Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

Introduction

Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes is a central rule of the international legal order. It requires States to handle their disagreements through lawful procedures rather than threats, armed pressure, or unilateral force. Article 2(3) of the United Nations Charter gives that duty its modern foundation: UN Members must settle their international disputes by peaceful means in a manner that does not endanger international peace, security, and justice (United Nations, 1945). The rule is closely connected to Article 2(4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. A legal order that rejects forcible settlement must offer procedures through which claims can be tested, narrowed, managed, or resolved.

The point is not that international law can remove conflict. States disagree over territory, maritime zones, treaty obligations, diplomatic conduct, environmental harm, trade restrictions, consular access, responsibility for wrongful acts, and the use of force. Some disputes involve legal rights; others combine legal claims with strategic rivalry, public pressure, historical grievance, or security concerns. Peaceful settlement matters because it prevents those disagreements from being treated as contests of raw power. It requires argument before action, evidence before accusation, and procedure before escalation.

Article 33 of the Charter provides the core catalogue of methods: negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, and other peaceful means chosen by the parties. The list is not a rigid ladder. Negotiation is often the first step, but a dispute may require fact-finding, third-party mediation, a conciliation commission, inter-State arbitration, the International Court of Justice, a regional mechanism, or a specialized treaty procedure. The appropriate method depends on the subject matter, the applicable legal instrument, the urgency of the dispute, the type of evidence required, the need for binding force, and the political space available for compromise.

A dispute must first be identified with legal precision. In Mavrommatis, the Permanent Court of International Justice described a dispute as a disagreement on a point of law or fact, or a conflict of legal views or interests between parties (PCIJ, 1924). Later jurisprudence required objective proof that the parties held opposed positions. In the Marshall Islands, the International Court of Justice examined whether the respondent States were aware, or could not reasonably have been unaware, that their views were positively opposed to the applicant’s claim (ICJ, 2016). This threshold is not a technical ornament. It determines whether a court or tribunal can act, whether preconditions such as negotiation have been met, and whether a political disagreement has matured into a legally cognizable dispute.

The political sensitivity of a controversy does not prevent legal settlement. The International Court of Justice has decided disputes arising inside grave diplomatic and strategic crises, including the detention of United States diplomatic personnel in Tehran, the use of force and intervention in Nicaragua, environmental obligations in Pulp Mills, and procedural preconditions under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Georgia v Russia (ICJ, 1980; ICJ, 1986; ICJ, 2010; ICJ, 2011). These cases show a basic feature of international adjudication: courts do not settle every political dimension of a conflict, but they can decide legal questions when jurisdiction exists, and the claim is suitable for judicial determination.

Consent remains both the strength and the weakness of a binding settlement. Arbitration and judicial settlement usually depend on State consent, given through a special agreement, a compromissory clause, an optional clause declaration, an arbitration clause, or later acceptance of jurisdiction. That requirement reflects sovereign equality. It also means that a State with a strong legal claim may face a closed forum if the opposing State has not accepted jurisdiction. Peaceful settlement works within this tension. It combines voluntary procedures, third-party assistance, institutional diplomacy, and binding decision-making where consent allows.

Good faith gives these procedures legal substance. It does not require the surrender of a claim or the acceptance of an unfavourable compromise. It requires serious engagement with the chosen process. Negotiation cannot be reduced to delay. Consultation cannot be treated as a formality. Litigation cannot be used to aggravate the dispute. The Court’s reasoning in North Sea Continental Shelf and Pulp Mills confirms that procedural duties must be performed in a manner that gives them practical value (ICJ, 1969; ICJ, 2010). A State may defend its position firmly, but it must not empty the process of meaning.

The modern field is no longer confined to classic inter-State diplomacy. The law of the sea contains compulsory procedures under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The World Trade Organization uses consultations, panels, implementation procedures, and authorized responses to non-compliance. Investment treaties allow investors to bring claims against States. Human rights systems permit individual applications or communications under defined admissibility rules. Environmental and climate-related disputes increasingly rely on due diligence, scientific evidence, impact assessment, advisory opinions, and treaty compliance mechanisms (Merrills, 2017; Tanaka, 2018; Klabbers, 2024).

Peaceful settlement is best understood as the legal architecture that keeps international disputes within the law. It does not guarantee agreement, and it does not erase inequality between States. Its value lies in forcing conflict into procedure, evidence, reasons, and institutional restraint. A dispute that moves through negotiation, mediation, enquiry, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or regional mechanisms remains a dispute, but it is no longer left entirely to power. That is the core function of peaceful settlement in the contemporary international legal order.

1. The meaning of an international dispute

International law does not treat every diplomatic tension as a dispute capable of judicial or institutional settlement. States may exchange hostile statements, recall ambassadors, condemn each other in international organizations, or disagree over policy without creating a legally cognizable dispute. A dispute requires something more precise: an identifiable opposition between the parties on law, fact, responsibility, interests, or legal consequences.

That threshold matters because many procedures depend on the existence of a dispute. A court cannot decide an abstract disagreement. A compromissory clause cannot be invoked unless the disagreement falls within the treaty. A negotiation requirement cannot be satisfied by general diplomatic contact if the relevant legal claim has not been raised. The law of peaceful settlement begins, for that reason, with the discipline of identifying what the disagreement is, who opposes whom, and what legal consequences follow.

1.1 The legal definition of a dispute

The classic definition comes from Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions. The Permanent Court of International Justice stated that a dispute is “a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests” between two persons or entities (PCIJ, 1924). The formula remains central because it captures both legal and factual disagreement. A State may deny a treaty obligation, reject responsibility for conduct, challenge territorial title, contest maritime entitlement, or dispute the facts on which another State relies.

The definition is broad, but it is not empty. There must be an actual opposition of positions. In South West Africa, the International Court of Justice confirmed that a dispute exists where the parties hold clearly opposed views concerning the performance or non-performance of legal obligations (ICJ, 1962). The Court does not simply accept the applicant’s assertion that a dispute exists. It examines diplomatic exchanges, public statements, treaty communications, voting conduct, pleadings, and other objective evidence.

This evidentiary approach became especially important in the Marshall Islands cases. The applicant alleged that several nuclear-armed States had breached obligations concerning nuclear disarmament. The Court did not deny the gravity of the subject. It focused instead on whether, before the proceedings began, the respondent States were aware, or could not reasonably have been unaware, that their legal position was opposed by the applicant (ICJ, 2016). The claims failed because that threshold had not been met.

The point is doctrinally important. A dispute is not created by the importance of the subject alone. Nuclear weapons, racial discrimination, the use of force, environmental harm, or territorial occupation may all raise serious legal issues, but jurisdiction still depends on a concrete opposition of positions. Peaceful settlement begins with that legal discipline. Without it, courts would be asked to give advisory answers in contentious cases, and States could be brought before tribunals without clear notice of the claim made against them.

1.2 Awareness of the opposed claim

Awareness is now a central part of the dispute test. A respondent State must know, or be in a position where it could not reasonably ignore, that another State is making a legal claim against it. This does not require perfect legal drafting in diplomatic correspondence. It does require enough clarity for the respondent to understand the substance of the allegation.

This requirement protects procedural fairness. A State should not be taken to litigation without prior awareness of the claim it is expected to answer. It also gives practical value to negotiation clauses. If a treaty requires negotiation before adjudication, the parties must know what they are supposed to negotiate about. General political exchanges cannot replace a clear legal disagreement.

The Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination between Georgia and Russia illustrates the point. The Court examined whether the parties had attempted to negotiate on the subject matter of the treaty before Georgia filed its application. The judgment treated negotiation not as a ceremonial step but as a procedural condition with jurisdictional consequences (ICJ, 2011). The issue was not merely whether the States had hostile relations. The issue was whether the relevant treaty dispute had been placed before the respondent in a legally meaningful way.

The same logic appears in later cases concerning racial discrimination. In Qatar v United Arab Emirates, the Court examined the existence and scope of the dispute under the same Convention, including the need to connect the claim to the treaty invoked (ICJ, 2021). In Ukraine v Russian Federation, the Court again had to distinguish broad political conflict from disputes falling within specific compromissory clauses under the treaties relied upon (ICJ, 2019; ICJ, 2024).

Awareness also prevents strategic surprise. A State cannot keep its legal claim vague, avoid meaningful engagement, and then argue that the respondent refused settlement. Peaceful procedures require notice, clarity, and a real opportunity to respond. This does not weaken the applicant’s rights. It makes the process legally credible.

1.3 Legal and political disputes

The distinction between legal and political disputes is often overstated. Many international disputes are political in origin but legal in form. A territorial dispute may involve national identity and strategic depth, but still requires a decision on title, boundary instruments, maps, conduct, and effectivités. A use-of-force dispute may arise during armed conflict, but still requires interpretation of the United Nations Charter and customary law. A trade measure may be politically motivated, but its legality may depend on treaty obligations.

