydecid-
ing, in effect,that Libya must surrender itsnationals to the United States
andthe United Kingdom, the SecurityCouncil infringes, or threatens to
infringe, the enjoyment andthe exerciseofthe rights conferred on Libya
by the Montreal Convention and its economic, commercial and diplo-
matic rights; whereas Libya therefore claims that the United States and
the United Kingdom should so act as not to infringe Libya'srights, for
example by seeking a suspension of the relevant part of resolution 748
(1992); 7. Demandeàtous lesEtats,ycompris aux Etats non membresdes
Nations Unies età toutes lesorganisationsinternationales, d'agir de
fagon strictement conforme aux dispositions de la présente résolu-
tion nonobstant l'existencedetous droits ou obligationsconférésou
imposéspar des accords internationaux ou de tout contrat passéou
de toute licenceou permis accordésavantle 15avril 1992»;

35. Considérant que,par une lettre du 2 avril 1992dont copie a été
communiquée à la Libyepar le Greffier, l'agentdes Etats-Unis a appelé
l'attentiondelaCoursur l'adoptionpar leConseildesécurité delarésolu-
tion 748 (1992),dont le texte étaitjoiàtladite lettre; et que, dans cette
lettre,l'agenta en outre déclaré que
«Dans[la]résolution[748(1992)],adoptéeenvertu du chapitre VI1
delaCharte desNations Unies, leConseildesécurité «décidequele
Gouvernement libyen doit désormais appliquer sans le moindre
délaile paragraphe 3 de la résolution731 (1992)concernant les

demandes contenues dans les documents S/23306, S/23308 et
S/23309».L'on saitquedans le cadre des demandes ainsimention-
nées, ilétaitdemandé à la Libye de livrer aux Etats-Unis ou au
Royaume-Unilesdeuxsuspectslibyensimpliquésdans l'attentatàla
bombe contre l'avionassurant le vol PanAm 103.Pour cetteraison
supplémentaire,les Etats-Unis maintiennent leurs conclusions du
28mars 1992demandant à laCour de rejeter la demande en indica-
tion de mesures conservatoiresprésentéepar la Grande Jamahiriya
arabe libyennesocialiste et populaire et de ne pas indiquer de telles
mesures» ;

36. Considérant que le documentS/23308, auquel se réfère la résolu-
tion 748(1992),inclutlesdemandesexposéesauparagraphe 30ci-dessus;
37. Considérant que le Greffier, agissant sur les instructions de la
Cour,ainformélesPartiesle4avril 1992que,conformément àl'article62
de son Règlement,la Cour étaitdisposée àrecevoir,le7avril 1992au plus
tard, lesobservationsquelesPartiespourraient souhaiterluisoumettre au
sujetdesincidenceséventuellesde la résolution748(1992)du Conseil de
sécuritésur l'instance introduite devant la Cour;
38. Considérant que,dans lesobservationsqu'elleaprésentées ausujet
de la résolution748 (1992)du Conseil de sécurité,commelaCour l'avait
invitéeàlefaire,la Libyesoutient, enpremier lieu,que cetterésolutionne
porte pasatteinteauxdroits delaLibyededemander àlaCourd'indiquer
desmesuresconservatoires,étantdonnéqueleConseil,endécidantquela

Libye doit extrader ses ressortissants vers les Etats-Unis et le Royaume-
Uni,porte atteinteoumenace deporter atteinte àlajouissance età l'exer-
cicedesdroitsquelaconvention deMontréalconfère àla Libye,ainsiqu'à
ses droits économiques,commerciauxet diplomatiques; et que la Libye
prétend dèslorsquelesEtats-Unis etleRoyaume-Unidoivent adopterun
comportement qui ne soitpas de nature à porter atteinte aux droits de la
Libye,par exempleendemandant lasuspension delapartie pertinente de
la résolution748(1992); 39. Whereas Libyain itsobservationscontends, secondly,that the risk
of contradiction between the resolution and the provisional measures
requested ofthe Court by Libyadoesnot renderthe Libyanrequestinad-
missible, since there is in law no competition or hierarchy between the
Court and the Security Council, each exercising its own competence;
whereas Libyarecallsin thisconnection that itregards the decision ofthe
SecurityCouncil as contrary to international law, and considers that the

Councilhas employeditspower to characterizethe situationfor purposes
of Chapter VI1simply as a pretext to avoid applying the Montreal Con-
vention.
40. Whereas in its observations on Security Council resolution 748
(1992),presented in response to the Court's invitation,the United States
observesthat that resolution was adopted under Chapter VI1rather than
Chapter VIofthe Charterand wasframedasa "decision" and contended
that, giventhat binding decision,no objectwouldbeservedbyprovisional
measures;that, irrespectiveof the right claimedby Libyaunder theMont-
real Convention, Libyahas a Charter-based duty to accept and carry out
the decisionsintheresolution, and other StateshaveaCharter-basedduty
to seek Libya'scompliance; that any indication of provisional measures
would run aseriousriskofconflictingwiththeworkofthe SecurityCoun-
cil; that the Council had rejected (interalia)Libya'scontention that the
matter should be addressed on the basis of the right claimed by Libya
under the Montreal Convention, which Libya asks the Court to protect
through provisional measures; and that the Court should therefore
declinethe request;

