Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T09:42:27.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Lockerbie Cases1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Fiona Beveridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Court of Justice: Recent Cases
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 1999 , pp. 658 - 663
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2. For an account of the events in question see Beveridge, F., “The Lockerbie Affair” (1992) 41 I.C.L.Q. 907.Google Scholar

3. Order of 12 June 1992.

4. There is no evidence to suggest that joinder was requested by any party or considered by the Court.

5. Art.31, ICJ Statute and Art.37, Rules of Court.

6. Art.32, para.1, Rules of Court.

7. The Art. provides for negotiation and/or arbitration of disputes concerning the application or interpretation of the Convention; referral of the dispute to the ICJ can occur after six months has passed since the request for arbitration: Art. 14(1), Convention of 23 Sept, 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (the Montreal Convention).

8. Oral Pleadings of the UK, para.3.45.

9. Judgment, para.21.

10. CR 97/22, para.2.4.

11. South West Africa, Preliminary Objections, judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1962, 328.Google Scholar

12. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria Hungary and Romania, First Phase, advisory opinion, I.C.J. Rep. 1950, 74.Google Scholar

13. Judgment, para.22.

14. Idem, para.29.

15. Idem, para.38. The Court referred to the Nottebohm Case, Preliminary Objection, judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1953, 122Google Scholar; and Right of Passage over Indian Territory, Preliminary Objections, judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1957, 142.Google Scholar

16. By 13 votes to 3 in the case against the UK; 13 to 2 in that against the US: judgment, para.53.

17. CR 97/17, para.5.3.

18. By 12 votes to 4 in the case against the UK; 12 to 3 in that against the US: judgment, paras.44 and 53.

19. CR 97/19, para.3.86. Similar arguments were advanced by the UK.

20. Judgment, para.42.

21. CR 97/17 para.4.

22. Judgment para.50, citing Barcelona, Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd, Preliminary Objections, judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1964, 46. Judgment in the instant case was given by 10 votes to 6 in the case against the UK; m that against the US: judgment, para.53.Google Scholar

23. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Rep. 1996, para.16.Google Scholar