International courts have repeatedly dealt with disputes placed in highly political settings. In the United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, the Court addressed the seizure of diplomatic premises and detention of diplomatic personnel during a revolutionary crisis. The political background did not prevent legal determination under diplomatic and consular law (ICJ, 1980). In Nicaragua, the Court decided questions concerning intervention, the use of force, and State responsibility despite the Cold War setting of the dispute (ICJ, 1986).

The Aegean Sea Continental Shelf shows the same point in a different field. The dispute between Greece and Turkey involved sovereignty, maritime claims, and regional security. The Court still treated the legal questions as capable of analysis, even though it ultimately addressed jurisdictional limits (ICJ, 1978). The South China Sea Arbitration followed a similar logic. The tribunal did not decide sovereignty over land territory, but it did address maritime entitlements, the legal status of features, and the compatibility of certain conduct with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (PCA, 2016).

The presence of politics does not remove law. The correct question is narrower: is there a legal issue that a competent body may decide under an accepted basis of jurisdiction? If the answer is yes, the dispute may be suitable for adjudication or arbitration even though diplomacy continues outside the courtroom. If the answer is no, legal settlement may depend on negotiation, mediation, regional action, or institutional diplomacy rather than a binding judgment.

1.4 Disputes and situations

The United Nations Charter distinguishes disputes from situations. A dispute involves opposed claims between identifiable parties. A situation may threaten international peace and security even before formal legal claims have crystallized. This distinction is not merely linguistic. It affects the powers and practice of United Nations organs.

Article 34 allows the Security Council to investigate any dispute or any situation that may lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute. That wording gives the Council room to act before a legal case has fully matured. A deteriorating border crisis, mass displacement, an internal armed conflict with regional effects, or escalating military incidents may require attention even where the parties have not framed precise legal claims.

The distinction also matters for institutional procedure. Under Article 27(3) of the Charter, a party to a dispute must abstain from voting on certain Chapter VI decisions. That rule would have little meaning if every tense situation were automatically classified as a dispute. The legal category affects participation, voting, and the legitimacy of recommendations.

The General Assembly may also address situations that threaten peace, especially through debate, recommendations, fact-finding, emergency special sessions, and requests for advisory opinions. Its role is shaped by Article 12, which restricts recommendations while the Security Council is exercising its functions on the same matter. The Charter system was designed to handle both mature disputes and dangerous situations. Waiting until every legal claim is fully formed may allow preventable crises to become harder to contain.

1.5 Settlement, management, and prevention

Peaceful settlement does not always mean a final resolution. Some disputes end through a treaty, judgment, arbitral award, or negotiated agreement. Others remain unresolved but are managed through interim arrangements. A maritime boundary may remain undelimited while the parties agree on fisheries cooperation. A territorial dispute may be frozen while military incidents are reduced. A humanitarian crisis may require access arrangements before responsibility is adjudicated.

Management is not a failure. It may be the only realistic form of legal restraint where final agreement is politically impossible. International law often works by reducing danger, preserving rights, and preventing escalation while the deeper disagreement remains. Provisional measures, ceasefire monitoring, joint commissions, resource-sharing arrangements, and technical talks all serve that function.

Prevention is equally important. Consultation, notification, environmental impact assessment, fact-finding, early warning, and preventive diplomacy can stop a disagreement from becoming a formal dispute. In environmental law, for example, procedural duties may require a State to notify and consult another State before a project causes transboundary harm. In security matters, preventive diplomacy by the Secretary-General or regional organizations may create space for negotiation before positions harden.

A mature legal system cannot measure success only by final judgments. Many disputes are never decided by courts, yet they are shaped by law. The discipline lies in keeping disagreements within procedures that reduce violence, clarify claims, preserve rights, and make future settlement possible.

2. Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes in the Charter

The United Nations Charter made peaceful settlement part of the legal structure of international peace and security. Earlier instruments had promoted arbitration, conciliation, and the renunciation of war, but the Charter connected peaceful procedures to a broader prohibition on force and to the institutional role of the United Nations. That connection changed the legal position of dispute settlement. It became a general duty of conduct within the modern international order.

The Charter does not require every dispute to be settled by a court. It does not compel States to accept one universal forum. Its design is more flexible. States must use peaceful means, but they retain freedom to choose the method unless a treaty, declaration, judicial clause, or institutional rule provides otherwise. This balance between obligation and choice remains the core of the system.

2.1 Article 2(3) and the general duty

Article 2(3) provides that all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered (United Nations, 1945). The provision contains three key elements.

First, the duty applies to international disputes. The Charter is primarily concerned with disputes capable of affecting relations between States and international peace. Internal disputes may fall within international concern when they involve human rights, self-determination, cross-border effects, threats to peace, or Security Council action, but the Article 2(3) duty is framed around international relations.

Second, the duty concerns peaceful means. The Charter does not dictate one procedure. It requires a lawful method. Negotiation, mediation, enquiry, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, regional procedures, and other agreed processes may all satisfy the duty, depending on the circumstances.

Third, Article 2(3) refers to peace, security, and justice. The provision is not satisfied by any arrangement that merely suppresses disagreement. A settlement reached through intimidation, unlawful annexation, racial exclusion, or denial of treaty rights cannot be treated as a genuine expression of Charter legality. Peace and legality are linked, not separated.

The duty is mainly procedural. It requires States to pursue peaceful conduct and avoid methods that endanger peace. It does not guarantee that a settlement will be reached. A State may negotiate without agreement, participate in mediation without accepting a proposal, or litigate without persuading the court. The legal wrong lies not in the absence of agreement, but in refusing peaceful means, abusing process, escalating unlawfully, or replacing law with coercion.

2.2 Article 2(4) and legal restraint

Article 2(3) cannot be understood apart from Article 2(4). The prohibition on the threat or use of force removes armed coercion as an accepted method of resolving disputes. Article 2(3) supplies the procedural counterpart. If States cannot lawfully impose settlement by force, they must turn to lawful methods of disagreement management and resolution.

Nicaragua remains the leading authority on the relationship between the Charter and customary law on the use of force. The Court held that the prohibition on force and the principle of non-intervention formed part of customary international law, separate from the treaty obligations of the Charter (ICJ, 1986). That reasoning strengthens peaceful settlement because it shows that the restraint on coercion is not merely contractual among UN Members. It belongs to the wider legal order.

Oil Platforms also illustrates the limits of force-based justification. The Court examined whether attacks on Iranian oil platforms could be justified as self-defence and rejected the claim on the facts and legal standard applied (ICJ, 2003). Armed Activities confirmed that military action on another State’s territory cannot be justified by broad security concerns detached from the legal requirements governing force (ICJ, 2005).

The Wall Advisory Opinion added another dimension. The Court assessed legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory and examined the relevance of self-defence, humanitarian law, human rights, and self-determination (ICJ, 2004). The opinion shows that legal restraint applies even in settings of prolonged insecurity and deep political conflict.

The Charter does not deny that States face real threats. It denies that unresolved claims, strategic anxiety, or historical grievance can be converted into a unilateral armed settlement. Peaceful procedures are not ornamental. They are the ordinary legal path where force is prohibited.

2.3 Article 33 and free choice of means

Article 33 is the operational centre of peaceful settlement. It provides that parties to a dispute whose continuance is likely to endanger international peace and security shall first seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice (United Nations, 1945).

The provision performs two functions. It identifies recognized methods, and it preserves party choice. The listed means are not arranged as a strict hierarchy. Negotiation often comes first because it is direct, flexible, and politically manageable. Yet Article 33 does not require States to exhaust every diplomatic method before using arbitration or judicial settlement, unless a specific treaty or clause creates that sequence.

Free choice reflects sovereign equality. States may prefer negotiation where confidentiality is essential. They may use an enquiry where facts are disputed. Mediation may help where direct talks have collapsed. Conciliation may be useful where legal assessment and proposed terms are both needed. Arbitration may suit a technical or territorially defined dispute. Judicial settlement may be appropriate where a standing court has jurisdiction and legal finality is required.

The words “other peaceful means” are also significant. They allow institutional innovation. Claims commissions, compliance committees, inspection panels, mixed commissions, technical bodies, and special mechanisms may all serve peaceful settlement functions. Article 33 was not frozen in 1945. Its structure is open enough to accommodate specialized regimes in the law of the sea, trade, investment, environment, human rights, and international administration.

2.4 Sovereign equality and consent

Sovereign equality is the legal reason why consent remains central to binding third-party settlement. Article 2(1) of the Charter affirms the sovereign equality of all Members. No State is generally subject to the jurisdiction of an international court or tribunal without its consent. That consent may be given in several ways.

