Lockerbie Terrorist Attack and the Lockerbie Trial

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Lockerbie Terrorist Attack and the Lockerbie Trial

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Abstract

The relationship between international laws and politics can be outlined through the series of actions between nations during the accepted universal legal procedures. International politics is the practice through which states interact and it usually occurs in the medium of international law that countries apply to explain and justify their policies. The given research analyses the Lockerbie Case following the bombing of the Pan Am flight 103, a passenger airliner operated by the Pan American Airways, which exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland killing 280 people. The case is filed by the United States and the United Kingdom against Libya. Different aspects in the case are analyzed.

Lockerbie Terrorist Attack and the Lockerbie Trial

Introduction

            The primary concern of international legal system is the realization that the rule of law is central in establishing global order by replacing chaos with the new world order. Combatting terrorism is an essential aspect of national security, and broad transformations have resulted in the involvement of the international legal community in exposing state-sponsored terrorism activities (Philip, 2013). The relationship between global laws and politics can be outlined through the series of actions between nations during the accepted universal legal procedures. International politics is the practice through which states interact and usually occurs in the medium of international law as countries apply the law to explain and justify their actions. The given report analyses the Lockerbie terrorist attack, investigation, case and trial.

Background of the Attack

Disputed wars between Libya and the United States increased tensions in different parts of the world since the involvement of the two sides in an armed firing in the conflicted waters off the Libyan coast in March 1986. A month later, two American soldiers were killed and more than 200 victims injured in a bomb explosion in a West Berlin disco, a ground popular with American service members (Artz, 2002). Intercepted communications implicated the government of Libya as being responsible for the attack and the United States under the command of the then president, Ronald Reagan responded with airstrikes in Libya. The given approach, however, intensified the conflict between the two.

            On 21^st of December, 1988, a bomb was detonated on the Pan Am flight 103, a passenger airliner operated by the Pan American Airways, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland (Scott, 1994). The attack led to massive loss of lives as all the 259 members on the plane died. The wreckage also led to the destruction of 21 houses killing other 11 people within the radius of impact, covering approximately 850 square meters (Scott, 1994). 189 victims of the attack were Americans, leading to increased terrorism fears in the U.S. as investigators believed that the assault was initiated by two Libyan intelligence agents.

A set of investigations was conducted leading to multiple speculations that the 1988 attack was linked with the 1986 U.S. bombing campaign against Tripoli, the capital of Libya. The international community was concerned about security in different areas of the planet as terrorism was now a global crisis (Emerson, 2004). The international legal community initiated the investigation of the Lockerbie incident, and different case files were opened, presenting several verdicts and opinions based on international laws.

Legal and Political Issues at Stake in the Case

The United Nations Charter

Member nations operate in accordance with principle outlines in article 2 of the charter, based on sovereign equality of all members. Article 103 provides that in conflict events, the charter and its obligations together with those in other international obligations that agree with the UN’s conventions shall prevail. Besides, article 39 gives the security council the mandate to determine the existence of any threats to international peace and security, and outline recommendations on actions to be initiated with reference to article 41 and 42 on restoring order. More important, article 25 of the charter confirms that all members should accept and comply with the decisions of the Security Council as presented.

The U.N. Charter was of great importance in providing legal procedure through the case in response to Libya’s sustained support of terrorism after the incident. All actions by the UN were based on the provisions of the charter. Resolutions by the Security Council condemning the Libyan inhuman acts, imposing sanctions on Libya, and Libya’s submission of the case to the International Court of Justice find their root in the performance of the U.N. and its Charter (Scott, 1994). The U.N. provides a series of legal orders and procedures that influenced the conduction of Lockerbie incident cases.

Both Libya and the U.S. are signatories to the U.N. Charter, which prohibits aggression. According to the Charter all sided involved are not allowed to use force in implementing solutions relating to the conflict at hand. Aggression in this context is used to imply both direct and indirect threat and use of force with the intention of inducing another country to act in a particular manner (Emerson, 2004). Moreover, the Security Council outlines that suppressing international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of global peace and security.

The Montreal Convention

The convention is concerned with the protection of civil aviation through establishing legal consequences for the destruction of civil aircraft. Following every element of the convention was to prevent Libya trials to the International Court of Justice entirely. There existed no extradition treaty between the U.S. and Libya. However, the U.S., with the support of the U.K., demanded Libya to immediately surrender its two intelligence agents who were the masterminds in the Lockerbie attack for trial (Scott, 1994). Libya did not comply with the demands. Instead, the country cited that the atmosphere in the U.S. and U.K. at the time was not safe for its agents to be surrendered. 

