DATE=2/27/98
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
NUMBER=5-39108
TITLE=WORLD COURT/LIBYA
BYLINE=ELAINE JOHANSON
DATELINE=NEW YORK
CONTENT=
VOICED AT: 

INTRO:  THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE HAGUE HAS 
DECIDED IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SETTLE LIBYA'S LEGAL DISPUTE WITH
BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OVER THEIR DEMANDS FOR EXTRADITION 
OF TWO SUSPECTS CONNECTED TO AN AMERICAN AIRLINER BOMBING OVER 
LOCKERBIE, SCOTLAND IN 1988.  VOA CORRESPONDENT ELAINE JOHANSON 
REPORTS FROM NEW YORK: 

TEXT:  THE WORLD COURT HAS NOT DECIDED ON THE MERITS OF LIBYA'S 
CASE AGAINST EXTRADITION.  IT HAS SIMPLY RULED THAT THE U-N 
SECURITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTIONS ON LOCKERBIE DO NOT CANCEL THE 
COURT'S RIGHT TO SETTLE THE QUESTION.

THE COURT RULED, IN EFFECT, THAT TIMING WAS ON LIBYA'S SIDE.  
LIBYA FIRST APPLIED TO THE COURT IN EARLY MARCH 1992 -- ABOUT 
THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED LIMITED SANCTIONS 
ON LIBYA TO FORCE EXTRADITION.  HAD THE COUNCIL ACTED BEFORE 
LIBYA WENT TO THE HAGUE, SOME EXPERTS SAY THE COURT MIGHT HAVE 
RULED DIFFERENTLY.

LIBYA WOULD LIKE TO TRY THE SUSPECTS -- WHO IT CLAIMS ARE 
INNOCENT -- EITHER AT HOME OR IN WHAT IT WOULD CONSIDER A NEUTRAL
COUNTRY.  IT CALLS THE COURT'S RULING A VICTORY FOR ITS SIDE.

BUT BRITAIN'S U-N AMBASSADOR, JOHN WESTON, CAUTIONS AGAINST 
READING TOO MUCH INTO IT.  HE SAYS THE COURT SIMPLY MADE A 
PROCEDURAL DECISION AND THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE IS BY NO MEANS 
CERTAIN:

                         //WESTON ACT//

         IT (WORLD COURT) HAS NOT ACCEPTED AS IT STANDS THE 
         ORIGINAL LIBYAN CASE -- THAT THEY'RE COVERED BY THE 1971
         MONTREAL CONVENTION AND HAVE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO TRY THE
         SUSPECTS ON LIBYAN SOIL.  NEITHER HAS IT THROWN OUT THAT
         POSITION.  WHAT IT HAS SAID IS THAT IT DOES HAVE 
         JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER...THAT IT WANTS TO HEAR MORE
         DETAIL AND MORE ARGUMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER.

                           //END ACT//

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE WAS MANDATED IN 1945 TO 
ADJUDICATE CASES BROUGHT TO IT BY GOVERNMENTS.  HOWEVER, ITS 
POWERS ARE LIMITED.  BOTH PARTIES TO A DISPUTE MUST AGREE TO TAKE
IT TO THE COURT AND THEN TO ABIDE BY THE VERDICT. ON THE 
LOCKERBIE MATTER, BRITAIN IS NOT A WILLING PARTNER.

THE COURT ALSO HAS NO WAY OF ENFORCING ITS DECISIONS.

BUT LEGAL EXPERTS SEEM TO APPRECIATE THE WORLD COURT.   PROFESSOR
LORI DAMROSCH OF NEW YORK'S COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CONSIDERS IT A 
VIBRANT INSTITUTION THAT HAS PERFORMED MANY INVALUABLE SERVICES:

                        //DAMROSCH ACT//

         IT'S MOST SUCCESSFUL ACTIVITIES ARE IN THE AREAS OF LAW 
         OF THE SEA AND IN THE AREAS OF RESOLVING DISPUTED 
         BOUNDARIES WHETHER OF A LAND OR MARITIME CHARACTER WHEN 
         THOSE PARTIES ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT THOSE DISPUTES FOR 
         DECISION. THAT'S WHERE IT'S HAD THE STRONGEST RECORD OF 
         COMPLIANCE.  AND IT'S DONE MANY OTHER THINGS AS WELL, 
         INCLUDING RENDERING ADVISORIES AND OPINIONS ON A NUMBER 
         OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.  ITS ROLE IN BIG QUESTIONS OF 
         PEACE, SECURITY AND TERRORISM IS MORE PROBLEMATIC.

                           //END ACT//

IRONICALLY, THE WORLD COURT SHOWED ITS POTENTIAL SEVERAL YEARS 
AGO IN ANOTHER CASE INVOLVING LIBYA.  THAT TIME, THE COURT 
ACTUALLY RULED AGAINST LIBYA IN ITS LONG-STANDING BORDER DISPUTE 
WITH CHAD.  LIBYA ACCEPTED THE LOSS OF TERRITORY AND WITHDREW ITS
TROOPS UNDER U-N SUPERVISION.

BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES INSIST THE SUSPECTS IN THE 
LOCKERBIE BOMBING BE TRIED IN A SCOTTISH OR AMERICAN COURT.  LAST
DECEMBER, THE UNITED NATIONS SENT A TEAM OF EXPERTS TO SCOTLAND 
TO SURVEY THE SCOTTISH JUSTICE SYSTEM.  LIBYA HAD SAID ITS 
NATIONALS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET A FAIR TRIAL THERE.  THE 
EXPERTS FOUND LIBYA'S FEARS GROUNDLESS. (SIGNED)

NEB/NY/EJ/LSF

     

27-Feb-98 4:25 PM EST (2125 UTC)
NNNN

Source: Voice of America
.