A special agreement submits an existing dispute to a court or arbitral tribunal. A compromissory clause gives jurisdiction over disputes arising under a treaty. An optional clause declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute accepts compulsory jurisdiction in relation to other States that have made compatible declarations. An arbitration clause may be included in a bilateral or multilateral treaty. Forum prorogatum may arise where a State later accepts the Court’s jurisdiction after proceedings have begun.

Consent gives legitimacy to a binding settlement, but it also limits access to adjudication. A State may have a persuasive legal claim and still lack a forum if the respondent has not accepted jurisdiction. This is not a drafting accident. It reflects the structure of an international legal order built around sovereign States rather than a compulsory world judiciary.

The practical consequence is clear. Peaceful settlement cannot be reduced to courts. Negotiation, mediation, enquiry, conciliation, regional procedures, and institutional diplomacy remain essential because many disputes will never reach a binding tribunal. Consent limits adjudication, but it does not release States from the broader duty to use peaceful means.

2.5 Good faith in settlement procedures

Good faith gives legal value to the procedures selected by the parties. A State may defend its position firmly, reject a proposed settlement, or challenge jurisdiction. It may not use procedure as an empty ritual designed to delay, mislead, or aggravate the dispute.

North Sea Continental Shelf remains a leading authority on meaningful negotiation. The Court stated that parties are under an obligation to enter into negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement, not merely to go through a formal process while insisting on their own position without contemplating modification (ICJ, 1969). The judgment does not require surrender. It requires genuine engagement.

Pulp Mills applied good-faith reasoning in a procedural setting. The dispute concerned obligations of notification, consultation, and environmental cooperation between Argentina and Uruguay. The Court treated procedural duties as legally significant, not as diplomatic courtesy (ICJ, 2010). A State that bypasses consultation duties may breach international law even before the substantive harm is fully assessed.

Nuclear tests show another aspect of good faith. The Court treated unilateral declarations made publicly and with the intent to be bound as capable of producing legal obligations (ICJ, 1974). Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros also stressed cooperation and good-faith performance in the management of a treaty relationship affected by environmental, technical, and political disagreement (ICJ, 1997).

Good faith is not vague politeness. It is a standard of conduct. It requires States to take agreed procedures seriously, respect procedural preconditions, avoid abuse, and refrain from conduct that empties settlement mechanisms of practical effect.

2.6 Justice as more than stability

Article 2(3) refers to justice as well as peace and security. That wording matters. A settlement that merely freezes domination, rewards unlawful force, or ignores binding legal obligations may reduce immediate tension but fail the deeper purpose of the Charter.

Justice in this setting does not mean that every dispute must end with a morally perfect outcome. It means that the settlement should remain connected to the applicable law. Territorial integrity, treaty obligations, human rights, diplomatic protection, environmental duties, self-determination, and the consequences of responsibility cannot be ignored for the sake of convenience.

This point is especially important in disputes marked by power imbalance. A weaker State may accept an arrangement because it lacks military, economic, or diplomatic leverage. Peaceful settlement should reduce that imbalance by requiring reasons, evidence, legal standards, and institutional supervision. It cannot eliminate power politics, but it can make domination harder to disguise as agreement.

Justice also affects the durability of settlements. Agreements that ignore legal rights may collapse when political conditions change. Judgments that address only technical questions may leave underlying grievances unresolved. Mediation that focuses only on silence in the short term may fail if victims, affected communities, or territorial claims are excluded. Stability matters, but stability without legality is fragile.

2.7 The Manila Declaration

The Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, adopted by the General Assembly in 1982, restates and develops the Charter principle (UN General Assembly, 1982). It is not a treaty, but it is an important institutional statement of how the United Nations understands the duty of peaceful settlement.

The Declaration emphasizes early and just settlement, free choice of means, sovereign equality, good faith, non-intervention, and the duty to refrain from aggravating disputes. It confirms that States should seek peaceful procedures suited to the nature and circumstances of each disagreement. It also links peaceful settlement to the broader duty to refrain from threats or use of force.

Its legal value lies in interpretation and consolidation. It does not replace Article 33. It clarifies the normative environment around Article 33. It reminds States that choosing a peaceful method is not enough if they act in bad faith, increase tensions, or use the process to mask coercion.

The Declaration also reinforces a practical lesson: peaceful settlement is not one institution. It is a network of duties, methods, and standards. The Charter provides the foundation, but the effectiveness of the system depends on how States use negotiation, mediation, enquiry, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, regional bodies, and specialized procedures in real disputes.

3. Negotiation and consultation

Negotiation is the most common method of peaceful settlement because it gives the parties direct control over the process. It can begin quietly through diplomatic notes, continue through technical meetings, and end in a treaty, joint declaration, exchange of letters, memorandum, or practical arrangement. It may also fail, narrow the issues, or prepare the ground for arbitration or judicial settlement.

Its flexibility should not be mistaken for legal weakness. Negotiation can be required by treaty, shaped by good faith, assessed by courts, and used as a jurisdictional condition before proceedings begin. It often performs work that a judgment cannot perform. A court may decide a legal issue, but negotiation can address timing, implementation, compensation, monitoring, future cooperation, and political acceptability.

3.1 Negotiation as a legal process

Negotiation is a direct engagement between the parties to a dispute. It may involve foreign ministries, heads of government, technical agencies, military officers, boundary experts, environmental authorities, trade officials, or lawyers. The channel depends on the dispute. A disagreement over a river project may require engineers and environmental experts. A consular dispute may move through diplomatic correspondence. A maritime boundary dispute may require hydrographers, legal advisers, and political representatives.

The legal value of negotiation lies in its capacity to define the dispute. Parties may begin with broad accusations and move toward clearer claims. Facts may be corrected. Documents may be exchanged. Legal arguments may be tested before positions become public and harder to revise. This is why negotiation often appears before more formal procedures. It gives States an opportunity to settle without a third-party decision and without turning every disagreement into litigation.

Negotiation may also produce a binding law. If the parties intend to create legal obligations and use language showing consent to be bound, the result may be a treaty or another binding international agreement. If the language is political rather than legal, the result may still carry diplomatic weight, but its legal force will be weaker. The form matters less than intention, wording, context, and conduct after adoption (Aust, 2013).

Many settlements depend on negotiated details after a court or tribunal has clarified the law. A judgment may identify rights and obligations, while the parties still need to agree on implementation. Boundary demarcation, compensation schedules, prisoner release arrangements, environmental monitoring, and guarantees of non-repetition often require negotiation after legal responsibility has been determined.

3.2 Negotiation as a treaty precondition

Many treaties require negotiation, consultation, or exchange of views before adjudication. These clauses are not decorative. They can affect jurisdiction or admissibility, depending on their wording and function. A clause may require the parties to attempt negotiation for a defined period. Another may require consultations before referral to arbitration. Some provisions demand an exchange of views on the means of settlement rather than full diplomatic negotiation on the merits.

The Court has treated these requirements with care. In Georgia v Russia, the compromissory clause under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination required negotiations before seising the Court. The Court held that this condition had not been fulfilled because the relevant treaty dispute had not been negotiated in the required sense (ICJ, 2011). Hostile political relations were not enough. The procedural condition had to be connected to the legal obligations invoked.

Pulp Mills shows a different setting. Argentina and Uruguay were bound by a treaty regime requiring notification, information-sharing, and consultation before works affecting the River Uruguay. The Court treated those procedural duties as legally binding obligations, separate from the substantive question of environmental harm (ICJ, 2010). A State may breach a procedural duty even if the later assessment of substantive damage is more complex.

The older South West Africa litigation also shows how the existence and framing of a dispute can affect access to judicial settlement. The Court examined whether the dispute concerned the interpretation or application of the relevant instruments and whether the opposing positions were legally identifiable (ICJ, 1962). Treaty clauses do not open a court’s jurisdiction over every political disagreement between the parties. The dispute must fit the legal instrument.

The practical lesson is direct. Before bringing a claim under a compromissory clause, a State must identify the treaty obligation, communicate the legal claim, give the other State a genuine opportunity to respond, and satisfy any required negotiation or consultation step. Poor procedural preparation can defeat a serious claim.

3.3 Meaningful negotiations

Negotiation must have substance. A State is not required to abandon its legal position, but it cannot treat negotiation as a theatre of delay. Meaningful engagement requires attention to the other side’s claim, willingness to discuss the relevant issues, and conduct compatible with the object of the process.

The North Sea Continental Shelf cases remain central. The Court stated that the parties had an obligation to enter into negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement, and not merely to go through a formal process while insisting on their own position without considering adjustment (ICJ, 1969). That passage is often cited because it separates real negotiation from procedural imitation.

The Nuclear Disarmament Advisory Opinion added a stronger formulation in a specific field. The Court stated that the obligation under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons involved pursuing negotiations in good faith and bringing them to a conclusion concerning nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control (ICJ, 1996). The obligation there was not simply to talk. It was linked to a defined legal objective.

