When two neighbours in an Indian town quarrel over a boundary wall, the law expects them to settle it through talks, a local elder or the courts, not by fighting in the street. International law expects the same of States. This article explains what an international dispute is and how the principle of peaceful settlement developed. It then covers the five main peaceful methods (negotiation, good offices, mediation, conciliation and arbitration) and the difference between legal and political disputes. Each method is explained in simple terms with examples so that you can recall it easily in the exam.
Introduction
Meaning of the principle
The peaceful settlement of international disputes is a core principle of international law. It means that conflicts must be resolved without resorting to force. This principle is rooted in the broader framework of international law that promotes friendly relations and cooperation among States, and it is explicitly set out in the UN Charter.
Historical origins
The principle developed in stages:
- 1899, first Hague Peace Conference: This conference established a Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. ("Pacific" here simply means peaceful. It has nothing to do with the Pacific Ocean.)
- 1907, second Hague Peace Conference: A further convention was added at this conference.
- UN Charter, Article 2(4): The duty of States to settle their disputes peacefully became even more important once the use of force was prohibited under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force. Because force is no longer an option, peaceful settlement of disputes becomes the route that States are expected to follow.
What is an international dispute?
In simple terms, an international dispute involves at least one party that is a State. The other party may be:
- another State;
- an international organisation; or
- a natural person (a human being) or a legal person (a body recognised by law, such as a company) from a different State.
Such disputes can arise between governments, legal entities, institutions, corporations or private individuals from different parts of the world.
Neha runs an engineering company registered in India. Her company builds a bridge for the government of a foreign State, but that government refuses to pay. One party is a State and the other is a legal person (Neha's company) from a different State, so this is an international dispute in the sense described above. (This is a hypothetical example.)
A continuous process among equals
The peaceful settlement of international disputes is a continuous process grounded in international law, in which States take part as equals. According to the 1982 Declaration, States have a duty to use only peaceful means of settlement when a dispute arises. Such disputes are closely linked to international relations. They can occur not only between States but also between States and international organisations or other non-State actors.
Role of the UN Charter and the Manila Declaration
The UN Charter plays a crucial role in dealing with disputes among States. It requires all member States to resolve their international disputes by peaceful means and in a way that does not endanger:
- international peace;
- international security; or
- justice.
This approach was reinforced by the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, adopted by the UN General Assembly.
Mechanisms for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in International Law
The peaceful methods can be arranged on a simple scale. In some, the parties keep full control. In others, a third party steps in, first only to help, then to suggest terms, and finally (in arbitration) to give a decision that binds the parties. Remembering this scale makes it easier to tell the methods apart.
Negotiation
Negotiation is the oldest, simplest and most commonly used method of resolving international disputes. It consists of discussions aimed at reaching an agreement between the parties. The method is widely recognised in treaties. The disputing parties deal directly with each other to understand each other's positions and resolve their differences.
Why it is often considered the most effective method:
- It is bilateral: only the two disputing parties take part.
- It is voluntary: no one is forced into it.
- The parties control the process themselves, without outside intervention.
Limitation: Negotiations do not always succeed. This is especially so when there is a large power imbalance between the parties, because the weaker party may feel compelled to accept the terms dictated by the stronger one.
Two neighbouring States disagree over fishing rights in a shared lake. Their foreign secretaries, Prince and Farhan, meet over several rounds, exchange maps and agree on a dividing line. No outsider was involved; the two sides settled it themselves. This is negotiation. (Hypothetical example.)
Instances from State practice: India and Sri Lanka resolved their boundary dispute through negotiation in 1974. Similarly, the Farakka Barrage gunfire issue between India and Bangladesh was also settled through negotiation.
Good Offices
In good offices, a third-party State acts as a facilitator (a helper who makes discussion easier) to help resolve a dispute between two other States. The third party suggests a settlement without directly participating in the negotiation process. This is the main difference from mediation, where the mediator is actively involved in the discussions.
State A and State B have stopped talking to each other over a river boundary. Zoya, the head of a friendly third State, offers her capital as a venue and suggests a possible settlement to both sides. She does not sit at the negotiating table herself. This is good offices. (Hypothetical example.)
Instance from State practice: The Shatt-Al-Arab river boundary dispute between Iran and Iraq was settled through the good offices of the President of Algeria in 1975.
Mediation
Mediation involves a third party, called the mediator, who actively participates in resolving the dispute. Its main features are:
- The mediator is expected to be impartial, fair and unbiased.
- Unlike in good offices, the mediator is directly involved in the negotiation process and offers opinions and suggestions to help resolve the issue.
- Mediation can begin at the request of the disputing parties or on the mediator's own initiative.
Instance from State practice: In 1966, the Soviet Premier Kosygin mediated the dispute between India and Pakistan, which led to the signing of the Tashkent Agreement.
