On 8 January 2026, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office marked six years since the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752. A spokesperson said Iran has not accepted full legal responsibility despite acknowledging the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired the missiles that killed 176 people, including UK nationals. The UK confirmed it will keep pursuing cases with Canada, Sweden and Ukraine at the International Court of Justice and the International Civil Aviation Organization. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/flight-ps752-sixth-anniversary-statement))
Two parallel legal tracks are now active. One proceeds before the International Court of Justice under the 1971 Montreal Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The other is a dispute before the ICAO Council under the Chicago Convention, centred on Article 3 bis, which prohibits using weapons against civil aircraft in flight, and brought under Article 84 on dispute settlement. ([canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2024/01/joint-statement-from-international-coordination-and-response-group-for-the-victims-of-flight-ps752-at-the-international-civil-aviation-organization.html?utm_source=openai))
At the ICJ, Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom lodged a joint application on 4 July 2023 alleging breaches of the Montreal Convention arising from the destruction of PS752 and the handling of the aftermath. The application cites Article 14 of the Montreal Convention and Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute as the bases for jurisdiction. ([icj-cij.org](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/202866?utm_source=openai))
Procedurally, the Court fixed time‑limits on 16 October 2023, recorded the applicants’ Memorial filed on 16 October 2024, and noted Iran’s preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility submitted on 16 January 2025. By Order on 17 January 2025, the Court suspended the merits phase and set 16 May 2025 for the applicants’ observations; the Coordination Group reports it filed on that date. A hearing date on the preliminary objections remains pending. ([icj-cij.org](https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203217?utm_source=openai))
Before ICAO, the Coordination Group initiated dispute‑settlement proceedings on 8 January 2024, alleging Iran breached Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention by using weapons against a civil aircraft in flight. The referral followed unsuccessful efforts to settle the matter by negotiation. ([canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2024/01/joint-statement-from-international-coordination-and-response-group-for-the-victims-of-flight-ps752-at-the-international-civil-aviation-organization.html?utm_source=openai))
On 17 March 2025 the ICAO Council rejected Iran’s preliminary objection and accepted jurisdiction over the dispute. The UK Government said the case would move to the next stage at ICAO, describing the outcome as a step towards accountability for the January 2020 downing. ([gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ps752-international-civil-aviation-organisation-vote?utm_source=openai))
On 17 April 2025 Iran appealed the ICAO Council’s jurisdiction decision to the ICJ in a case registered as Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Global Affairs Canada indicates the ICAO proceedings are paused pending the ICJ’s ruling on that appeal. ([icj-cij.org](https://www.icj-cij.org/index.php/node/205235?utm_source=openai))
The legal standards at issue are explicit. Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention requires states to refrain from using weapons against civil aircraft in flight, while the Montreal Convention obliges states to prevent and prosecute unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation. The Coordination Group argues that acts of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are attributable to Iran for purposes of state responsibility. ([canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2024/01/backgrounder---convention-on-international-civil-aviation-and-its-annexes.html?utm_source=openai))
For families and for the aviation sector, outcomes across the two fora have practical consequences. An ICJ judgment on the merits could include declarations of breach and orders to make reparation. A decision of the ICAO Council would address compliance under the Chicago Convention and support measures aimed at preventing recurrence. The four states continue to seek accountability, transparency and guarantees of non‑repetition alongside compensation. ([canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2024/01/backgrounder---convention-on-international-civil-aviation-and-its-annexes.html?utm_source=openai))
As at 8 January 2026, the applicants await the ICJ’s scheduling of oral hearings on Iran’s preliminary objections in the Montreal Convention case. In the Chicago Convention track, the ICJ appeal will determine whether the ICAO Council can proceed to consider the merits. Canada has indicated both processes are likely to take several years. ([canada.ca](https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2026/01/government-of-canada-honours-victims-of-flight-ps752-six-years-after-tragedy.html?utm_source=openai))