The Marshall Islands placed a procedural limit on expansive claims about negotiation. The Court focused on whether a dispute existed before the proceedings began and whether the respondent States were aware of the applicant’s legal opposition (ICJ, 2016). Serious global concern did not replace the need for a legally identifiable dispute. Good faith cannot cure the absence of notice.

A firm position is not bad faith. States often negotiate while defending incompatible interpretations of law. Bad faith appears where a party refuses to engage with the relevant subject, creates artificial obstacles, hides essential information, uses talks only to buy time, or takes steps that make settlement harder while claiming to negotiate.

3.4 Obligations of conduct and result

Most negotiation duties are obligations of conduct. They require a State to participate seriously, exchange views, consider proposals, and avoid conduct that defeats the process. They do not normally require agreement. International law cannot force two sovereign States to accept identical terms unless a specific legal rule creates a stronger obligation.

That distinction matters in practice. A treaty may require parties to negotiate “with a view to” agreement. This requires real effort, but not success at any price. Another treaty may require consultations before a unilateral measure is taken. That duty may be fulfilled even if no agreement follows, provided the process was genuine. A third clause may require States to pursue a defined objective through negotiation, which brings the duty closer to an obligation of result.

The difference is visible in environmental and boundary disputes. In Pulp Mills, procedural duties to notify and consult existed alongside the substantive duty to prevent transboundary harm (ICJ, 2010). In maritime delimitation, negotiation may be required as part of achieving an equitable solution, but the final boundary may need judicial or arbitral determination if talks fail. In nuclear disarmament, the duty discussed by the Court was framed around the pursuit of a specific legal end (ICJ, 1996).

Confusing these categories leads to weak analysis. A failed negotiation does not automatically mean a breach. The legal question is how the parties behaved, what the applicable instrument required, and whether the process had practical value.

3.5 Failure of negotiations

The failure of negotiations does not end the duty of peaceful settlement. It may simply move the dispute into another lawful procedure. The next step may be mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, regional action, or referral to a United Nations organ. The method depends on jurisdiction, consent, treaty design, urgency, and the nature of the disagreement.

Failure can also clarify the dispute. If talks reveal that the parties disagree on treaty interpretation, responsibility, facts, or remedies, the record may help establish jurisdiction before a court or tribunal. Diplomatic correspondence may show that the respondent had notice of the claim. Minutes of consultations may identify the legal issues. Public statements may confirm opposed positions.

What failure does not permit is coercion. A State cannot claim that unsuccessful talks justify armed reprisals, annexation, military pressure, cyber operations amounting to unlawful intervention, or economic coercion contrary to international law. Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) of the Charter operate together. A breakdown in negotiation may justify a change of peaceful method, not a turn to force.

Negotiation is best understood as the foundation of settlement because it remains useful before, during, and after other procedures. It can open the process, support litigation, implement judgments, and stabilize relations once a formal decision has been delivered.

4. Diplomatic and fact-finding methods

Not every dispute is ready for adjudication. Some require trust before legal argument. Others turn on contested facts. Some involve parties that cannot speak directly without political cost. Diplomatic and fact-finding methods fill that space. They do not usually bind the parties, but they can reduce tension, clarify evidence, and make later settlement possible.

Their non-binding character is not a defect. Flexibility may be the reason they work. Good offices, mediation, enquiry, conciliation, and preventive diplomacy allow international law to operate before a case reaches a court and sometimes before a legal dispute has fully crystallized.

4.1 Good offices

Good offices involve third-party assistance aimed at bringing the parties into contact or restoring broken communication. The third party does not normally propose the substantive terms of settlement. Its role is facilitative: opening a channel, hosting talks, transmitting messages, reducing mistrust, or creating conditions for direct negotiation.

This method is useful where direct contact is politically sensitive. States may refuse public meetings because of recognition issues, domestic pressure, armed conflict, or diplomatic rupture. A neutral State, the Secretary-General, a regional organization, or a respected envoy may allow communication without requiring either side to make a public concession.

The United Nations Secretary-General has often used good offices as part of quiet diplomacy. The legal basis is not confined to one Charter provision. It flows from the Secretary-General’s institutional role, the practice of UN organs, and the need to prevent disputes from threatening peace (United Nations, 1992). Regional bodies may perform the same function where local knowledge and political access make them better placed to intervene.

Good offices may end without a written result. That does not make them irrelevant. Restored communication can prevent escalation, allow humanitarian arrangements, prepare mediation, or create the first step toward a formal settlement process.

4.2 Mediation

Mediation is more active than good offices. A mediator may identify common ground, suggest options, draft principles, shuttle between the parties, propose sequencing, or help design implementation mechanisms. The mediator does not decide the dispute. The parties remain free to accept or reject proposals.

The value of mediation lies in controlled flexibility. A court must decide within its jurisdiction and according to law. A mediator may address legal claims, security concerns, economic interests, domestic constraints, public messaging, and future cooperation. This makes mediation especially useful where a dispute contains both legal and political elements.

The legal effect of a mediated outcome depends on the instrument adopted. A mediator’s proposal is not binding by itself. If the parties incorporate the result into a treaty, ceasefire agreement, boundary protocol, exchange of letters, or Security Council-endorsed arrangement, its legal status changes. Careful drafting is essential. Ambiguous language may later create a new dispute over whether the outcome is binding.

Mediation also carries risks. A mediator may lack neutrality, may pressure a weaker party, or may prioritize short-term silence over legal rights. For that reason, mediation should not be romanticized. Its legitimacy depends on consent, fairness, transparency, where appropriate, and respect for binding international law.

4.3 Enquiry and fact-finding

Many disputes persist because the parties disagree about facts. Who fired first? Did a vessel enter a prohibited zone? Was an environmental impact assessment adequate? Did security forces cross a border? Did a State exercise effective control over armed groups? Legal argument cannot progress if the factual record remains contested.

Enquiry addresses that problem. The Hague Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes gave formal recognition to international commissions of inquiry, especially for disputes involving factual questions that did not affect honour or vital interests (Hague Convention, 1899; Hague Convention, 1907). The aim was not to impose a legal judgment, but to establish an impartial account of the facts.

Modern fact-finding is broader. United Nations commissions of inquiry, expert panels, monitoring missions, technical bodies, and investigative mechanisms may collect evidence, interview witnesses, review documents, inspect sites, or analyze satellite imagery. Their reports may influence negotiations, litigation, sanctions, accountability processes, and public understanding.

Fact-finding is particularly important in environmental and maritime disputes. Technical evidence may determine causation, risk, damage, compliance with due diligence, or the adequacy of preventive measures. In Pulp Mills, scientific and technical evidence played a central role in assessing environmental obligations between Argentina and Uruguay (ICJ, 2010). In maritime incidents, neutral inquiry may prevent factual disagreement from becoming a military crisis.

The limits are equally clear. A fact-finding report is not usually an arbitral award or judicial judgment. It may not settle responsibility unless the mandate gives that authority and the parties accept it. Its strength lies in credibility, expertise, and procedure.

4.4 Conciliation

Conciliation sits between diplomacy and adjudication. A conciliation commission may investigate facts, hear the parties, assess legal issues, and propose terms of settlement. Its report is usually not binding, but it carries more structure than ordinary negotiation or mediation.

The method is useful where the parties need an independent assessment but are not ready to accept a binding decision. Conciliation can reduce the political cost of compromise. A government may reject a proposal made by the opposing State but accept similar terms when framed by an impartial commission after reasoned analysis.

Conciliation appears in several treaty regimes. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains conciliation procedures, including compulsory conciliation in certain categories of disputes excluded from compulsory adjudication or arbitration (United Nations, 1982). Human rights treaties and diplomatic law instruments have also used commissions or conciliation-style mechanisms to address inter-State disagreements.

The Timor Sea Conciliation between Timor-Leste and Australia under UNCLOS showed the practical value of the method. The process helped the parties move beyond a long maritime boundary dispute and reach a treaty settlement on maritime boundaries and resource arrangements (PCA, 2018). The commission did not function as a court, but its structured procedure helped produce a legal outcome.

Conciliation works best when the parties are willing to accept outside assistance but still need control over the final terms. It can fail where one party uses the process to delay, where the dispute requires a binding determination, or where a power imbalance distorts consent.

4.5 Preventive diplomacy

Preventive diplomacy acts before a dispute escalates. It may include early warning, quiet diplomacy, special envoys, monitoring missions, confidence-building measures, border communication channels, technical dialogue, and support for local ceasefire arrangements. Its purpose is not only settlement, but prevention of legal and political deterioration.

The Secretary-General’s preventive role has become one of the most important practical tools in the UN system. Article 99 of the Charter allows the Secretary-General to bring to the Security Council’s attention any matter that may threaten international peace and security (United Nations, 1945). Even where Article 99 is not formally invoked, the office may use diplomacy to reduce risks before open Council action becomes possible.

