Every society needs a way to settle quarrels. Inside a country, courts and the police do this work. In the international community there is no world police, so States must rely on agreed methods to solve their disputes. Some of these methods are friendly and peaceful, such as talks or going to a court. Others put pressure on the other State and are called compulsive or coercive means (methods that force a State to act). This article explains how the United Nations (UN) system approaches the settlement of international disputes. It first covers the peaceful means and then looks closely at the coercive means: retorsion, reprisals, embargo, pacific blockade and intervention.
International Law: Peaceful Settlement and Coercive Means
Introduction
The global community sees International Law as a key instrument for establishing and maintaining world peace and security. Ensuring international peace has always been a central objective of International Law. This objective underpinned the creation of the League of Nations in 1919 and the United Nations in 1945.
Some of the most significant treaties in this regard are:
- The 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which was later revised at the Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907.
- The 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, concluded under the League of Nations.
Regional agreements also play crucial roles. These include:
- The 1948 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement;
- The 1957 European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes; and
- The 1964 Protocol of the Commission of Mediation and Arbitration of the Organization of African Unity.
Beyond these general treaties, many bilateral agreements (between two States) and multilateral agreements (among several States) contain their own specific provisions for dispute resolution.
Article 2, paragraph 3 of the UN Charter states: All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not threatened.
The UN General Assembly, in its 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, stressed the importance of resolving conflicts and disputes between States exclusively by peaceful means. It emphasised that peaceful dispute resolution should be a primary concern both for States and for the United Nations. The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes is especially critical in the nuclear age, when a conflict between States can cause destruction on a massive scale.
The UN Charter does not dictate any one specific method or means for dispute resolution. It allows the parties the freedom to choose their preferred mechanism. Article 33 of the UN Charter offers several options for resolving disputes within the context of international peace and security, including:
- Negotiation
- Inquiry
- Mediation
- Conciliation
- Arbitration
- Judicial settlement
The Draft Declaration of the Rights and Duties of States, under Article 8, also affirms that every State has a duty to resolve its disputes with other States by peaceful means, so that international peace, security and justice are preserved.
Peaceful means of dispute resolution can be broadly divided into two groups:
- Extra-Judicial Modes of Settlement (methods outside a court or tribunal): These include Negotiations, Good Offices, Mediation, Conciliation, Inquiry, and resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly or Security Council.
- Judicial Settlement (settlement through a legal decision): This includes Arbitration and proceedings in the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Compulsive or Coercive Means
Compulsive or coercive methods for settling disputes are non-peaceful and are often considered harsh or aggressive. These methods involve forcing a State to resolve the conflict. However, they do not always involve the use of military force. Generally, these methods are precursors to (steps that come before) more severe actions like war.
The main coercive means are:
- Retorsion
- Reprisals
- Embargo
- Pacific Blockade
- Intervention
1. Retorsion
Retorsion is a form of retaliation based on the principle of "tit for tat", which simply means paying back the other side in the same coin. It involves a State responding to another State's unfriendly act by taking similar actions.
Important features of retorsion:
- Retorsion is not illegal; in fact, it is permitted under international law.
- Although it can be seen as a hostile act, it is sometimes an effective tool for enforcing legal obligations.
- International conventions may allow such retaliatory actions in response to violations.
An example of retorsion would be when one State imposes strict passport regulations on another State's citizens in response to similar treatment of its own citizens.
(Hypothetical) Prince is a citizen of one country. A neighbouring country suddenly makes its passport and visa checks much stricter for all citizens of Prince's country. In reply, Prince's country introduces equally strict passport checks for citizens of the neighbouring country, such as Zoya. This "same-for-same" reply is retorsion.
For instance, in December 1992, when India declared two Pakistani High Commission officials persona non grata, Pakistan retaliated by expelling three Indian officials and declaring them persona non grata. This action by Pakistan is an example of retorsion. (Persona non grata is a Latin phrase meaning "an unwelcome person". In diplomacy, it describes a foreign official whom the host State no longer accepts.)
2. Reprisals
Reprisals involve taking coercive measures against a State to compel it to rectify (correct) or cease (stop) its wrongful actions. The primary goal is to force the offending State to:
- stop its illegal behaviour; or
- compensate for any harm caused.
Historically, reprisals were limited to the seizure of property or persons. They have since expanded to include actions like bombing, occupying territory, seizing ships, freezing assets and other measures. Reprisals can be directed not only against the State but also against its citizens.
The key difference to remember: retorsion answers an unfriendly act with a similar act, while reprisals are coercive measures meant to compel a State to stop or correct a wrongful act.
