Libya victory over USA/UK in Haag ,27/02
1998
Libya victory over USA/UK in Haag ,27/02
1998
Press release from ICJ 27/02/1998
Here follows the official judgment:
THE COURT,
(1) (a) by thirteen votes to three, rejects the objection to jurisdiction raised by the United Kingdom on the basis of the alleged absence of a dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971;
IN FAVOUR: Vice-President Weeramantry, Acting President; Judges Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek; Judge ad hoc El-Kosheri;
AGAINST: President Schwebel; Judge Oda; Judge ad hoc Sir Robert Jennings;
(b) by thirteen votes to three, finds that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971, to hear the disputes between Libya and the United Kingdom as to the interpretation or application of the provisions of that Convention;
IN FAVOUR: Vice-President Weeramantry, Acting President; Judges Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek; Judge ad hoc El-Kosheri;
AGAINST: President Schwebel; Judge Oda; Judge ad hoc Sir Robert Jennings;
(2) (a) by twelve votes to four, rejects the objection to admissibility derived by the United Kingdom from Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993);
IN FAVOUR: Vice-President Weeramantry, Acting President; Judges Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek; Judge ad hoc El-Kosheri;
AGAINST: President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Herczegh; Judge ad hoc Sir Robert Jennings;
(b) by twelve votes to four, finds that the Application filed by Libya on 3 March 1992 is admissible.
IN FAVOUR: Vice-President Weeramantry, Acting President; Judges Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek; Judge ad hoc El-Kosheri;
AGAINST: President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Herczegh; Judge ad hoc Sir Robert Jennings;
(3) by ten votes to six, declares that the objection raised by the United Kingdom according to which Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) have rendered the claims of Libya without object does not, in the circumstances of the case, have an exclusively preliminary character.
IN FAVOUR: Vice-President Weeramantry, Acting President; Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek; Judge ad hoc El-Kosheri;
AGAINST: President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Herczegh, Fleischhauer; Judge ad hoc Sir Robert Jennings."
Presiding judge Christopher Weeramantry said the court's jurisdiction stemmed from the fact that Libya filed its complaint in March 1992, before the U.N. Security Council adopted its resolutions. He also threw out U.S. and British claims that the court's involvement undermined the Security Council.
"The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear the disputes...The
Court concludes that Libya's application is admissible," he said in
his summing up.
Read
the summary of the verdict and case as presented by the court itself.
The
full text of the judgment concerning Libya vs. the UK
The
full text of the judgment concerning Libya vs. the USA
Read the single judgment from each judge, objections and comments for the
case against UK>
Read the single judgment from each judge, objections and comments for the
case against USA
All about the whole case, its legal problems etc. right from the International
Court of Justice
2 pictures upstairs: British deputy agent Anthony Aust, left, talks
with his counsellor Prof.Christopher Greenwood prior to a hearing between
Libya, Britain and the U.S. at the International Court of Justice in The
Hague onFriday.
Right: Picture of the Court house in Haag 
The ruling drew sharply differing reactions from families of the 270 people killed in the air and on the ground when a suitcase bomb shredded U.S.-bound Flight 103 over Lockerbie on Dec. 21, 1988. Their hopes for a trial have been frustrated by years of legal wrangling, and the families have split on the key issue of where any trial should be held. Today's ruling did not address venue. It could be years before that matter is settled and the suspects are brought to trial -- if they ever are. Some relatives of the 270 people killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 were angered by the ruling, calling it a victory for Libya; others saw it as the only way out of the legal logjam that has frustrated them for nearly a decade.
Jim Swire, who lost his child Flora at the crash of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie
in 1988 is delighted to hear the judgment of the court: "This is a tremendous
day, " he said. Jim Swire was ''over the moon'' about the decision, which he says helps clear the
way for a trial of the suspect bombers on neutral territory, as requested by Libya.
He went on to advise Britain and the U.S. to negotiate
an out of court deal with Libya for a trial in a third country.
" Our group has long been dissatisfied with the Security Council
resolutions. Britain and the US may now find themselves begging for a trial
in a neutral country instead of in Libya." Swire wants a court to consider the evidence, so that the guilty parties can be fairly
identified. 'On this particular issue we feel that the Libyans have got it right and the U.S. and U.K. have been arrogant in their
handling of the matter,'' he said.
''All we want is truth and justice. We accepted that the trial could not be held in Scotland and have been pushing for years for it to be held on neutral territory.'' 'We want to see an international criminal court set up which can try cases such as this one,'' Swire added. ''The U.N. has been looking at this, but today's decision will put pressure on them to move more quickly.''