Furthermore, building its arguments on the basis of 1971 Montreal Aircraft Sabotage Convention, Libya was allowed to undertake its own prosecution of the accused (Emerson, 2004). The convention entitled Libya the ability to establish jurisdiction over the agents since they were on its territory and exercise procedures and submission of the case to competent prosecution in accordance to the provisions in the state’s national law (Emerson, 2004). Moreover, article 11 of the convention required the U.S. and U.K. to offer assistance with criminal proceedings of the case rather than demanding its interests. Provisions of the Charter brought about conflicting approaches in the procedures to be initiated for the case.

The Council’s Resolutions

Resolutions from the Security Council have substantial weight in international law. The given legal prescriptions punished Libya for its failure to surrender the intelligence agents responsible for the flight bombing and thus initiating its request for provisional measures in the incident cases. One resolution obliged Libya to comply with U.S. and U.K. demands after the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing (Scott, 1994). It was the first time for the council to implicate and request the surrender of its member nation’s national agents (Scott, 1994). The resolution also requested the Secretary-General to seek Libya’s cooperation towards responding to the demands.

When Libya did not comply with the demands of the first resolution, another approach was adopted and it involved imposing mandatory sanctions on Libya. The call for the surrender of the two Libyan suspects was intended to demonstrate its renunciation of terrorism through concrete actions and imposition of specific sanctions that were implemented as of April 15, 1992. The sanctions included; member states to reduce Libyan diplomatic missions, the prohibition of flights, landing or taking off from other regions if destined to land in Libya, and finally, requirement of the countries to withdraw military advisory nationals from Libya among other provisions that hindered Libya’s interaction on an international perspective (Emerson, 2004). However, Libya did not surrender its agents and instead, decided to challenge the imposition of the sanctions in the ICJ.

Domestic and International Law

Domestic laws are those that govern jurisdiction processes in an individual nation. For the Lockerbie case, the involvement of several nations with different domestic laws provides multiple issues in the investigation, jurisdiction, and prosecution. For instance, the Libyan national law does not allow it to freely surrender its nationals and instead protect them from external jurisdiction. However, the membership in different international organizations provides appropriate terms on which such laws can be bypassed (Artz, 2002). International law limits a state’s jurisdiction to apply its statutes beyond its territorial boundaries. Implementation of extraterritorial jurisdiction requires the determination of whether a state’s domestic law covers the offensive act and its acceptance on an international approach. In the Lockerbie case, the U.S. aircraft Sabotage Act provides ground for jurisdiction.

The Agents Involved in the Case

Libya has a history of terrorism-related cases, and its major agencies are involved in the case. The country was the main suspect responsible for the Lockerbie attack with a series of investigation linking the casualty with two Libyan nationals, who were the country`s intelligence agents. Despite being at the center of the case, Libya did not accept being responsible for the attack.  Under the leadership of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Libya refused to surrender its agents and brought the case to the ICJ (Scott, 1994). Through the approach, Libya was attempting to stall the prosecution and sanctions, unwilling to admit guilt of the attack, and stressing upon its domestic law prohibing the extradition of nationals. The government was trying to safeguard its principles and protect its citizens.

The United States and the United Kingdom were the major agents in the Lockerbie case. The majority of the victims of the flight bombing were of America and British origin and both nations were extremely concerned with achieving justice for the loss of their citizens. The US and UK involvement in the case was intended to push Libya to renounce having committed the attack and surrender the mastermind suspects behind the case (Artz, 2002). However, both countries had difficulties in achieving their objectives due to conflicting ideologies in the application off domestic and international laws, together with international conventions.

The United Nations also had its agents closely following the Lockerbie case. The intervention of the U.N. and the Security Council led to the development of different approaches that eased processes in the case. The U.N. and its organs aimed at achieving legal grounds through which jurisdiction and prosecution could be conducted between the involved sides (Scott, 1994). The then U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan was influential in the process as he was directly involved by travelling to meet Libya’s president and managed to convince him to deliver the two Libyan nationals to the ICJ.

Another vital agent in the case was the Scottish Court in the Netherlands, where the prosecution and trials of the Lockerbie attack suspects were to be conducted. The arrangement s for availing the two agents to the court took different paths based on political and territorial agreements as well as the implications of the Security Council sanctions on Libya (Artz, 2002). The Scottish Court provided the international platform for the Lockerbie criminal trial

Relevant Principles and Dispositions in International Law in the Case

International laws are founded on multiple principles and dispositions. In the given case, territorial policies were considered before the ruling was reached. It determines locale according to the area of the crime and provides that a state may punish crimes committed within its region. Of all jurisdictional perceptions of extradition, the regional rule remains generally acknowledged (Emerson, 2004). The two Libyan agents present before the ICJ were treated according to international law provisions and at the same time respecting the provisions by Libya’s national law and the guiding legal system in the Netherlands.

Besides, the protective principle of international law was relevant in the proceedings. The principle concern acts across boarders viewed as biased to the state’s security advantages. Under the defensive standard, a country may practice jurisdiction over specific acts that occur outside its domain, when such activities compromise the security, regional trustworthiness, or political freedom of the state (Joyner, 1993). Moreover, the defensive standard licenses States to arraign nationals of different countries for their lead outside the offended state. In the case, the two Libyan agents were prosecuted in the ICJ in Netherlands rather than in Scotland.