Regional organizations also play a major role. The African Union, the Organization of American States, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and subregional bodies have used envoys, observation missions, election support, border mechanisms, and mediation panels to prevent disputes from escalating. Their effectiveness depends on access, credibility, resources, and the willingness of parties to engage.

Preventive diplomacy is difficult to measure because success often means that no crisis occurs. Its legal importance lies in timing. Once a dispute becomes armed conflict, legal options narrow and human costs rise. Early action keeps more choices available.

4.6 Blended diplomatic procedures

Real disputes rarely follow a clean procedural sequence. Negotiation, mediation, fact-finding, provisional measures, arbitration, judicial settlement, regional diplomacy, and institutional action may operate at the same time. This is not a procedural disorder. It reflects the layered nature of modern disputes.

A border crisis may involve direct talks between military commanders, mediation by a regional body, Security Council debate, technical mapping, and later arbitration. A trade dispute may begin with consultations, move to a panel, trigger domestic political negotiation, and end with agreed implementation. A human rights dispute may involve treaty bodies, regional courts, diplomatic pressure, and domestic reforms.

The Qatar diplomatic crisis is a clear example. The dispute involved several tracks, including proceedings before the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, diplomatic mediation, and later political settlement. Each forum addressed a different legal or institutional aspect of the crisis. No single procedure captured the whole conflict.

Blended procedures require coordination. Parallel tracks can clarify different issues, but they can also create inconsistent findings, procedural fatigue, and strategic forum selection. The challenge is to use multiple mechanisms without undermining good faith, fairness, or the authority of agreed procedures.

Diplomatic and fact-finding methods show that peaceful settlement is wider than litigation. Courts and tribunals matter, but many disputes are contained, clarified, or resolved through quieter processes. International law works not only when a judgment is delivered, but also when communication is restored, facts are established, escalation is avoided, and parties remain inside the lawful procedure.

5. Arbitration

Arbitration occupies a middle ground between diplomacy and permanent judicial settlement. It is binding, but it remains strongly shaped by party choice. States submit a defined dispute to a tribunal, agree on the framework of the decision, and accept the legal force of the award. This makes arbitration especially useful where States want finality without using a standing court.

Its historical importance is considerable. The Alabama Claims Arbitration showed that a politically sensitive dispute involving neutrality, responsibility, and compensation could be resolved by legal process rather than diplomatic rupture or force (Alabama Claims Arbitration, 1872). Later arbitrations, including the Island of Palmas, confirmed the value of arbitral reasoning in clarifying territorial title, sovereignty, and the role of effective authority (Island of Palmas Arbitration, 1928).

Arbitration remains attractive because it can be adapted to the dispute. A boundary case, a maritime delimitation, an environmental disagreement, or a dispute over treaty interpretation may require different procedures, expertise, timeframes, and evidentiary rules. A permanent court must operate within its statute and rules. An arbitral tribunal can be designed with greater precision.

5.1 The nature of inter-State arbitration

Inter-State arbitration is a consensual process through which States submit a dispute to one or more arbitrators for a binding decision. Consent is the foundation. Without it, the tribunal has no authority. Once consent exists, however, the award binds the parties as a matter of international law.

The flexibility of arbitration explains much of its appeal. States may define the precise legal questions, limit the tribunal’s mandate, choose the number of arbitrators, decide the language of proceedings, select the applicable law, and determine procedural rules. They may also choose an institution to administer the case, such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or create an ad hoc tribunal for one dispute.

This flexibility can make arbitration less politically threatening than litigation before a standing court. States may prefer a tribunal created for one controversy, especially where the dispute is technical, territorially sensitive, or linked to long bilateral relations. Arbitration allows the parties to control the architecture of the process while accepting the discipline of a binding result.

The South China Sea Arbitration illustrates both the strength and the controversy of arbitration. The tribunal acted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea after the Philippines initiated proceedings against China. China rejected participation, but the tribunal held that non-appearance did not prevent proceedings where jurisdiction existed under the Convention (PCA, 2016). The award clarified maritime entitlements and the status of certain features, while also showing the compliance challenges that can follow politically contested awards.

5.2 The arbitration agreement

The arbitration agreement is the legal foundation of the tribunal’s authority. It may take the form of a compromise after the dispute has arisen, or an arbitration clause included in a treaty before any specific disagreement exists. In both forms, the instrument must identify the scope of consent with sufficient clarity.

A well-drafted compromise should define the parties, the subject matter, the questions submitted, the applicable law, the number and appointment of arbitrators, the language, the procedure, the place of arbitration, the costs, and the legal effect of the award. It may also regulate evidence, site visits, expert testimony, confidentiality, provisional measures, intervention, interpretation, and time limits.

Poor drafting creates jurisdictional disputes before the merits are reached. If the questions are too broad, a tribunal may be accused of exceeding its mandate. If they are too narrow, the award may fail to resolve the real disagreement. If the applicable law is unclear, the parties may later contest the standard used by the tribunal. Arbitration is flexible, but flexibility without drafting discipline produces procedural instability.

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission shows the importance of a clear mandate. Created under the Algiers Agreement, the Commission was asked to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Its decision was binding, but implementation became politically difficult because legal finality did not remove the practical and territorial sensitivity of demarcation (EEBC, 2002). The case shows that the arbitration agreement can deliver a legal answer while political cooperation remains necessary for execution.

5.3 Tribunal composition

The composition of the tribunal affects legitimacy. Parties usually appoint some arbitrators directly or participate in their selection. A presiding arbitrator may be chosen by agreement, by the party-appointed arbitrators, or by an appointing authority. Where a party refuses to appoint, the applicable rules must provide a substitute mechanism, otherwise the process may be blocked.

Independence and impartiality are essential. Consent alone is not enough. A tribunal that appears biased, dependent, conflicted, or procedurally unfair will struggle to command authority even if its jurisdiction is formally valid. Modern arbitral rules usually require disclosure of conflicts, allow challenges to arbitrators, and regulate replacement where impartiality is reasonably questioned.

Party-appointed arbitrators create a delicate balance. They are selected by the parties, but they do not act as advocates. Their duty is to decide according to the mandate and applicable law. If a party appointment becomes a disguised representation, the process loses credibility. The presiding arbitrator often plays a crucial role in protecting the tribunal’s independence and maintaining procedural discipline.

Appointing authorities can prevent obstruction. If one party refuses to participate, refuses to appoint an arbitrator, or tries to paralyse the process, an appointing authority may complete the tribunal. This feature was important in several modern arbitrations where non-participation did not prevent the proceedings. The legal question is not whether the absent party approves the process at every stage, but whether the consent instrument and applicable rules allow the tribunal to proceed.

5.4 Jurisdiction and applicable law

An arbitral tribunal has only the jurisdiction granted by consent. It cannot decide every issue connected to the political background of a dispute. It must remain within the arbitration agreement, the relevant treaty clause, or the institutional instrument that created it.

Jurisdictional analysis often turns on subject matter, time, parties, and applicable treaty provisions. A tribunal may have authority to decide maritime entitlements but not territorial sovereignty. It may decide compensation but not boundary title. It may interpret a treaty but not judge wider claims under general international law unless the consent instrument permits that wider inquiry.

Applicable law may include treaties, customary international law, general principles of law, and rules expressly chosen by the parties. Equity may also play a role, but it must be handled carefully. Equity within the law can assist in applying legal standards, especially in delimitation or compensation. Decision ex aequo et bono requires express authorization, because it permits a decision outside strict legal rules.

The Island of Palmas remains a classic example of arbitral reasoning on applicable law and territorial sovereignty. Max Huber’s award emphasized that the title cannot rest only on discovery or abstract claim; it must be assessed in light of the continuous and peaceful display of State authority, subject to the intertemporal context of the dispute (Island of Palmas Arbitration, 1928). The reasoning has influenced later territorial jurisprudence beyond the immediate case.

5.5 Awards and finality

An arbitral award is binding on the parties. Finality is one of arbitration’s central advantages. The parties choose arbitration to end a legal dispute, not to create another full appeal. For that reason, the review is narrow. Interpretation, correction of clerical errors, or exceptional challenges may be possible if the applicable rules allow them, but dissatisfaction with the reasoning is not enough.

Nullity arguments are treated cautiously. A party may allege excess of jurisdiction, serious procedural defect, corruption, failure to state reasons, or departure from the mandate. These are exceptional grounds. If every losing party could reopen the merits by calling the award defective, arbitration would lose its value as a method of settlement.

Finality does not guarantee easy implementation. The South China Sea award was legally binding between the parties under UNCLOS, yet compliance became politically contested (PCA, 2016). The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission issued a binding decision, but demarcation faced serious resistance on the ground (EEBC, 2002). Binding force and practical execution are related, but they are not identical.

