When two states disagree, they do not always settle the matter by talking. Sometimes one state tries to push the other into a settlement by putting pressure on it. International law calls these pressure tactics compulsive or coercive methods of settling disputes. This article first explains what an international dispute is and how the United Nations (UN) Charter approaches dispute settlement. It then covers the five main coercive methods: retorsion, reprisals, embargo, pacific blockade and intervention. For exams, learn two things about each method: what it means, and what limits international law places on it.
International Dispute Resolution
Introduction
Conflicts are closely tied to foreign affairs. They are no longer limited to disputes between states. Today they also involve international organizations and other non-state actors. The United Nations (UN) Charter plays a crucial role in managing such conflicts, especially those between nations.
An international dispute is any of the following between states:
- a disagreement over a point of law or fact;
- a conflict of legal views; or
- differing interests.
These disputes can arise on legal or political grounds between the parties involved.
Non-peaceful measures, also called compulsive or coercive methods, resolve international conflicts through pressure or intimidation. They do not necessarily involve armed force. The word "dispute" can be understood broadly. It means a disagreement between two parties on a legal or factual issue, or a clash of legal opinions or interests.
To show that a dispute exists, there must be evidence that one party’s position has been rejected by the other. Whether an international conflict continues, however, is judged objectively.
(Hypothetical) State A says that a small river island belongs to it. If State B never replies, it is hard to say that a dispute exists. If State B formally rejects State A’s claim, one party’s position has clearly been rejected by the other. A dispute now exists.
International Disputes
The primary goal of the United Nations is to maintain global peace and security. It also takes the actions needed to prevent breaches of peace. The UN is empowered to take preventive measures to stop violations of peace and acts of aggression. The UN Charter provides mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of international disputes. These mechanisms ensure that a settlement does not endanger international stability and justice.
A dispute can be called international or transnational for different reasons. The main categories are:
- Disputes Between States: These are the most straightforward international disputes, and international law governs them directly. This does not, however, exclude the application of domestic law or relevant private international law.
- Disputes Among Individuals or Private Organizations of Different Nationalities: These disputes raise issues such as applicable law, jurisdiction and private international law.
- Disputes Between States and Citizens of Other States: Investment disputes are an example. They are usually governed by bilateral agreements, general international law, or specific rules of private international law.
(Hypothetical) Zoya, an Indian businesswoman, signs a supply contract with a company in another country, and a disagreement arises. This is a dispute between private parties of different nationalities. Questions such as which country’s law applies and which court has jurisdiction become important. By contrast, if Farhan, an Indian investor, has a quarrel with a foreign government about his investment in that country, it is a dispute between a state and a citizen of another state.
Judicial arbitration is a method of settling disputes through an "international tribunal" in accordance with international law. Several other international dispute resolution methods serve as alternatives to litigation or judicial settlement. Article 33 of the UN Charter lists these methods as "negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other means of their own choice." In list form, the methods are:
- Negotiation
- Inquiry
- Mediation
- Conciliation
- Arbitration
- Judicial settlement
- Resort to regional agencies or arrangements
- Other means of the parties’ own choice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the most prominent international tribunal today. Its main job is to resolve disputes between sovereign states. Only states can be parties to cases before the ICJ.
Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) is a recent example of the ICJ stepping in. Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer, was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of terrorism and espionage (spying). After years of legal battles, the ICJ issued a stay on his execution in 2019. This was a significant victory for India.
Compulsive/Coercive Methods of Settling International Disputes
Compulsive and coercive methods are non-peaceful ways of resolving conflicts. They often involve the use of force or the exertion of pressure to deal with a dispute. However, they do not necessarily involve military action or war.
The five coercive methods covered here are retorsion, reprisals, embargo, pacific blockade and intervention. Each one aims to pressure the other state into changing its behaviour. Each one must also stay within limits set by international law.
Retorsion
Retorsion is a term in international relations for retaliatory action taken by one state in response to unfriendly or hostile acts by another. It is based on the principle of "tit for tat", which in plain words means "you did this to me, so I will do the same to you." When one state takes an action similar to what another state has already done, the action is called retorsion.
The main features of retorsion are:
- Purpose: to retaliate against an unfriendly or hostile act.
- Nature: the response is similar to the act complained of.
- Legality: retorsion is legal, but it must stay within the bounds of international law.
- Limit: it must not threaten international peace and security.
Suppose one state brings in stricter passport rules for the citizens of another state. The affected state may respond by imposing similar rules on the first state’s citizens. (Hypothetical) If State A makes visas harder to get for Neha and other citizens of State B, State B may make visas equally hard to get for Aadil and other citizens of State A.
A notable instance of retorsion occurred in December 1992. India declared two officials of the Pakistani High Commission persona non grata. This Latin phrase means "an unwelcome person". A diplomat declared persona non grata is no longer accepted by the host state and must leave. In response, Pakistan took similar action against three Indian officials. Such reciprocal (matching) actions are typical examples of retorsion in international relations.