The passive personality principle gives a state extraterritorial locale over offenses committed against its citizens. Jurisdiction depends on the nationality of the crime casualty. The latent character guideline has not been broadly utilized in light of the fact that it is dubious and frequently clashes with the regional principles. Passive principle that individuals convey is the assurance of their state’s law with them past its regional boundaries (Joyner, 1993). In the Lockerbie case, the significance of the given guideline is visible when the U.S. and the U.K. request Libya to give up its speculate nationals for the shelling, a demand past Libya’s national law. The given assertion challenges the fundamental premise of a state’s sovereign jurisdiction over its own territory, which obviously undercuts the basic principle of territorial sovereignty.

The nationality principle is additionally generally acknowledged and permits a state to recommend laws that predicament its nationals, in any case the area of either the national or offense. The nationality rule successfully stretches out a state’s purview to activities taken by its residents outside its regional boundaries (Emerson, 2004). During the Lockerbie trial, U.S. had its arguments centered towards this principle explaining to the court that the Libyan nationals were to be punished regardless of committing the crime on foreign land. The state should protect its nationals in foreign land as well as punishing those with criminal contacts regardless of locations where offences are committed.

The Relationship between International Law and International Politics from the Case

The relationship between international laws and politics can be outlined through the series of actions between nations during the accepted universal legal procedures. International politics is the practice through which states interact and usually occurs in the mode of universal law as nations apply it to clarify and legitimize their approaches (Hurd, 2015). For all intents and purposes, states conjure laws to reinforce their positions comparative with different countries by building avocations that arrange their strategies and inclinations as steady with the universal approaches and practices.

International politics creates competing opinions about effective compliance or noncompliance to international law. The process of diplomatic interaction between nations does not necessarily increase consensus, and its success can be revealed through its contribution to international peace and order. In the Lockerbie case, the interaction between the involved nations explains a wide drift in the way in which governments perceive international law and politics (Joyner, 1993). Both countries express their arguments with reference to appropriate law doctrines as they attempt to convince the jury. the two parties explain their understanding of multiple laws and conventions applicable to their arguments.

Besides, international law and politics are perceived as the exchange between agents and global structures. The two practices of diplomacy provide an interactive process between nations and the way they can be modelled for international relations theory (Hurd, 2015). In the case, an interactive process is evident among the involved parties and intervening bodies. The U.S. and U.K. on an interactive scale have a variety of demands for Libya, whose government does not comply until the intervention of the United Nations in the case.  The kind of diplomacy employed in the case is essential to ensure world order instead of revenge, which could possibly result to a lot casualties and increased insecurity.

Additionally, international law and politics imply that disagreements subject to interpretation of international law are inherent in the legal project. Nations are naturally inclined to provide legal definitions that serve their own interests, complicating the process, and consequently leading to divergence rather than coherence in the law. As evident in the case, both parties explain their arguments to the court using the same conventions but with conflicting ideas to their favor (Joyner, 1993). For instance, Libya had its arguments based on territorial principles outlined in the Montreal Convention that requires mediation when a contest emerges between signatory states concerning the translation and utilization of the agreement. While the U.S. and U.K. countered the argument claiming that the jurisdiction could be legally practiced before a six-month period elapses as provided by the same agreement. 

Conclusion

International law is essential in the realization of global order. After the bombing of an American flight in 1988 by Libya in Lockerbie, leading to a massive loss of lives and destruction of property, a series of investigations were conducted, and a case was opened. The significant agents in the case were Libya, U.S., U.K., and the U.N., where all focused on achieving their personal objectives as analyzed. After the application of different aspects of international law, the bombing suspects were arraigned to the International Court of Justice for trial. Relevant principles and dispositions concerned with international law are also discussed, and their relation with the Lockerbie case outlined.

References

Artz, D. (2002). The Lockerbie “Extradition by analogy” agreement: “Exceptional measure” or template for transnational criminal justice? American University International Law Review, 18(1), 164–234.

Emerson, S. (2004). The Lockerbie terrorist attack and Libya: A retrospective analysis. International Law Commons, 36(2), 387–490.

Hurd, I. (2015). International law and the politics of diplomacy. Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, 31–54. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781316162903.002

Joyner , C., & Rothbaum, W. (1993). Libya and the aerial incident at Lockerbie: What lessons for international extradition law? Michigan Journal of International Law, 14(2), 222–260.

Philip, J. (2013). Lockerbie trial. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 1–43. doi: 10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e60

Scott, E. (1994). The Lockerbie incident cases: Libyan-sponsored terrorism, judicial review and the political question doctrine. Maryland Journal of International Law, 184, 1–57.