I. | Substantive International Law - First Part |
2. | SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW |
2.1. | General Questions |
2.1.5. | Relation between the Sources of International Law |
¤
Questions of Interpretation and Application
of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising
from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie
(Libyan Arab Jamahiriya / United Kingdom),
Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992,
I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 3
[p. 39 D.O. Bedjaoui 1] Furthermore, it has been maintained that
the 1971 Montreal Convention does not confer on a State party any right under
Article 7 that it does not already possess by virtue of general international
law, so that even if the 1971 Montreal Convention did not exist or Libya had not
become a party to it Libya would remain free to deny extradition by virtue of
international law. From this observation, which is correct, an erroneous
conclusion has been drawn, namely, that the treaty right to be protected is
non-existent, or illusory, inasmuch as Article 7 does not confer an additional
right on a State. But is it conceivable that a right recognized by general
international law and confirmed by an international convention would cease to
exist altogether and no longer be entitled to protection as a result merely of
its confirmation, which, on the contrary, would, it appears, strengthen it? In
truth, this line of reasoning is based on the implicit view that in this case
the Court could only apply the 1971 Montreal Convention, to the exclusion of
general international law, whereas, obviously, the Court's Statute and its
general mission spontaneously oblige it to apply that law.
1 | Cf. Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal
Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
/ United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992,
I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 149. |