Press here to listen to Dr. Swire commenting the judgment to BBC Radio 27/02/1998
Swire believes that the decision means that there no longer is a case for forcing a trial in the United States or Britain. ''The problem with the Scottish legal system is that the jury must arrive in the jury box with no previous experience or preconceptions of the case,''he says. ''This is impossible, given the amount of media coverage there has been over the last 10 years. Today's decision means that we are a step nearer having the trial held on neutral territory.''
Also Libya is happy about the verdict: "We are very happy. This is a victory for law and for Libya, " Libyan ambassador Hamed Ahmed ElHoudeiry said. "The suffering of the Libyan people must stop. Libya has proposed many solutions but other parties have not accept it."
In New York, Libya's U.N. ambassador, Abuzed Dorda, said Friday that the ruling ``is not merely a victory for Libya and its people, it is a victory for justice, a victory for righteousness, for international law and accords.''
Dorda told U.N. correspondents in New York Friday that with this ruling by the highest court of the U.N., lifting these sanctions is the minimal possible action required from the security council. He also reiterated Libya's position that the legal basis for dealing with the case is the Montreal Convention while ICJ is the sole place to handle the case and not the security council.
He said the responsiblity for any delay in the conclusion of this case lies with the governments of British and the U.S. The Libyan people are as much victims as the victims of the Lockerbie accident itself, he said in reference to the U.S reprisal bombing of Tripoli and the continuing toll of sanctions on the Libyan population. Dorda said in material terms, the sanctions have cost Libya about 25 billion U.S. dollars.
He said he planned to go to the Security Council next week with a case to drop the sanctions.
"It is our interest and that of the families of the bombing victims that there be a trial .That's why we support a neutral venue.'' he said. ``We had rejected to hand over the two suspects to the United States or Britain because it was unlawful and also we were certain that they wouldn't get a fair trial there. We know that a trial in Libya would also be suspect. The reasonable solution is a trial in a neutral country,'' he said.
Amr Moussa told reporters that the procedural move was an "important step.''
``Shara expressed Syria's satisfaction over the ruling and said the decision was an important step on the way to lifting sanctions imposed against the brotherly people of Libya,'' one official said. ``The Libyan minister expressed his country's appreciation over Syria's principled stands towards this case and other Arab causes,'' he added.
And the Organisation of Islamic Conferences welcomes the Lockerbie decision :
DUBAI, March 1 The head of the world's largest Moslem body
on Sunday welcomed a ruling by the International Court of Justice on the
Lockerbie airliner bombing and urged the United Nations to lift sanctions
on Libya.
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) said in a statement
that its secretary-general, Azeddine Laraki, welcomed ``with
great satisfaction'' the decision by the court based in The Hague that
it had jurisdiction in Libya's dispute with Britain and the United
States over the 1988 bombing that killed 270 people.
``(Laraki) launched an appeal to the Security Council and to the
international community for the prompt implementation of ending the embargo
against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya pending the final decision of the International
Court of Justice,'' the statement said.
But it seems the UK and the USA are the only ones not taking the judgment in favor of Libya as a good surprise. In fact they don't seem to see any changes in the legal case:
``This is neither a victory nor a defeat,'' British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said. ``The court has decided that it wishes to consider these complex issues in more detail at a full hearing. ``Meanwhile, the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council stand: Libya must surrender those accused of the Lockerbie bombing for trial in Scotland or the United States.''
In New York, another group representing families of victims had a dramatically different view than that of Jim Swire's group:
In America some families thought the ICJ executed intolerable interference
with what they saw as the United States' right to prosecute the suspects.
"I am appalled, I am absolutely appalled and I am extremely upset
because it is often reported that the families want this international
trial somewhere and they do not," said Susan Cohen, spokeswoman of
Justice for PanAm103. "The vast majority of American families
here do not want an international trial." , she claimed. She
and other American families are suing Libya in a civil court in New York
for financial damages.
``It's a terrible ruling,'' said Dan Cohen of Cape May Court House, N.J., whose daughter, Theodora, died in the bombing. ``It hands the Libyans an enormous propaganda victory. They can say `We're the good guys; the Americans are the bullies.''``The bombing of Pan Am l03 was an attack on America and it should have been handled by the United States unilaterally,'' Cohen said. ``Now we're in what is going to be an endless morass, which puts any hope of justice farther away than ever.''
``I think it's a disaster. I think it struck a blow against justice,'' said Stephanie Bernstein of Bethesda, Md., whose husband, Michael, was among those killed.
``(Libyan revolutionary leader Moammar) Gadhafi for 10 years now has been able to drag this out, been able to hire all kinds of high-powered legal help,'' she said. ``He has done everything in his power to avoid what should be done, which is to turn over the two suspects.''