Good offices = the third party helps from outside the negotiating room. Mediation = the third party sits inside the room and actively shapes the discussion.
Conciliation
In conciliation, the dispute is referred to a committee or commission, which then makes recommendations for settlement. These recommendations are not binding, so the parties are free to accept or reject them.
Two States disagree over the treatment of each other's traders. They refer the matter to a three-member commission chaired by Hansa. After hearing both sides, the commission recommends a compromise. One State accepts it, but the other rejects it. Since the recommendation is not binding, the rejecting State has not broken any rule of conciliation. (Hypothetical example.)
Some significant treaties resulting from conciliation include:
- Pacific Settlement (1948)
- Pact of Bogota (1948)
- The Vienna Convention on Protection of the Ozone Layer
Arbitration
In arbitration, the decision is given by a single arbitrator or an arbitral tribunal (a panel of arbitrators). The decision is called an award.
Key features:
- The award is binding on the parties.
- The parties must comply with it in good faith, that is, honestly and sincerely, without looking for ways to avoid it.
- The 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes defines arbitration as the resolution of disputes between States by judges of their own choice, on the basis of respect for law.
- It is considered one of the most effective means of dispute resolution because it combines diplomatic elements (the parties choose the judges) with judicial elements (the decision is based on law and is binding).
The United Nations Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards enforces arbitral awards in any disputing State, regardless of the nationalities of the parties involved.
Prominent arbitration rules include those of:
- the London Court of International Arbitration;
- the International Chamber of Commerce;
- the Singapore International Arbitration Centre;
- the International Centre for Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association; and
- the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.
State A and State B cannot agree on the interpretation of a water-sharing treaty. They each choose arbitrators, and the arbitrators choose a presiding member, Renu. The tribunal applies the treaty and international law and gives an award. Both States must now carry out the award in good faith, even the State that loses. (Hypothetical example.)
Quick comparison of the five methods
| Method | Role of third party | Is the outcome binding? |
|---|---|---|
| Negotiation | None; the parties deal directly with each other | Only what the parties themselves agree to |
| Good offices | A third-party State facilitates and suggests a settlement, without joining the negotiation | Settlement depends on the parties agreeing |
| Mediation | The mediator actively takes part and offers opinions and suggestions | Settlement depends on the parties agreeing |
| Conciliation | A committee or commission makes recommendations | No; the recommendations can be accepted or rejected |
| Arbitration | An arbitrator or arbitral tribunal decides the dispute | Yes; the award is binding and must be complied with in good faith |
Types of Disputes in International Law
Legal disputes and political disputes
Disagreements between two parties in international law can arise on either political or legal grounds. The distinction between the two is largely subjective, meaning it depends on the attitude of the States involved:
- If the States choose to resolve the dispute on the basis of law, it is treated as a legal dispute.
- Otherwise, it is classified as a political dispute.
Because States are involved, it can be difficult to tell the two types apart.
Two States disagree over a stretch of border. If they ask a court to decide the matter by applying treaties and international law, the dispute is treated as a legal one. If they instead treat it as a question of national pride and bargain over it diplomatically, it is treated as a political one. The facts are the same; the attitude of the States decides the label. (Hypothetical example.)
International law focuses on legal disputes
International law is mainly concerned with the settlement of legal disputes. When a dispute has both legal and political aspects, the court addresses only the legal parts and avoids political matters. For this reason, the term "dispute" has a narrow meaning in international law: it refers specifically to legal disputes.
Nicaragua v. Honduras (Border and Transborder Armed Action): The court emphasised that it focuses only on the legal aspects of the dispute.
Two main methods of settling legal disputes
There are two main methods for settling legal disputes under international law:
- Amicable or pacific means of settlement: resolving disputes through diplomatic, judicial or political means. (Amicable means friendly, and pacific means peaceful.)
- Coercive or compulsive means of settlement: applying forceful measures in extraordinary cases that pose a threat to international peace and security. (Coercive means using pressure or force.)
The five methods discussed above (negotiation, good offices, mediation, conciliation and arbitration) are all amicable or pacific means. Coercive means are kept for exceptional situations that threaten international peace and security.
Conclusion
International law functions as a global community dedicated to maintaining peace and security. The primary objective behind the formation of the League of Nations in 1919 and the United Nations in 1945 was to preserve international peace and security.
International law seeks to reduce the likelihood of war and violence by encouraging States to resolve disputes through peaceful and diplomatic means. It favours amicable solutions based on diplomatic, judicial and political considerations. At the same time, it recognises that coercive measures may be needed in exceptional cases where international peace and security are at risk.
For revision, remember the scale of methods: negotiation (the parties alone), good offices (a helper outside the room), mediation (a helper inside the room), conciliation (non-binding recommendations of a commission) and arbitration (a binding award from judges chosen by the parties). Together with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the 1982 Manila Declaration, these methods form the core of the law on peaceful settlement of disputes.