Arbitration’s value lies in the combination of consent, procedural adaptability, and final legal effect. It can settle disputes that diplomacy cannot resolve and that permanent courts may not be able to hear. Its weakness lies in the same structure: if consent is narrow, the award may answer only part of the conflict; if implementation is resisted, further diplomatic and institutional pressure may be needed.

6. Judicial settlement

Judicial settlement is the resolution of disputes by standing international courts and tribunals applying international law through established procedures. It is more institutionalized than arbitration. The court already exists, its judges are elected or appointed under a standing instrument, and its procedure is governed by pre-existing rules.

The International Court of Justice is the central institution in this field. It is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, but it is not the supreme court of the world. It does not possess compulsory jurisdiction over all States in all disputes. Its authority depends on jurisdiction, admissibility, the legal character of the claim, and the limits of the judicial function.

Judicial settlement brings legal clarity. It can define obligations, reject unlawful claims, order provisional measures, declare responsibility, and influence the development of international law. Its limits are also clear. A judgment may not settle every political dimension of a conflict. It may require later negotiation, domestic implementation, or institutional pressure before legal findings become practical change.

6.1 The ICJ as the principal judicial organ

The International Court of Justice was established by the United Nations Charter and operates under its Statute. Its position as the principal judicial organ gives its judgments and advisory opinions special authority. No other court has the same general role across the international legal system.

That authority should not be confused with hierarchy. The ICJ does not hear appeals from all international tribunals. It does not supervise the World Trade Organization dispute system, human rights courts, investment tribunals, or arbitral bodies. Its influence is doctrinal rather than appellate. Other bodies often rely on its reasoning, but they are not generally subordinate to it.

In contentious cases, only States may appear as parties before the Court. Individuals, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations cannot bring contentious claims directly. Their interests may be central to a dispute, as in consular protection, human rights, environmental harm, or self-determination questions, but the formal parties remain States.

The ICJ’s authority rests on law, procedure, and institutional continuity. It has shaped core areas of international law, including use of force, territorial disputes, treaty interpretation, diplomatic and consular law, genocide, environmental obligations, immunities, and maritime delimitation. Yet each contentious case still begins with a strict question: has the respondent State consented to the Court’s jurisdiction?

6.2 Contentious jurisdiction

Contentious jurisdiction is based on consent. The main routes are special agreement, a compromissory clause, an optional clause declaration, and a forum prorogatum. Each route raises different legal issues.

A special agreement is the cleanest form of consent. The parties jointly submit an existing dispute to the Court and define the questions to be decided. This method reduces preliminary objections because both States have accepted the Court’s role after the disagreement has arisen.

A compromissory clause is different. It is contained in a treaty and gives the Court jurisdiction over disputes concerning the interpretation or application of that treaty. Oil Platforms arose under the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States. The Court had to determine whether the claims fell within the treaty, not merely whether the wider political dispute between the parties was serious (ICJ, 2003). Georgia v Russia and Qatar v United Arab Emirates raised similar questions under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, including the scope of the compromissory clause and treaty subject matter (ICJ, 2011; ICJ, 2021).

Optional clause declarations under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute allow States to accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in relation to other States accepting the same obligation. The system is based on reciprocity. Reservations are common. States may exclude disputes arising before a certain date, disputes within domestic jurisdiction, disputes involving multilateral treaties, unless all affected parties are before the Court, or disputes already subject to another agreed method.

Nicaragua shows both the power and complexity of optional clause jurisdiction. The United States had accepted the Court’s jurisdiction with reservations. The Court held that it had jurisdiction over certain claims and later decided the merits, relying significantly on customary international law where treaty-based claims were limited (ICJ, 1984; ICJ, 1986).

Forum prorogatum arises when a State accepts jurisdiction after proceedings have begun. The Corfu Channel is the classic example. The United Kingdom brought proceedings against Albania, and Albania’s later conduct was treated as acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction (ICJ, 1948). This route is rare, but it confirms that consent may be expressed after seisin if the respondent clearly accepts the Court’s authority.

6.3 Admissibility and judicial propriety

Jurisdiction asks whether the Court has legal authority to decide. Admissibility asks whether the claim should be heard in the form presented. Judicial propriety concerns the limits of the Court’s function. These categories overlap in practice, but they should not be confused.

The Monetary Gold principle is a central limit. The Court cannot decide a case where the legal interests of an absent third State form the very subject matter of the decision (ICJ, 1954). East Timor applied that logic. Portugal brought claims against Australia concerning a treaty relating to East Timor, but Indonesia was not before the Court. The Court held that it could not decide the case because doing so would require ruling on Indonesia’s conduct and rights in its absence (ICJ, 1995).

Lack of dispute is another threshold problem. Marshall Islands confirms that the Court will not proceed unless a dispute existed at the time proceedings were instituted (ICJ, 2016). A case cannot be built on a general disagreement with global conduct or on a legal concern that was not clearly opposed to the respondent before filing.

Other admissibility questions may involve exhaustion of local remedies, abuse of process, mootness, procedural preconditions, or the nature of the remedy requested. Certain Phosphate Lands illustrates how long delays, prior arrangements, and the framing of claims may affect proceedings even when legal grievances are serious (ICJ, 1992).

These doctrines protect the judicial role. The Court is not a general political forum. It decides legal disputes between consenting States, within jurisdictional limits, through procedures suited to judicial determination.

6.4 Provisional measures

Provisional measures are urgent orders designed to preserve rights before the final judgment. They prevent the passage of time from making the eventual decision ineffective. The Court considers prima facie jurisdiction, plausibility of the rights claimed, a link between those rights and the measures requested, urgency, and risk of irreparable prejudice.

LaGrand established that provisional measures indicated by the Court are legally binding (ICJ, 2001). That finding changed the practical significance of interim protection. A provisional-measures order is not merely a recommendation. It creates legal obligations for the parties pending the final decision.

Avena applied provisional measures in the context of consular rights and criminal proceedings involving foreign nationals (ICJ, 2004). Gambia v Myanmar extended the contemporary importance of provisional measures in Genocide Convention litigation, where the Court ordered Myanmar to prevent acts within the scope of the Convention and preserve evidence (ICJ, 2020).

Ukraine v Russia and South Africa v Israel show the use of provisional measures during ongoing armed conflict or mass violence. In Ukraine v Russia, the Court ordered Russia to suspend military operations linked to claims made under the Genocide Convention (ICJ, 2022). In South Africa v Israel, the Court indicated measures under the Genocide Convention concerning the situation in Gaza, while leaving the merits for later determination (ICJ, 2024a; ICJ, 2024b).

Provisional measures do not decide the merits. They protect the possibility of meaningful adjudication. Their importance lies in timing. In disputes involving life, territory, evidence, environmental harm, or irreversible damage, waiting for a final judgment may defeat the purpose of judicial settlement.

6.5 Evidence before international courts

Inter-State litigation often turns on difficult evidence. States control many of the relevant documents, witnesses, military records, intelligence materials, environmental data, and internal communications. Courts must assess proof without the same compulsory fact-gathering powers found in many domestic systems.

The burden of proof generally rests on the party asserting a fact. That rule is simple in form but complex in practice. In the Corfu Channel, the Court accepted that a victim State may sometimes rely on indirect evidence where direct proof lies within the exclusive control of the respondent (ICJ, 1949). Circumstantial evidence may be relevant, but it must be serious, consistent, and convincing.

The Bosnian Genocide case shows the strictness of proof in claims involving grave responsibility. The Court required fully conclusive evidence for allegations of genocide and careful proof of attribution to the respondent State (ICJ, 2007). Croatia v Serbia followed a similarly demanding approach to evidence and intent under the Genocide Convention (ICJ, 2015).

Armed Activities demonstrates the evidentiary burden in conflict settings. The Court assessed military presence, support for armed groups, human rights violations, exploitation of natural resources, and reparation claims (ICJ, 2005; ICJ, 2022). The case shows that factual complexity can continue long after the main conflict has ended.

Modern evidence includes satellite imagery, digital records, expert reports, United Nations documents, reports of international organizations, public statements, maps, environmental data, and open-source material. Courts may use such materials, but they assess reliability, source, methodology, consistency, and relevance. Public information is not automatically proof. Expert evidence is not automatically decisive. Official reports may be persuasive, but their weight depends on mandate and method.

6.6 Judgments and compliance

An ICJ judgment is binding between the parties and only for the particular case. Article 59 of the Statute makes that clear. The rule prevents judgments from becoming formal legislation for all States, but it does not remove their wider influence. ICJ reasoning often shapes later litigation, treaty interpretation, State practice, arbitral awards, domestic courts, and academic analysis.

