Libya Seeks Protection From U.N. Sanctions : Terrorism: Kadafi’s envoy tells World Court that U.S. and Britain have no right to demand extradition of suspects.

Accusing the United States and Britain of “illegal and arbitrary blackmail,” Libya asked the International Court of Justice on Thursday to protect it from sanctions for refusing to turn over two men suspected in the 1988 bombing of a Pan American Airways jet.

Trying to head off passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing the sanctions, Mohammed Faitouri, head of the Libyan legal team, proclaimed the innocence of the two Libyans at the court in The Hague, and insisted that the United States and Britain have no right under international law to demand their extradition.

But Libya was mocked by Scottish Solicitor General Alan Rodger for what he called “this wriggling, this twisting and turning.”

“Surely, the correct inference,” said Rodger, speaking on behalf of Britain, “is that Libya will say anything, however inconsistent, which may help postpone the day when it will have to accept responsibility for its actions.”

Despite Libya’s plea, Security Council ambassadors, who watched the proceedings by television in New York, said that they would forge ahead in their consideration of a sanction resolution.

The Security Council is expected to vote on the resolution next week, even though it could take the World Court, as it is commonly called, several more weeks to make a preliminary ruling in the case.

The court has no power to enforce its rulings. But if it supports Libya, it could generate world opinion in the Libyans’ favor.

The Bush Administration, contending that Security Council rulings take precedence over World Court decisions, is trying to amass an overwhelming vote of approval by the 15-member council for the resolution, sponsored by the United States, Britain and France.

But there may be difficulties. Several members of the Security Council, including China, India, Morocco and Zimbabwe, have reservations about sanctions, partly for reasons of principle, partly because they think more time is needed for negotiation.

China, however, may abstain rather than use its veto. And it is not clear whether the others will go so far as to oppose the United States on such a key issue. As Indian Ambassador Chinmaya Gharekhan put it: “There is a lot of unhappiness, but unhappiness may not get translated into votes.”

The proposed resolution calls for a ban on the sale of arms to Libya, a halt in flights to and from Libya and a reduction in the number of Libyan diplomats allowed in embassies around the world.

The sanctions would be imposed on the grounds that Libya has failed to fulfill a U.N. demand that it cooperate in the investigations of the 1988 Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 and of the bombing of a French UTA airliner over West Africa that killed 171 in 1989. In the Lockerbie case, the United Nations made it clear that cooperation means turning over the two Libyan suspects to the United States and Britain.

In addition to its appeal to the World Court, Libya tried again to head off U.N. passage of the sanctions resolution with another hedged proposal to give up the suspects.

But the latest offer, as reported by North African diplomats, appears certain not to satisfy the United States and Britain.

According to the diplomats, the government of Col. Moammar Kadafi agreed to turn the two Libyans over to the United Nations if pretrial hearings for the two suspected intelligence agents take place anywhere except the United States and Britain. Both the Americans and the British, however, insist that they want the suspects tried in one of their courts.

Asked about the latest offer, State Department spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler said: “What is this, about the sixth or seventh scenario we’ve seen over the last several weeks. . . ? We don’t put any more credence in this one than the other ones.”