41. Whereas the Court, in the context of the present proceedings on a
requestforprovisional measures,hasin accordance withArticle41ofthe
Statute,to consider the circumstancesdrawn to its attention asrequiring
the indication of such measures, but cannot make definitive findings
either offact or oflawon the issuesrelatingto the merits, and the right of
the Parties tocontest such issues at the stage of the merits must remain
unaffected by the Court's decision;
42. Whereas both Libya and the United States, as Members of the
United Nations, are obliged to accept and carry out the decisions of the
SecurityCouncil in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter; whereas
the Court, which is at the stage of proceedings on provisional measures,
considers that prima facie this obligation extends to the decision con-
tained in resolution 748 (1992); and whereas, in accordance with
Article 103of the Charter, the obligations of the Parties in that respect
prevail over their obligationsunder any other international agreement,
includingthe Montreal Convention;

43. Whereasthe Court, whilethusnot atthisstagecalledupon to deter-
mine definitively the legal effect of Security Council resolution 748

(1992),considersthat, whateverthe situationprevious to the adoption of
that resolution,the rights claimed by Libyaunder the Montreal Conven- 39. Considérant que la Libye, dans ses observations, soutient, en
second lieu, que le risque de contradiction entre la résolution et les
mesures conservatoires dont la Libyedemande l'indication àla Cour ne
rendpasirrecevablelademande libyenne,vuqu'iln'yaendroitni concur-
rence ni hiérarchie entrela Cour et le Conseil de sécurité et que chacun
exercelescompétencesquiluisontpropres; et quela Libyerappelle àcet
égardqu'elle jugela décisiondu Conseil de sécurité contraireau droit
international et estimeque le Conseil n'a exercé pouvoir de qualifica-
tion qui ouvrela voieà l'usagedu chapitre VI1que commeprétextepour
ne pas appliquer la convention de Montréal;
40. Considérantque,danslesobservationsqu'ilsontprésentéea susujet

de la résolution748 (1992),commela Cour les avait invitésàle faire, les
Etats-Unis notent que cette résolution a été adoptée en vertu du cha-
pitre VI1et non du chapitre VI de la Charte et se présente sous la forme
d'une ((décision»,et ils ont fait valoirqu'étant dole caractèreobliga-
toire de cettedécision,desmesuresconservatoiresseraientsansobjet; que,
sans égardau droit revendiquépar la Libyeau titre de la convention de
Montréal, laCharte impose à la Libyel'obligation d'accepteret d'appli-
quer lesdécisionscontenuesdans larésolutionetimposeauxautresEtats
l'obligationde s'efforcerd'amener laLibyeà seconformer auxdites déci-
sions; que toute indication de mesures conservatoires risquerait fort
d'être en conflitavecl'actiodu Conseil de sécurité;que le Conseilavait
rejeté(entreautres)lathèsede la Libyeselonlaquellel'affaire devaitêtre
traitéesur la base du droit qu'elle prétendait tenirde la convention de
Montréal et qu'elle demande à la Cour de protégerpar des mesures

conservatoires; et que la Cour doit par conséquent rejeterla demande;
41. ConsidérantquelaCour,danslecontextedelaprésenteprocédure,
qui concerneunedemandeen indication demesuresconservatoires,doit,
conformément à l'article 41 du Statut, examiner si les circonstances
portées à son attention exigent l'indication de telles mesures, mais n'est
pas habilitéeà conclure définitivementsur les faits et le droit, et que sa
décision doit laisser intactle droit des Parties de contester les faits et de
fairevaloirleurs moyens sur le fond;
42. ConsidérantquelaLibyeetlesEtats-Unis,en tant que Membresde
l'organisation des Nations Unies, sont dans l'obligation d'accepter et
d'appliquer les décisionsdu Conseil de sécurité conformément à l'ar-
ticle 25de la Charte; que la Cour, qui,ce stade de la procédure, enest
à l'examen d'une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires,
estime que prima facie cette obligation s'étendà la décision contenue

dans la résolution748(1992);et que, conformément àl'article 103de la
Charte, les obligations des Partiescet égard prévalent sur leursobliga-
tions en vertu de tout autre accord international, y compris la conven-
tion deMontréal;
43. Considérantque si, à cestade,la Cour n'adoncpas à seprononcer
définitivementsur l'effetjuridique de la résolution748 (1992)du Conseil
de sécuritée,lleestimecependant que,quelle qu'aitétéla situation avant
l'adoptiondecetterésolution,lesdroitsquelaLibyedittenir delaconven- 127 1971 MONTREALCONVENTION (ORDER 14IV92)

tion cannot now be regarded as appropriate for protection by the indica-
tion of provisionalmeasures ;
44. Whereas,furthermore, an indication ofthe measuresrequested by
Libyawouldbe likelyto impair the rights which appearprima facieto be
enjoyedbythe United Statesbyvirtue of SecurityCouncilresolution 748
(1992);
45. Whereas, in order to pronounce on the present request for provi-
sionalmeasures,the Court isnot calleduponto determineanyofthe other
questions which have been raised before it in the present proceedings,

including the question of its jurisdiction to'entertain the merits of the
case; and whereasthe decision givenin these proceedings in no waypre-
judges any suchquestion, and leavesunaffected the rights ofthe Govem-
ment of Libya and the Govemment of the- United States to submit
arguments in respect of any ofthese questions;
46. Forthese reasons,

