Lockerbie: The other case

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 278-296

  Aust, Anthony ^a  

^a London Center   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84965117337     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300064162     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom).
2. For the Order on the Libyan Request for Provisional Measures, see ICJ Rep. 1992, 3, and F. Beveridge, “The Lockerbie Affair” (1992) I.C.L.Q. 907.
3. For the judgment of the ICJ on the United Kingdom's Preliminary Objections (UKPOs), see ICJ Rep. 1998, 9, and F. Beveridge, “The Lockerbie Cases”, (1999) I.C.L.Q. 658. The judgment and pleadings are available on the ICJ's Website (http://www.icj-cij.org). The counter-memorial was submitted in Mar. 1999 and the reply by Libya is due by 29 Jun. 2000. The court has not decided on the subsequent procedure.
4. 974 UNTS 177 (Reg. No.14118)
5. UKTS (1974) 10.
6. See G. Guillaume, ‘Terrorisme et Droit”, Recueil des Court (1989) Vol.215, pp.287–416.
7. See, e.g. Resolutions 286(1970) and 579(1985) and the statements in S/17554, S/17702 and S/18641.
8. 13. ILM (1991), p.726.
9. Resolution 2625 (XXV)
10. ILM (1970), p.1292. Emphasis added. See also the statement of the President of the Security Council on 31 Jan. 1992 at the conclusion of the meeting of the Council held at the level of Heads of State and Government (S/23500).
11. ICJ Rep. 1992, 3
12. ILM (1992), p.662.
13. In Lockerbie (Libya v. United Kingdom) (Preliminary Objections), ICJ Rep. 1998, 9, the court found that it had jurisdiction.
14. If a Bill would affect particular private interests in a manner different from the private interests of other persons of the same category or class, the normal parliamentary process is supplemented by a procedure in which those who might be affected can object to the Bill and bring evidence in support of their objection: see Erskine May (1999 Edn), pp.554–560.
15. For the text of the draft, see S/1998/795 (Annex I). For the Order, see S.I. 1998 No.2251
16. ILM (1999), p.942). 37.
17. For the draft text see S/l998/795 (Annex II). For the final text, see UKTS (1999) 43
18. ILM (1999), p.926.
19. See UKTS (1999) 43, p.18.
20. 359 UNTS 273
21. UKTS (1991) 97.
22. 1137 UNTS 93
23. UKTS (1978) 93. 37.
24. See Art.8 of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959 (UKTS (1992) 24).37.
25. See J. Klabbers, “The New Dutch Law on the Approval of Treaties” (1995) I.CL.Q. 629, at p.632.
26. The text of the resolution, and of the letter, is annexed to the signed Agreement: see UKTS (1999) 43, at pp.14 and 16.37.
27. For a brief account of how the Security Council actually worts, see A. Aust, “The Procedure and Practice of the Security Council Today”, in Development of the Role of the Security Council (Hague Academy Workshop 1992)
28. M. Wood, “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions”, in Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (1998), pp.73–95.
29. S.65 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
30. S/1999/378 (ILM (1999), p.939).