The Hague Peace Conference of 1899, marked a new phase in the history of international arbitration. It ended by adopting a Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which dealt not only with arbitration but also with other methods of pacific settlement. Then the league of Nation created a Permanent Court of International Justice in 1922, before the United Nations' International Court of Justice creation in 1946. However, today, the sources are vast when we refer to the regulation of disputes in international law. Treaties, conventions and supranational organizations are such numerous that we may seem lost when it deals with pacific settlement of conflicts, that is to say the exit (without the use of force) of a dispute situation between States, for economic or territorial reasons for example. This impression is reinforced when we know that the parties in dispute can choose between all the means to regulate it, according to their own interests.
[...] As a conclusion, I will say that a lot of conventions, treaties and supranational organizations like the UN have planned some means of pacific settlement of disputes between States to prevent them from using the force and jeopardize peace. These means are quite numerous now, and this diversity is itself a way of avoiding military conflicts. If diplomacy fails, adjudication can solve the problem, or ultimately, regional organizations and finally the UN Security Council should take the appropriate measures to put an end to the ongoing conflict . [...]
[...] Briefly, the inquiries can be found first in the Hague Convention, Article 9 that says: differences of an international nature involving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the Signatory Powers recommend that the parties, who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should, institute an International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these differences by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation.” The difference with the other means is that those commissions are limited to elucidate the facts of the dispute, its nature, but then, they are not participating in the process of settlement . [...]
[...] Yet, it is generally considered that the decisions taken by the Security Council under chapter VI (pacific regulation of the disputes) are not binding on UN members, even if the ICJ said the opposite in a court ruling. B. Binding resolutions . First of all, the article 94 of the UN charter clarifies that the Security Council is responsible for the execution of the ICJ's court ruling. But more generally, the article 39, in the Chapter VII about the “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression”, explains that Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security. [...]
[...] These diplomatic means are characterized by the fact that there is no obligation to apply the law, we can refer to equity, and the recommendations of the third party are not binding. However, they are mentioned in a lot of regional organizations' charters, such as in the Organization of American States (article following are peaceful procedures: direct negotiation, good offices, mediation, investigation and conciliation, and those which the parties to the dispute may especially agree upon at any time. We could also think about the African United Organization or the Arab League. [...]
[...] The disadvantages of arbitration stem from the same characteristics. Arbitration is adversarial, thus it generally does nothing to create win- win solutions or improve relationships. Often it escalates a conflict; just as court-based adjudication is likely to do. In addition, arbitration takes decision making power away from the parties. This results in a resolution of the current conflict, but does nothing to help the parties learn how to resolve their own conflicts more effectively in the future, as does mediation. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee