1 See, e.g., Use of U.S.-Origin Parts for Servicing Libyan Aircraft Restricted, 46 Fed. Reg. 47,066 (Sept. 24, 1981) (codified at 15 C.F.R. pts. 373,376,390); Expansion of Foreign Export Controls Affecting Libya, 47 Fed. Reg. 11,247 (Mar. 16, 1982) (codified at 15 C.F.R. pts. 370, 371, 373, 376, 379, 385, 386, 399).

2 Proclamation No. 4,907, 3 C.F.R. 21 (1983).

3 See Exec. Order No. 12,543,3 C.F.R. 181 (1987), reprinted in 25ILM 173 (1986); Exec. Order No. 12,544,3 C.F.R. 183 (1987); see also Libyan Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. pt. 550 (2001). For an overview of U.S. sanctions against Libya from 1980 to 1996, see Anne Q. Connaughton, Exporting to Special Destinations: Terrorist-Supporting and Embargoed Countries, 748 PRAC. L. INST. 353 (1996).

4 The United States’ imposition of additional sanctions against Libya in the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 note (2000), was partly motivated by Libya's refusal to hand over the two suspects. See H.R. REP. No. 104-523 (II), at 9 (1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1311, 1312.

5 SeeSC Res. 731 (Jan. 21, 1992); SC Res. 748 (Mar. 31, 1992); SC Res. 883 (Nov. 11, 1993).

6 See Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Sept. 23, 1971, 24 UST 564, 974 UNTS 177. The Court declined to issue interim measures of protection in favor of Libya. ^Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. UK), Provisional Measures, 1992ICJ REP. 3 (Apr. 14); Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, 1992 ICJ REP. 114 (Apr. 14). The Court found, however, that it had jurisdiction over Libya's claims, notwithstanding the apparent conflict between them and the resolutions of the Security Council. See Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. UK), Preliminary Objections, 1998 ICJ REP. 9 (Feb. 27); Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.), Preliminary Objections, 1998 ICJ REP. 115 (Feb. 27), reprinted in 37ILM 587 (1998) (discussed in case report by Peter H. F. Bekker at 92 AJIL503 (1998)).

7 Letter Dated 24 August 1998 from the Acting Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary General, UN Doc. S/1998/795 (1998).

8 SC. Res. 1192 (Aug. 27,1998). For background on the discussions preceding the trial, and a summary of the verdict and the court's reasoning, see SEAN D. MURPHY, UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: 1999-2001, at 359-66 (2002).

9 fejudith Miller, In Rare Talks with Libyans, U.S. Airs View on Sanctions, N.Y. TIMES, June 12,1999, atA4; see also Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, U.S. Dep't of State Press Release on Press Remarks with British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook (Revised) (Feb. 6, 2001), at<http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/522.htm>.

10 Her Majesty's Advocate v. Megrahi, No. 1475/99, slip. op. (High Ct. Judiciary at Camp ZeistJan. 31, 2001), reprinted in 40 ILM 582 (2001). The conviction (and sentence to life in prison) was affirmed in March 2002 by the Scottish High Court of Justiciary. See Megrahi v. Her Majesty's Advocate, No. CI 04/01, slip. op. (Appeal Court, High Ct. Justiciary, Mar. 14, 2002). Both judgments are available online at <http://www.scotscourts.gov.uk>.

11 See Peter Slevin and Glenn Kessler, Libya Disavows Offer to Pay Families of Flight 103 Victims, WASH POST, May 30, 2002, at A20; see also Peter Slevin, Pan Am 103 Settlement Is Elusive; Cultural, Legal Issues Stall Lawyers’ Negotiations with Libya, WASH. POST, July 8, 2002, at A13.

12 See, e.g., Steven R. Weisman, U.S. Will Keep Penalties Against Libya, Officials Say, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 14,2003, at A12 (reporting that Libya initially insisted on the lifting of all UN and U.S. sanctions upon payment, and citing an administration official that in June and July, 2003, “[H]ard-liners in the State and Defense Departments sought to oppose the lifting of United Nations sanctions even if Libya met the conditions set. In the e n d, … the administration decided that it would be ‘changing the goal posts’ to add conditions for the lifting of United Nations sanctions.“)

13 See Alan Sipress and John Mintz, Libya Accepts Responsibility for Bombing over Lockerbie,^'ASH. POST, May 1,2003, at Al 2; Matthew L. Wald, Libya Is Offering to Pay $2.7 Billion for Pan Am Blast, N.Y. TIMES, May 29, 2003, at Al.