Reprisals
When retorsion fails to resolve a dispute, states may turn to reprisals. Reprisals are more severe actions taken in response to unlawful or unjust acts by another state.
Traditionally, reprisals meant actions such as the seizure of property or individuals. Over time they have expanded to include other coercive measures, such as:
- bombings;
- territorial occupation; and
- asset freezing.
The primary goal of reprisals is to make the offending state stop its wrongful actions or provide restitution, which means restoring what was lost or making good the harm caused.
Reprisals must meet certain legal criteria to be considered legitimate under international law. These criteria are explained in cases such as the Naulilaa Incident (Germany v. Portugal). Reprisals are sometimes justified, but:
- they must be proportionate to the offence, meaning the response should not be far more serious than the wrong done; and
- they should be used only when other remedies have been exhausted.
Naulilaa Incident (Germany v. Portugal): This case is cited for the legal criteria that a reprisal must meet to be legitimate under international law. Use it in exam answers to support the points that a reprisal must be proportionate and should come only after other remedies have failed.
Remember the difference. Retorsion responds to unfriendly or hostile acts with similar acts. Reprisals are more severe and respond to unlawful or unjust acts.
Embargo
An embargo is a form of reprisal that mainly works as an economic sanction. It involves detaining or restricting ships, goods or other assets, usually to put financial or economic pressure on a state.
Embargoes are of two kinds, depending on whose vessels they target:
- Civil embargo: it targets the state’s own vessels.
- Hostile embargo: it targets the vessels of another state.
A state may impose an embargo on another state’s ships to force it to comply with its international obligations. (Hypothetical) State A holds the cargo ships of State B in its ports until State B fulfils a treaty obligation it has ignored. Because the ships belong to another state, this is a hostile embargo.
Individual states can impose embargoes, but such embargoes must not threaten international peace and security. Collective embargoes, such as those imposed by the United Nations Security Council, are considered legal under international law.
Pacific Blockade
A pacific blockade occurs when one state uses its naval forces to block the coastline of another state. This prevents access to or from that state’s ports. The word "pacific" here means "peaceful". The blockade is carried out in peacetime, to put economic and political pressure on a state without going to full-scale war.
The legality of pacific blockades was once debated. Today their use is generally considered unlawful under international law because of the threat they pose to peace and security.
However, a collective blockade authorized by the UN Security Council is considered legal. Such a blockade was imposed against Iraq in 1990.
A blockade imposed by a single state on its own is generally unlawful. A collective blockade authorized by the UN Security Council is legal.
Intervention
Intervention means a state taking action in the internal affairs of another state, often to preserve or change the existing conditions there. According to Professor Oppenheim, intervention can be of three types:
- internal;
- external; or
- punitive (meant to punish).
Since the United Nations was established, such interventions are generally considered illegal unless the UN Security Council authorizes them.
When one state intervenes in another’s affairs, especially without UN approval, this is viewed as a violation of international law. Even so, states have sometimes intervened, giving reasons such as humanitarian concerns or national security. The U.S. interventions in Iraq and Pakistan are examples.
Quick Comparison of the Coercive Methods
| Method | What it involves | Legal position (as explained above) |
|---|---|---|
| Retorsion | A "tit for tat" response to an unfriendly or hostile act | Legal, if within international law and not a threat to peace and security |
| Reprisals | More severe measures in response to unlawful or unjust acts | Sometimes justified; must be proportionate and used only after other remedies are exhausted |
| Embargo | Detention or restriction of ships, goods or other assets (civil or hostile) | Must not threaten peace and security; collective UN Security Council embargoes are legal |
| Pacific blockade | Naval blocking of another state’s coastline and ports | Generally unlawful; legal when authorized collectively by the UN Security Council |
| Intervention | Action in the internal affairs of another state (internal, external or punitive) | Generally illegal unless authorized by the UN Security Council |
Conclusion
Lasting peace cannot be achieved until states are willing to resolve disputes as independent entities. Settling disputes between states has a far greater impact than settling disputes between individuals. Coercive methods may give immediate relief, but they rarely lead to long-term peace. States are legally obliged to resolve disputes through diplomatic means. However, they do not have to follow any specific process unless they have agreed to do so.
International law aims to prevent conflicts and maintain global peace, but this goal has proved hard to achieve. Diplomatic means are generally less hostile and more likely to produce lasting solutions. When states resort to force or unfriendly actions, they often create lasting hostility that blocks future peace efforts. Therefore, rational and coercive means should be used carefully, within the framework of international law, to ensure that conflicts are resolved peacefully.
To sum up for exams, retorsion, reprisals, embargo, pacific blockade and intervention are all ways of pressuring a state. Their legality depends on staying within the limits of international law, and in many cases on authorization by the UN Security Council.