Byelevenvotesto five,

Findsthat the circumstances of the case are not such as to require the
exerciseofitspower under Article41 ofthe Statuteto indicateprovisional
measures.

INnings;RJudgesLachs,Ago,Schwebel,Ni, Evensen,Tarassov, Guillaume,n-
Shahabuddeen,AguilarMawdsley ;

AGAINST :JudgesBedjaoui,Weeramantry,RanjevA a,jibolaJudgeadhoc El-
Kosheri.

Done in Englishand in French, the English textbeing authoritative, at
the Peace Palace,The Hague,this fourteenthday of April, one thousand
nine hundred and ninety-two,inthree copies,one ofwhichwillbeplaced
inthe archivesoftheCourtand the otherstransmitted to the Govemment

of the LibyanArab Jamahiriya and the Govemment ofthe United States
of America,respectively.

(Signed)Shigem ODA,
Vice-President.

(Signed)Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar.

Vice-PresidentODA,Acting President, and Judge NI append declara-
tions to the Order of the Court; Judges EVENSEN T, RASSOG VU, ILLAUME

17 CONVENTION DE MONTRÉALDE 1971(ORDONNAN1 C4IV92) 127

tion de Montréalne peuvent à présent être considéréscomme des droits
qu'ilconviendrait deprotégerpar l'indicationdemesuresconservatoires;
44. Considéranten outre qu'une indication des mesures demandées
par la Libye serait de nature porter atteinte aux droits que la résolu-
tion 748 (1992)du Conseil de sécuritésembleprima facieavoir conférés
aux Etats-Unis;
45. Considérant que,pour se prononcer sur la présentedemande en

indication de mesures conservatoires,la Cour n'estappelée statuer sur
aucune des autres questions qui ont été soulevéed sevant elle dans la
présente instance, y comprisla question relativesa compétencepour
connaître du fond; et considérantqu'une décisionrendue en la présente
procédurenepréjugeenrienaucune question de cegenreet qu'ellelaisse
intact le droit du Gouvernement libyen et celui du Gouvernement des
Etats-Unis de fairevaloirleurs moyens en cesmatières;
46. Par cesmotifs,

LACOUR,

Par onzevoix contre cinq,

Dit que les circonstances de l'espèce nesont pas de natureà exiger
l'exercicede son pouvoir d'indiquer desmesures conservatoiresen vertu
de l'article41du Statut.

POUR: M. Oda, Vice-Présidentf,aisant fonction de président en l'affaire;
Evensen,Tarassov,Guillaume,ShahabuddeenAa, guilar Mawdsley,uges;

CONTRE: MM. Bedjaoui,Weeramantry,Ranjeva, Ajibola, juges;M. El-
Kosheri,jugead hoc.

Fait en anglais et enfrançais, letexte anglaisfaisant foi, au Palaisde la
Paix,à La Haye, le quatorze avril mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-douze, en
trois exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposé aux archse la Cour et les
autresseronttransmisrespectivement au Gouvernement delaJamahiriya
arabe libyenne et au Gouvernement des Etats-Unisd'Amérique.

LeVice-Président,
(Signé)ShigeruODA.

Le Greffier,
(Signé)Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA.

M. ODA,Vice-Président,faisant fonction de présidenten l'affaire, et
M. NI,juge, joignent des déclarationsà l'ordonnance; MM. EVENSEN,

17andAGUILAM RAWDSLE aYpend ajoint declarationto the Orderof the
Court.

Judges LACHand SHAHABUDDE aENend separateopinions to the
OrderoftheCourt.

JudgesBEDJAOUWI,EERAMANT RAN,JEVA,IBOLandJudgead hoc
EL-KOSHEaRppenddissentingopinionstotheOrderofthe Court.

(Initialled)S.O.
(Initialled)E.V.O.TARASSO GV,ILLAUMetAGUILAM RAWDSLE Yg,es,joignent unedécla-
rationcommuneàl'ordonnance.

MM. LACHS et SHAHABUDDEjE uNe,s, joignent a l'ordonnanceles
exposésdeleuropinion individuelle.

MM. BEDJAOUW I, EERAMANTRYRANJEVA et AJIBOLA jges, et
M. EL-KOSHEjRug,e adhoc,joignentordonnanceles exposésde leur
opiniondissidente.

(ParaphéS.O.

(Paraphé) .V.O.

ICJ document subtitle

Request for the indication of Provisional Measures

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Order of 14 April 1992

Links