14 Letter Dated 15 August 2003 from the Charge d'affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2003/818 (Aug. 15,2003).

15 See SC Res. 1373 (Sept. 28, 2001).

16 See GA Res. 55/158 (Jan. 30, 2001).

17 See GA Res. 49/60, annex (Dec. 9, 1994).

18 See Letter Dated 15 August 2003, supra note 14, at 1-2; see also Letter Dated 28 December 2001 from the Chairman of the Security Council Committee Established Pursuant to Resolution 1373 (2001) Concerning Counter-terrorism Addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2001/1323, annex (Dec. 31,2001) (containing a letter from Libya to the committee regarding Libya's counterterrorism efforts).

19 See Peter Slevin, Libya Takes Blame for Lockerbie Bombing, WASH. POST, Aug. 16, 2003, at A01.

20 Id.

21 See U.S. Dep't of State Press Release, U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Libya—Pan Am 103 (Aug. 15, 2003), at <http://www.state.gov>.

22 Id.; see also Peter Slevin, U.S. Still Wary of Gaddafi's Intentions; Any Lifting of Sanctions Isn't Near, Experts Say, WASH. POST, Aug. 14, 2003, at A16 (reporting on concerns in the U.S. administration and Congress over Libya's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction).

23 See Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Dep't of State Daily Press Briefing at 16 (Aug. 25, 2003), at <http://www.state.gov>.

24 UTA Flight 772 was en route from Brazzaville to Paris when it exploded over Nigeria on September21,1989, killing 170, among them 54 French, 7 U.S., and 4 UK citizens. Following an agreement between French President Chirac and Libyan leader Gaddafi in 1996, and a court trial in France in March 1999, in which six Libyans were sentenced in absentia for the carrying out of the attack, the court ordered Libya to pay U.S.$34 million in compensation, of which less than U.S.$200,000 was paid to each of the families of the victims, with the rest of the funds going to the French airline company and its insurer. Some critics in France accused the French government of agreeing to a small compensation payment to increase the prospects of oil contracts for French companies in Libya. See Fehcity Barringer, U.N. Council Postpones Vote on Libya Penalties,NY. TIMES, Sept. 10, 2003, at A3; Elaine Sciolino, Libya and Families in Accord on Payment in ‘89 Bombing, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 2, 2003, at \7; Colum Lynch, Lockerbie Families Protest French Resistance, WASH. POST, Aug. 31, 2003, at A18. Separately, in October 2002, relatives of the U.S. victims who were killed aboard UTA Flight 772 filed a lawsuit against Libya in U.S. federal court For a copy of the complaint, see <http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/ pughlibyal01602cmp.pdf>.

25 See Felicity Barringer, U.N. to Weigh Proposal to End 1988 Penalties Against Libya, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 19, 2003, at Al 1.

26 See, e.g., Colum Lynch, Lockerbie Families Protest French Resistance, VIAm. POST, Aug. 31, 2003, at A18.

27 See Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Dep't of State Daily Press Briefing at 16 (Aug. 25,2003), at http:// www.state.gov> (stating that the United States has “certainly made clear our deep concern over any possible actions by France or any other country that would impede the settlement,” and stating that the United States “continue [s] to support compensation for all victims of terrorism, of course, but the Council's consideration of lifting the Libya sanctions should be based solely on Libya meeting the requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions“); Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Dep't of State Daily Press Briefing at 14 (Aug. 27, 2003), at <http://www.state.gov> (“As we have made quite clear, we would like to see that done as quickly as possible.“); Philip T. Reeker, Deputy Spokesman, U.S. Dep't of State Daily Press Briefing at 13 (Sept. 3,2003), at <http://www.state.gov> (stating that the lifting of sanctions “has been a matter of high-level discussion among a number of governments“).

28 See Felicity Barringer, U.N. Council Postpones Vote on Libya Penalties, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 10, 2003, at A3.

29 See Craig S. Smith, Libya and France Reach Agreement on Victim Compensation, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 12, 2003, at All.

30 SC Res. 1506 (Sept. 12,2003). The vote was thirteen in favor, with two abstentions (France and the United States).

31 See Peter Slevin, U.N. Vote Removes Sanctions on Libya, WASH. POST, Sept. 13, 2003, at A14.