Article 94 of the United Nations Charter requires each UN Member to comply with ICJ judgments in cases to which it is a party. If a party fails to perform its obligations, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may make recommendations or decide measures to give effect to the judgment (United Nations, 1945). In practice, that route is politically constrained, especially where permanent members or their allies are involved.

Compliance usually depends on a mix of legal obligation, reputation, diplomatic pressure, domestic implementation, reciprocity, and political cost. Some judgments are implemented quickly. Others require years of negotiation. Some face open resistance. The absence of automatic enforcement does not make judgments irrelevant. Legal findings can reshape negotiations, justify countermeasures within legal limits, influence sanctions debates, guide domestic actors, and affect international legitimacy.

The Court’s authority relies on careful reasoning and institutional trust. If judgments are perceived as legally disciplined, States have stronger incentives to comply even when the outcome is unwelcome. Judicial settlement works best when legal finality is followed by practical implementation.

6.7 Advisory opinions

Advisory opinions are not contentious judgments. They are given in response to requests by authorized United Nations organs or specialized agencies. No State is formally a respondent, and the opinion is not binding in the same way as a judgment between parties. Even so, advisory opinions may carry major legal and political weight.

The Namibia Advisory Opinion clarified the legal consequences of South Africa’s continued presence in Namibia after the termination of its mandate (ICJ, 1971). The Wall Advisory Opinion addressed the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, including self-determination, humanitarian law, and human rights obligations (ICJ, 2004). The Chagos Advisory Opinion examined decolonization, self-determination, and the legal consequences of the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago (ICJ, 2019).

Kosovo shows the Court’s cautious approach to the question asked. The General Assembly requested an opinion on whether Kosovo’s declaration of independence was in accordance with international law. The Court answered that specific question and avoided broader determinations on statehood or recognition (ICJ, 2010). Advisory jurisdiction can clarify the law, but it remains shaped by the wording of the request.

The 2025 Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change confirms the growing role of advisory proceedings in disputes that do not fit the traditional bilateral model (ICJ, 2025). Climate harm raises questions involving many States, future generations, scientific uncertainty, due diligence, human rights, and environmental obligations. Advisory proceedings allow legal clarification where contentious jurisdiction may be unavailable or politically unrealistic.

Advisory opinions influence peaceful settlement by clarifying the legal background against which negotiations, institutional action, and domestic implementation occur. They do not replace contentious litigation. They can, however, change the legal terms of debate and narrow the space for denial.

7. The United Nations organs

The United Nations does not operate as a world court. Its political organs do not decide ordinary legal disputes with the finality of a judgment, and they do not replace arbitration or judicial settlement. Their role is different. They create channels for discussion, investigation, recommendation, mediation, early warning, collective pressure, and institutional response when a dispute threatens international peace and security.

The Charter gives the United Nations a broad peace and security function, but it divides that function among organs with different legal powers. The Security Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security. The General Assembly may debate, recommend, declare principles, create subsidiary bodies, and request advisory opinions. The Secretary-General may use quiet diplomacy, good offices, mediation, reporting, and Article 99. Fact-finding bodies may establish records that later shape negotiation, litigation, sanctions, or accountability.

The result is a system of institutional settlement, not judicial settlement. It may prevent escalation, clarify facts, frame legal expectations, or move parties toward a procedure under Article 33. It may also expose the limits of collective action where permanent-member politics, regional alignments, or veto threats block stronger measures.

7.1 Security Council under Chapter VI

Chapter VI gives the Security Council a recommendatory role in the peaceful settlement of disputes. Article 34 allows the Council to investigate any dispute or any situation that might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute to determine whether its continuation is likely to endanger international peace and security (United Nations, 1945). The wording is deliberately broad. The Council may act before a crisis becomes an armed conflict and before all legal claims are fully formed.

Article 36 allows the Council to recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment. Article 37 permits the Council to recommend terms of settlement when parties fail to settle a dispute through the means listed in Article 33. These powers do not make the Council a tribunal. It does not issue judgments on title, treaty breach, compensation, or responsibility in the ordinary judicial sense. It identifies risks to peace and recommends procedural or political pathways.

Chapter VI action is usually non-binding. A Council recommendation may carry political weight, legal relevance, and diplomatic pressure, but it does not have the same force as a Chapter VII decision. This distinction matters because peaceful settlement under Chapter VI depends heavily on the willingness of the parties to cooperate.

The Council’s Chapter VI function is still important. A recommendation to negotiate, mediate, use regional procedures, accept a special envoy, or cooperate with fact-finding may prevent a dispute from deteriorating. Even debate in the Council can raise the cost of escalation. The weakness is equally clear. Where a powerful State or protected ally is involved, political deadlock can prevent effective action.

7.2 Security Council under Chapter VII

Chapter VII begins when the Council determines the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression under Article 39. At that point, the Council may move beyond recommendation and adopt binding measures. These may include sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes, peacekeeping-related mandates, or authorization of force where the Charter conditions are met (United Nations, 1945).

This shift does not turn the Council into a court. Chapter VII is concerned with maintaining or restoring international peace and security. It may pressure parties toward settlement, but it does not usually decide the underlying legal dispute with judicial finality. A Council resolution may demand withdrawal, impose sanctions, establish a mission, create a monitoring mechanism, or require cooperation with negotiations. It does not normally replace the need for a treaty, arbitral award, judicial decision, or negotiated settlement.

The distinction is visible in territorial and armed-conflict disputes. The Council may call for ceasefires, condemn annexation, demand non-recognition of unlawful situations, or impose measures against violations of international law. Yet questions of title, delimitation, reparations, or treaty interpretation may still require another procedure. Political enforcement and legal adjudication are connected, but they are not the same function.

Chapter VII may also support peaceful settlement by creating leverage. Sanctions can pressure a party to negotiate. Peacekeeping operations can stabilize a ceasefire. Monitoring bodies can reduce factual uncertainty. Mandates for special representatives can support mediation. The danger is that enforcement politics may overshadow legal analysis. The Council’s authority is broad, but it remains bound by the Charter framework and by the purposes of the United Nations.

7.3 The General Assembly

The General Assembly has no general power to impose a binding settlement on States. Its importance lies in debate, recommendation, normative clarification, institutional mobilization, and political legitimacy. It can place disputes before the international community, adopt declarations of principle, create subsidiary bodies, support fact-finding, and request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice.

Article 10 gives the Assembly broad authority to discuss questions within the scope of the Charter. Article 11 allows it to consider general principles of cooperation in maintaining peace and security. Article 14 permits it to recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of situations likely to impair friendly relations among nations. These powers are recommendatory, but they can still affect legal and diplomatic conduct (United Nations, 1945).

Article 12 imposes an important limit. While the Security Council is exercising its functions in relation to a dispute or situation, the General Assembly shall not make recommendations on that dispute or situation unless the Council requests it. The provision does not silence the Assembly completely, but it reflects the Council’s primary responsibility.

Emergency special sessions under the Uniting for Peace framework show how the Assembly may act when the Security Council is blocked by veto politics. The Assembly cannot take over the Council’s enforcement powers, but it can recommend collective measures, condemn conduct, support humanitarian action, and request advisory opinions. Its authority lies in political and normative weight rather than coercive force.

Advisory opinions are one of the Assembly’s strongest legal tools. The Wall, Kosovo, Chagos, and climate advisory proceedings show how an Assembly request can obtain judicial clarification on legal questions with broad consequences (ICJ, 2004; ICJ, 2010; ICJ, 2019; ICJ, 2025). The opinion does not decide a contentious case between parties, but it can reshape negotiations, institutional conduct, and the legal terms of international debate.

7.4 The Secretary-General

The Secretary-General’s role is often underestimated because much of it occurs outside public litigation. Good offices, mediation, preventive diplomacy, special envoys, reporting, and quiet contact can matter as much as formal resolutions. The office can speak to parties that cannot speak directly, reduce political temperature, open humanitarian channels, and alert the Security Council to risks.

Article 99 gives the Secretary-General power to bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in the Secretary-General’s opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security (United Nations, 1945). The power is discretionary and politically sensitive. Its value lies in early warning. It allows the Secretariat to act when silence may make later settlement harder.

Good offices may be used in territorial disputes, hostage crises, internal conflicts with international effects, election-related crises, humanitarian emergencies, or disputes involving recognition and communication barriers. The Secretary-General may appoint special representatives or envoys, support mediation teams, propose frameworks, coordinate with regional bodies, or report facts to the Council.

Quiet diplomacy is legally relevant even when it leaves few public documents. It can preserve consent, prevent escalation, and prepare formal procedures. In some disputes, the absence of a public breakthrough hides the real achievement: communication remains open, violence is avoided, or parties accept a path toward mediation or adjudication.

The role has limits. The Secretary-General cannot impose a settlement, cannot override State consent to adjudication, and cannot solve a dispute where the parties reject engagement. The office is strongest where discretion, neutrality, timing, and institutional trust create space that public organs cannot create.