Also, the USA government "played down" the importance of the judgment:
A White House spokesman, P.J. Crowley, said the ruling was simply a "technical decision by the court.'' "We will file a detailed answer to Libya's claims and await further proceedings,'' he said. He said in the meantime U.N. sanctions and resolutions against Libya remain in force. They demand that Libya extradite two suspects in the bombing.
"We had asked for them (the World Court) to dismiss Libya's case as a preliminary matter. They have not done that but meanwhile we are convinced that Libya's claims against the United States are not valid," Crowley said.
The State Department also shrugged off the World Court's ruling as "a procedural matter." State Department spokesman James Foley called Libya's victory claim exaggerated
"Libya got no satisfaction at the court except that the case will continue, which we expect to win," spokesman James Foley told a news briefing. "We are very confident that the decisions at the (U.N.) Security Council will be upheld."
But some people are indifferent to the judgment of the court. They seem to have lost hope long time ago:
For Robert Leckburg of Cold Spring, N.J., who lost his only son Robert Jr. in the explosion, even a trial may not erase the agony.
``The pain never goes away,'' he said. ``There's a void in our life and as we get older, we just think about him more.''
Libya, the United States and Britain had gone before the International Court of Justice in their legal wrangle over the 1988 bombing of a U.S. airliner flying over Scotland. Now Libya won first round of that legal wrangle. But what does that mean to the Lockerbie Case ? Let's quicly repeat the main contents of the case, as it went to be heard in front of the ICj for more than 6 years:
Based on the 1997 October 13-22 hearings, the International Court of Justice first of all had to decide decide whether it has jurisdiction over the case. Britain and the United States said it does not. The hearings in 1997 focused on where the case should be tried and the admissibility of claims made by both sides rather than on the actual merits of the case.
During an earlier round of hearings in 1993, the International Court of Justice rejected a request by Libya for an order barring the U.S. and Britain from taking any action to force Tripoli to hand over the two suspects.
Legal experts said the International Court of Justice, had a difficult course to steer.
"What is sensitive is that this is a battle about who has the final say -- the Security Council or the court," said Menno Kamminga of Erasmus University in Rotterdam.
The International Court of Justice's decisions are binding and without appeal. Ultimately, however, the bench may have to rely on the U.N. Security Council to enforce them. Law experts said the International Court of Justice, set up as a U.N. body in 1945, would have to tread carefully in its verdict. Its decisions are binding and final but may ultimately need enforcing by the U.N. Security Council -- where the U.S. and Britain both have permanent seats. If Libya is winning this case, it means that the UK + USA will have to enforce a verdict upon them selves on behalf of Libya - a most unusual (and surely painful!) situation for the UN-Security Council....
USA and UK
The United States told the International Court of Justice during the first hearings to throw out a Libyan challenge to the United Nations Security Council. Libya waned the International Court of Justice to rule that Britain and the United States are acting unlawfully and Tripoli insisted on a trial for the men on their home turf or in a third country.
According to the United States, such a ruling would pose a direct threat to the authority of the U.N. Security Council, which imposed punitive sanctions on Libya in 1992.
"The invalidation by the court of the Council decision would have a dramatic and negative effect on the credibility of the Council's actions to deal with international terrorism," said David Andrews, legal advisor to the U.S. State Department. He told the panel of 15 judges the success of future U.N. peacekeeping missions depended on states' acceptance of and compliance with Security Council resolutions. Presenting evidence on the third day of the eight-day hearing, he warned that decisions by the U.N. body could be undermined and its authority left "hanging in dangerous suspense" if the world court gave credence to Libya's challenge.
"Libya's request that the court review and invalidate resolution 748 would be a step of fundamental significance that would in our view drastically alter the existing relationship between the court and the Council to the detriment of both institutions," Andrews said.
Libya's point of view
Libya took the stand at the International Court of Justice in October 1997 and accused the United States and Britain of exploiting the 1988 bombing of a U.S. passenger airliner over Scotland for political ends.
"The reactions of the two states after the tragic explosion at Lockerbie are explained by geopolitical and ideological reasons," Libyan law professor Abdelrazeg Suleiman said. "They have little to do with the reality of the actual facts," he told the United Nations court.
Libya said the Security Council is a United States tool. Suleiman said Britain and the United States were motivated by a "desire to destabilise Libya" and this was why they had so far rejected attempts to settle the dispute peacefully.
He said their hostility towards Libya stemmed from the bloodless coup which swept Muammar Gaddafi to power in 1969, leading to a loss of political and commercial influence in the region for Britain and the United States.
Suleiman said allegations directed against Libya over the Lockerbie bombing were part of a broader strategy to portray it as a "terrorist state."
