Recent times can be characterized by some serious international disputes looming large over the world. It is very difficult to have the peace-keeping operations going on without finding out effective mechanisms for settling these disputes peacefully. Hence settlement of international disputes by peaceful means plays a vital role in international relations.

International law provides an important insight into the peaceful settlement of disputes. One of the basic functions of international law is to settle international disputes peacefully. To sustain peace at the international level, proper peacekeeping mechanisms and development of procedures is a pre-requisite. Settlement of disputes by peaceful means covers a wide range of issues.

As an aftereffect of the Second World War, the United Nations fixated themselves on eradicating bloodsheds and war and establishing worldwide peace through peaceful ways of resolution of conflicts and settlement of disputes.

The peaceful settlement of disputes and conflict prevention are intertwined. Conflict prevention addresses the immediate and deeper causes of conflicts. Conflict prevention takes the peaceful settlement of disputes one step farther by the attempts.

United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015

Article 1 of the UN Charter laconically states that the main objective: “To maintain international peace and security” and the ways this purpose to be fulfilled are collective, peaceful, and preventive measures. The peaceful settlement of disputes is widely considered essential both in the interest of preventing lethal armed conflicts and bloodsheds and countering the rise of radical ideologies and ethno-nationalisms.

The origins of this principle date back to the first Hague Peace Conference, 1899 and the second Hague Peace Conference, 1907 where two respective Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes was introduced.

The distinction between legal (static) and non-legal (dynamic) disputes

Various treaties have shown the clear distinction between legal and non-legal. Article 16 of the 1899 Hague Convention recognized the clear distinction. Article 13(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations also reflects the distinction between the legal and political dispute and the means to solve the question.

Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice also enumerates that the Court may “at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement.”

In the case of Nicaragua v. Honduras (also known as Border and Transborder Armed Actions), the ICJ ruled that the court is only concerned with cases involving a legal dispute in the sense of a dispute capable of being solved within the applications and purview of international law.

However, if there is a dispute between two states concerning whether a dispute is to be termed as a legal dispute or not, the Court then decides the dispute by Article 36(6) of the statute.

Methods of peaceful settlement of International Disputes

There are several approaches to peaceful settlement of International Disputes. They can be grouped into the following:

Diplomatic Methods of Dispute Settlement:

The diplomatic methods of dispute settlement include negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, and good offices.

Negotiation

It is the oldest, simplest, and most common method of resolving international disputes. Negotiation is also the flexible means of peaceful settlement of international disputes. Negotiation skills can be applied in a wide array of activities in international affairs. Negotiation can be done in all kinds of disputes irrespective of political or legal.

Negotiations consist of a discussion between two parties with opposing views. It is the most reasonable means to settle disputes since it is voluntary.

However, negotiations always do not settle the disputes mutually. So third-party interference is needed to reach the desired settlement between the parties.

Hence, it is not surprising that negotiation is the first in the lists of ways of pacific settlement of disputes stipulated in Article 33(1) in the Charter of the United Nations.

Inquiry

In the 1899 and 1907, Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, the provisions for the inquiry were specifically dealt with. Inquiry is an impartial third-party process for fact-finding and investigations.

In an international dispute, a state can initiate an inquiry to investigate disputed issues as well as several aspects of the dispute and determining any violations concerning the treaties.

Inquiry as a means for settling international disputes has been mentioned in various bilateral and multilateral treaties which also includes the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Charter of the United Nations, and the basic instruments of certain specialized agencies and other international organizations falling under the United Nations system, and in various instruments by the regional organizations.

Mediation

The demand for mediation as a way to settle international disputes has increased in the last two decades. The UN Secretary-General has termed mediation as “the most promising method” for the settlement of international disputes.

Mediation, as a means for a peaceful settlement, has been mentioned in several multilateral instruments which include 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, the Inter-American Treaty on Good Offices and Mediation of 1936, the Charter of the United Nations, the Pact of the League of Arab States, etc.

Unlike negotiation, mediation involves the intervention of a third party to settle a dispute. The third-party intervenes to resolve the claims of the disputed parties and also to forward his proposals for mutually settling the dispute.

Conciliation

Conciliation, as a method for peaceful settlement of international disputes, is mentioned in the Charter of the United Nations, in Article 33 Paragraph 1 to which the member states may take a resort if any dispute arises.