However, reprisals are subject to legal limitations:
- In the Naulilaa Incident (Portugal v. F.R.G.), legal conditions were established for the use of reprisals.
- After the establishment of the United Nations, the use of force in reprisals has generally been prohibited under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter.
- Additionally, Article 33 of the Geneva Convention forbids reprisals against protected persons.
Naulilaa Incident (Portugal v. F.R.G.): This incident is remembered because it laid down legal conditions for the use of reprisals. It shows that even a coercive measure like a reprisal is not unlimited and must stay within the limits set by law.
(Hypothetical) One State wrongfully seizes a cargo ship owned by Farhan's company, which is registered in another State, and refuses to pay compensation. The second State freezes the first State's bank assets until the wrong is corrected. This freezing of assets is a reprisal. If, instead, the second State bombed the first State, it would be using force, which is generally prohibited after the UN Charter under Article 2(4).
3. Embargo
The term "embargo" originally comes from Spain and refers to the detention of ships in port. In international law, it generally means the detention of ships or other property within a State's territory in order to apply economic or political pressure on another State.
There are two kinds of embargo:
- Civil or pacific embargo: A State restricts its own vessels in order to disrupt trade with another State.
- Hostile embargo: A State targets the vessels of another State as a form of reprisal for violations of international law.
(Hypothetical) Aadil owns a shipping company in one State. His government orders all of its own ships, including Aadil's, not to sail to a particular foreign State, so that trade with that State is disrupted. This is a civil or pacific embargo. If the government instead detained that foreign State's ships lying in its own ports as a response to that State's violation of international law, it would be a hostile embargo.
Embargoes can be applied individually by a State or collectively under the authority of the United Nations. If an embargo threatens international peace and security, it is considered unlawful. However, collective embargoes sanctioned by the Security Council, such as the one applied against Iraq in 1990, are legal.
4. Pacific Blockade
A pacific blockade involves blocking a State's coastline with warships to prevent the entry or exit of vessels. It applies economic and political pressure without resorting to war. It is a form of coercion used during peacetime (that is why it is called "pacific", meaning peaceful).
For a blockade to be lawful, it must be:
- Declared;
- Notified; and
- Effective.
(Hypothetical) Neha is a sailor on a merchant ship heading towards a coastal State. When her ship nears the coast, it finds warships of another State stationed there, stopping all vessels from entering or leaving the ports, even though no war has been declared. This is a pacific blockade.
The legality of pacific blockades in international law has been debated. However, after the formation of the United Nations, pacific blockades are generally considered unlawful because they threaten peace and security. They violate the definition of aggression as outlined in the UN General Assembly's resolutions.
5. Intervention
Intervention is another form of coercion used to resolve disputes between States without resorting to war. According to Professor Oppenheim, it involves one State intervening in the affairs of another State in order to preserve or change the existing conditions.
Professor Winfield categorises intervention into three types:
- Internal intervention;
- External intervention; and
- Punitive intervention.
Quick Revision Table: Coercive Means
| Method | What it means | Position stated in this article |
|---|---|---|
| Retorsion | "Tit for tat" reply to an unfriendly act with a similar act | Not illegal; permitted under international law |
| Reprisals | Coercive measures to compel a State to stop or correct wrongful acts | Subject to limits (Naulilaa Incident); use of force generally prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter; reprisals against protected persons forbidden by Article 33 of the Geneva Convention |
| Embargo | Detention of ships or property to apply economic or political pressure | Unlawful if it threatens international peace and security; collective embargoes sanctioned by the Security Council (e.g. Iraq, 1990) are legal |
| Pacific Blockade | Blocking a State's coastline with warships in peacetime | Must be declared, notified and effective; generally considered unlawful after the formation of the UN |
| Intervention | One State intervening in another's affairs to preserve or change existing conditions (Oppenheim) | Three types according to Winfield: internal, external and punitive |
Conclusion
Peace cannot be sustained in the world unless States are willing to resolve their disputes. The stakes in conflicts between States are much higher than those in disputes between individuals, which makes their resolution far more significant. Therefore, it is crucial for States to address their differences through peaceful or cooperative means. This approach is essential for maintaining global peace, especially as legal and factual complexities continue to increase the number of disputes.
In short, the UN Charter makes peaceful settlement the rule (Article 2(3) and Article 33), while coercive means such as retorsion, reprisals, embargo, pacific blockade and intervention are harsher tools whose use is now closely limited, especially where force is involved (Article 2(4)). For exams, remember the list of peaceful means under Article 33, the two groups of peaceful methods, and the meaning and legal position of each coercive method.