The head of Libya's delegation, Ambassador Hamed Ahmed Elhouderi, insisted that Tripoli rejected acts of random violence. "My country supports any efforts to fight blind terrorism which strikes out at innocent victims," he said. Elhouderi said Libya shared the concern of the Lockerbie victims' families to uncover the truth. "We request and demand that the truth be known about this tragedy as quickly as possible, because the suffering it has caused the families of the victims and the Libyan people cannot go on like this," he said. "The question of a fair trial is the key to the whole problem," he further said, wrapping up his team's case.
"Libya and the majority of the international community consider the courts of Britain and the U.S. do not meet this condition...so there is no point in continuing this discussion."
CR 97/16 Public sitting held on Monday 13 October 1997, at 10 a.m.,
at the Peace Palace.
CR 97/17 Public sitting held
on Tuesday 14 October 1997, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace.
CR 97/18 Public sitting held
on Tuesday 14 October 1997, at 11.45 a.m., at the Peace Palace. (LUS document)
CR 97/19 Public sitting held
on Wednesday 15 October 1997, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace. (LUS document)
CR 97/20 Public sitting held on Friday 17 October 1997, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace.
CR 97/21 Public sitting held
on Friday 17 October 1997, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace.
CR 97/22 Public sitting held
on Monday 20 October 1997, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace.
CR 97/23 Public sitting held
on Monday 20 October 1997, at 11.40 a.m., at the Peace Palace. (LUS document)
CR 97/24 Public sitting held on Wednesday 22 October 1997, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace.
Families of British Lockerbie victims, who came to The Hague hoping the court would kick-start the trial process, had looked on in increasing frustration.
"In nine years, we have seen neither truth nor justice. This is not a distaster to be used by politicians to strut about," said Jim Swire, spokesman for UK Families - Flight 103, which groups most of the 30 bereaved British families.
"I just wish both sides would compromise," said Jim Swire, spokesman for 'UK Families -- Flight 103'. He favored very much the trial in The Hague and claimed to have backing from some U.S. relatives.
"Some solution has to be found to break the deadlock." Alistair Duff, the Scottish lawyer representing the Libyan suspects, said the wheels of justice were moving so slowly he doubted his clients would ever have to answer charges. "Unless Britain or the U.S. are prepared to countenance a trial somewhere else, my view is there will never be a trial anywhere," he said.
Read more legal reaction and comments to the case....
Washington and London had warned the court not to meddle in Security Council matters and said it does not even have jurisdiction over the case. They have stood by their demand that the Libyan suspects stand trial in Britain or the United States and rejected proposals to hear the case in a third country.
"This has gone on long enough. Libya should comply with the Security Council resolution," said one U.S. official.
Both relatives of victims, lawyers and major organisations from 3rd world countries are now certain, that the road towards a trial in a neutral country is open. However, the ICJ didn't directly explit support for a trial in a neutral country or not. The main arguments in the case circled around Libya's claim to rightfully tend to the Montreal Convention for solving the legal twist between itself and the UK and the USA.
Basically the Montreal Convention, founded by the UK and the USA itself in 1971 to combat airflight terrorism, foresaw legal troubles like the one in the Lockerbie Case, because there exist no uniform set of rules in international criminal law. If parties cannot settle their legal twists regarding procedure of international criminal law, then the Montreal Convention calls for the possibility to present the case in fron of the International Court of Justice for arbitration and clearification of procedure. That is what Libya called for at the court hearings, and that is why the ICJ refused the dismissals of the UK and the USA by its judgment from 27/02/1998.
So Libya has by judgment of law now the right to refuse extradition of its 2 citizens for trial outside its own territory, and to open a Lockerbie Bombing Case in front of the ICJ. The only problem is, that the ICJ does not handle individual persons for trial, only countries or member states of the UN. The only solution must thus be: trial of Fhima and Megrahi in a neutral country. There is no other legal acceptable solution to the Lockerbie Crisis.
The judgment of the ICJ cannot be appealed to any higher instance. Then who is going to make sure, that the judgment will be executed ? Only one institution can do just that. It is up to the UN Security Council to force about the following of its judgment. But that is an impossible political step in the Lockerbie Crisis: UK and USA are not particular happy to use the UN Security Council to force about a judgment on top of themselves. UK and USA, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, are carrying the most important step towards a solution of the Lockerbie Case on their own hands.
The final end of the Lockerbie Bombing Investigation and the truth of who really was behind the crime can be legally opened - if the UN Security Council respects the judgment of the ICJ. If the UN Security Council prefers to disregard the judgment of the ICJ for personal political motives, it'll mean the end of the legal credibility of the International Court of Justice. Then it will loose all legal value - other member states of the UN may then choose not to respect the verdicts of the ICJ as well. And it could - in worst chains of perspectives - eventually mean the crumbling of the UN as an international accepted body, just like it happened with the League of Nations before World War 2.
Back to
UN-page
Back
to Latest News
Back
to old Haag-page
Back
to Main Page