Conciliation refers to the process where a dispute is referred to the constituted organ which goes through the disputes and proposes a suggestion for the settlement. It involves third-party machinery. Conciliation combines the elements of both inquiry and mediation. As a method for the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, Conciliation first evolved in the first decades of the twentieth century from a series of bilateral treaties.

Good Offices

The 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes contain specific provisions that establish ‘good offices’ as one of the peaceful methods of settlement of international disputes. Although the Charter of the United Nations (Article 33, paragraph 1) does not specifically mention good offices among the peaceful means for the settlement of disputes between States, it has been included later in international instruments. The 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes places good offices on an equal foothold along with the other peaceful methods.

Good offices, as a means for peaceful settlement of international disputes, are used only when the States as parties are unable to solve the disputes between them. In that case, a third party may offer its good offices for the prevention of further deterioration of the dispute and to facilitate efforts for peacefully settling the dispute. The disputed State parties may or may not accept the request for the initiation of good offices by the third party. The third-party offering good offices may be a single or group of States, an individual, or a part of any international organization.

Adjudicative Methods of Dispute Settlement:

One of the major disadvantages of the diplomatic methods of dispute settlements is that the disputing parties are under no legal obligation to accept the suggested solution. Hence, the adjudicative methods of dispute settlement are more preferable because it includes “legally” binding decisions instead of mere suggestions.

Adjudicative methods of dispute settlement include two procedures – i) arbitration and ii) judicial settlement. They involve resolving disputes through binding “legal” decisions. In arbitration, the decision is taken by an individual arbitrator or arbitral tribunal. Whereas in the case of judicial settlement, the decision is determined by a permanent or ad hoc court such as the International Court of Justice.

Arbitration

According to the 1899 and 1907, Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, the purpose of international arbitration for the settlement of disputes between States is a peaceful settlement and the arbitrators to be chosen by the parties themselves by respecting the law.

Arbitration, as a method for the peaceful settlement of disputes, has been mentioned in several multilateral and bilateral treaties. Arbitration is constituted by mutual consent of the States parties and the parties hold substantial control over the process through the power of appointing arbitrators of their own choice.

Arbitration is a preferable method for dispute settlement because it results in not only a binding decision to the parties in dispute but also, according to article 60 of the ICJ statute, ‘final and without appeal.

Judicial settlement

The disputed parties may approach a pre-constituted international court or tribunal for the solution of their disputes where the judges will settle the dispute following the respective international law and the rendered decisions will be legally binding to the parties. This method is known as judicial settlement, which has been mentioned as one of the methods for the peaceful settlement of international disputes in Article 33 of the Charter of United Nations.

The first international court was the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was set out by the Covenant of the League of Nations in 1922. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in 1946 as a principal organ of the United Nations.

According to Article 36 of ICJ Statute, the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over “all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for” in the Charter of the United Nations, treaties, or conventions in force.

Institutional Methods of Dispute Settlement

The institutional method of dispute settlement came into existence with the establishment of international organizations. These include the United Nations and other regional institutions such as the European Union, African Union, Organisation of American States, Arab League, etc.

Peaceful Settlement of Dispute by the United Nations:

The charter of the United Nations mentions that it should follow peaceful means conforming with the “principles of International law”.

The principal judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) settles all the legal disputes in accordance with International law.

Peaceful Settlement of Dispute by Regional Organizations, agencies or arrangements:

Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations mentions that the disputed State parties shall “resort to regional agencies and arrangements” as a peaceful means to resolve the dispute. Chapter VIII of the Charter deals with the regional agencies and arrangements. Article 52 refers to both “regional arrangements” and “regional agencies”.

Other peaceful means

The State parties to the dispute may take resort to “other peaceful means” within the meaning of Article 33, paragraph 1 of the Charter.

The peaceful means fall under three broad categories:

1. Novel means of settlement
2. Familiar means of settlement
3. Combinations of the two or more means of settlement

Conclusion

The question arises as to which means to follow for the settlement of international disputes by peaceful methods. While International law imposes an obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means, but there is no such obligation to resort to a specific method for resolving the dispute. The decision is entirely in the hands of the state to decide the mechanism.

International law advocates for worldwide peace and brotherhood. While international law can and should be used as an important means to resolve a dispute instead of using political or military powers.

International law plays a significant role in resolving disputes peacefully and amicably. But at the same time, international law should never give preference to any coercive or compulsive means to settle any dispute.