## Facts

- On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.
- In November 1991, U.S. and Scottish authorities charged two Libyan nationals with offenses connected to placing a bomb on the aircraft.
- Libya and the United States were parties to the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.
- Libya asserted the alleged conduct fell within Montreal Convention Article 1 and that, because the suspects were in Libya, it had jurisdiction under Article 5.
- Libya maintained that, absent agreed extradition, Article 7 required it to submit the case to its competent authorities for prosecution (aut dedere aut judicare).
- The United States demanded Libya surrender the suspects and pursued UN Security Council action; the Council adopted Resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992), and 883 (1993), demanding surrender and imposing sanctions.
- In March 1992, Libya filed an application instituting proceedings against the United States, invoking Montreal Convention Article 14(1) as the basis for ICJ jurisdiction.
- The United States raised preliminary objections challenging the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of Libya’s claims, arguing Security Council resolutions displaced any treaty-based claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a “dispute” existed between Libya and the United States concerning the interpretation or application of the Montreal Convention within Article 14(1).
2. Whether the procedural preconditions in Article 14(1) were satisfied so as to confer ICJ jurisdiction.
3. Whether UN Security Council Chapter VII resolutions rendered Libya’s claims moot, inadmissible, or otherwise barred adjudication at the preliminary-objections stage.

## Decision

- The ICJ held that disputes existed between the parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Montreal Convention.
- The ICJ held it had jurisdiction under Montreal Convention Article 14(1) to entertain the application.
- The ICJ rejected the United States’ preliminary objections and held Libya’s claims admissible.
- The ICJ declined to accept, at the preliminary stage, that Security Council resolutions had rendered Libya’s claims “without object,” treating the interaction between Charter-based obligations and treaty obligations as a merits question.

## Legal Principles

- A treaty compromissory clause confers jurisdiction when the parties have opposing legal views concerning the treaty’s interpretation or application and the clause’s procedural conditions are met.
- The existence of Security Council action addressing the same events does not, by itself, eliminate a treaty-based “dispute” or deprive an international court of jurisdiction under a compromissory clause.
- Arguments that Security Council Chapter VII decisions supersede, modify, or displace treaty rights and obligations typically concern the merits of the treaty claims rather than jurisdiction or admissibility.
- A contention that an applicant is indirectly challenging Security Council measures does not automatically render a treaty-based application inadmissible where the pleaded dispute is framed as one of treaty interpretation and application.

## Conclusion

The ICJ held it had jurisdiction under Montreal Convention Article 14(1) and that Libya’s treaty-based claims were admissible, concluding that the effect of Security Council Chapter VII resolutions on the parties’ substantive obligations was a matter for the merits rather than a basis to dismiss the case at the preliminary-objections stage.


Questions of Interpretation & Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.), 1998 I.C.J. 115 (Feb. 27)