7.5 UN fact-finding bodies

Fact-finding bodies help peaceful settlement by clarifying what happened. Many international disputes are prolonged by contested facts: border incidents, attacks on civilians, responsibility for military action, environmental damage, election violence, sanctions violations, arms transfers, or obstruction of humanitarian access. Without a credible factual record, negotiation becomes accusation, and adjudication becomes harder.

The United Nations has used commissions of inquiry, expert panels, monitoring missions, investigative mechanisms, sanctions panels, human rights inquiries, and technical teams. Their mandates vary. Some establish facts. Some identify patterns of violations. Some collect and preserve evidence. Some report on compliance with Security Council measures. Others support accountability before domestic or international bodies.

These bodies do not usually issue binding judgments. Their findings may still carry legal consequences. A commission report may shape Security Council debate, support sanctions designations, influence domestic prosecutions, assist international courts, or provide a basis for negotiations. In human rights and humanitarian crises, fact-finding may also preserve evidence before it disappears.

Credibility depends on mandate, independence, method, access, transparency, and evidentiary standards. A report based on careful interviews, document review, forensic material, satellite imagery, and transparent methodology will carry greater weight than one based on incomplete or politically selective information. Fact-finding must be disciplined because contested facts can intensify disputes if the process appears biased.

UN fact-finding is not a substitute for settlement. It is a tool that makes settlement more legally grounded. Once facts become clearer, parties may negotiate with fewer excuses, courts may assess claims with better evidence, and political organs may act with greater legitimacy.

8. Regional arrangements

Regional arrangements are part of the Charter design. Article 52 recognizes the role of regional agencies or arrangements in dealing with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, provided their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945). The Charter does not require every dispute to go immediately to New York. Local knowledge, regional legitimacy, shared institutions, and proximity may make regional settlement more effective.

Regional mechanisms vary widely. Some are political bodies. Some are human rights systems. Some are courts. Some are security organizations. Some focus on mediation, election monitoring, early warning, border management, or economic integration. Their legal value depends on their constitutive instruments, the consent of member States, their relationship with the United Nations, and the nature of the dispute.

Regional settlement has advantages. It may be faster, more familiar with local context, and more acceptable to the parties. It may also carry risks. Regional powers may dominate weaker States. Institutional neutrality may be contested. Local politics may reduce impartiality. For that reason, Article 52 must be read with the Charter as a whole. Regional action cannot become a legal cover for coercion.

8.1 Article 52 and local disputes

Article 52 encourages the peaceful settlement of local disputes through regional arrangements before referral to the Security Council, where appropriate. This reflects practical logic. A regional body may understand the political, historical, linguistic, and security context better than universal organs. It may also have faster access to parties and more direct tools for monitoring or mediation.

The provision does not exclude the United Nations. Parties remain able to bring matters to the Security Council or General Assembly where the Charter permits. Regional arrangements operate within the universal framework, not outside it. Their action must remain consistent with sovereign equality, non-intervention, peaceful settlement, human rights, and the prohibition on force.

The line between regional settlement and regional pressure can be thin. Mediation, good offices, observer missions, and legal procedures are compatible with Article 52. Coercive enforcement action is different. Under Article 53, enforcement action by regional arrangements generally requires Security Council authorization, except in limited historical contexts no longer central to modern practice.

The strength of Article 52 lies in complementarity. Regional bodies can act early, maintain contact, and support implementation. The United Nations can provide universal legitimacy, Security Council authority, humanitarian coordination, advisory opinions, and broader diplomatic pressure. Effective settlement often requires both levels.

8.2 The Inter-American system

The Inter-American system has a long tradition of peaceful settlement, non-intervention, collective security, and regional adjudication. The Organization of American States provides political and diplomatic machinery. The American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, known as the Bogotá Pact, created legal pathways for dispute settlement, including jurisdiction before the International Court of Justice for States bound by its terms.

Nicaragua v Colombia illustrates the legal importance of the Bogotá Pact. The Court exercised jurisdiction over a maritime and territorial dispute between two States in the region, leading to judgments on sovereignty over maritime features and delimitation (ICJ, 2012). The case also shows the political cost of judicial settlement. Colombia later denounced the Pact, demonstrating that compulsory regional commitments may face resistance after an unfavourable judgment.

Bolivia v Chile also arose under the Bogotá Pact. Bolivia argued that Chile had an obligation to negotiate sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The Court held that Chile had not undertaken a legal obligation to negotiate such access, although it noted that the parties could continue dialogue as a matter of good-neighbourly relations (ICJ, 2018). The judgment is useful because it distinguishes political expectations and diplomatic exchanges from a binding obligation to negotiate.

Guyana v Venezuela follows a different route. The case concerning the 1899 arbitral award over the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela reached the ICJ through the 1966 Geneva Agreement and the role assigned to the United Nations Secretary-General in choosing a means of settlement (ICJ, 2020; ICJ, 2023). It is an American dispute, but not a Bogotá Pact case. It shows how regional geography, bilateral treaty arrangements, and UN-linked settlement mechanisms may interact.

The Inter-American human rights system adds another dimension. The Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights do not settle ordinary territorial disputes, but they address State responsibility for human rights violations. Their work may affect political conflicts, transitional justice, indigenous land claims, migration crises, and accountability debates. Regional settlement in the Americas is not one mechanism; it is a layered system of diplomacy, adjudication, human rights supervision, and institutional pressure.

8.3 African regional mechanisms

African regional mechanisms combine peace and security, mediation, human rights, democratic governance, and subregional action. The African Union has developed institutions for early warning, mediation, peace support, unconstitutional changes of government, and conflict prevention. Subregional organizations such as ECOWAS, IGAD, SADC, and the East African Community also play major roles in dispute management.

The African Peace and Security Architecture links legal and political tools. The Peace and Security Council may address conflicts, support mediation, authorize peace support operations within its framework, and coordinate with the United Nations. The Panel of the Wise and special envoys may assist dialogue before disputes harden. Border and territorial tensions may also be addressed through commissions, technical mapping, and negotiated arrangements.

Unconstitutional changes of government show the connection between internal crises and regional peace. A coup, manipulated transition, or collapse of constitutional order may create refugee flows, armed conflict, sanctions, or cross-border instability. African regional practice treats such events not only as domestic constitutional matters but also as threats to regional order.

Human rights bodies add legal depth. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights may address violations involving life, liberty, fair trial, political participation, land, natural resources, and community rights. These procedures differ from inter-State arbitration, but they contribute to peaceful settlement by giving legal channels to grievances that might otherwise fuel conflict.

African regionalism also faces limits. Resource constraints, political solidarity among governments, uneven compliance, and competing subregional mandates can weaken effectiveness. Yet regional mechanisms remain essential because many disputes require local access, sustained mediation, and legitimacy that distant institutions may lack.

8.4 European mechanisms

European mechanisms are unusually dense because they combine human rights adjudication, security cooperation, and supranational integration. They should not be treated as one system. The Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, the OSCE, and the European Union perform different settlement functions.

The European Court of Human Rights provides binding adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights. It primarily hears individual applications, though inter-State cases remain possible. Its role is not to decide every aspect of international disputes in Europe, but human rights litigation can become central where armed conflict, occupation, detention, displacement, discrimination, or suppression of political rights are involved.

The OSCE operates differently. It is not a court. Its tools include political dialogue, election observation, minority protection, early warning, field missions, confidence-building measures, and conflict-prevention mechanisms. Its value lies in practical diplomacy and monitoring, especially where legal adjudication is unavailable or politically blocked.

The European Union adds a supranational dimension. The Court of Justice of the European Union resolves disputes concerning EU law, including actions between institutions, member States, and private parties within the EU legal order. This differs from ordinary public international law because EU law has its own doctrines of supremacy, direct effect, and institutional enforcement. It is a regional legal order with features stronger than classic intergovernmental settlement.

The European model shows both the promise and complexity of regional legal integration. Strong courts can improve compliance, but they may also create jurisdictional overlap with broader international law. Security diplomacy may prevent escalation, but it depends on political will. Human rights adjudication may clarify responsibility, yet implementation can be contested where conflicts remain active.

8.5 Regional bodies and UN primacy

Regional bodies operate inside the Charter framework. Article 52 recognizes their role, but Article 103 gives Charter obligations priority over conflicting treaty obligations. Regional arrangements cannot override the prohibition on force, disregard Security Council decisions, or authorize coercive enforcement action contrary to the Charter.

This point is essential because regional legitimacy can be misused. A group of States may describe pressure as a regional settlement while imposing unlawful coercion. A regional organization may be captured by dominant members. A local mechanism may marginalize affected communities or weaken universal legal standards. Charter consistency is the safeguard against regional exceptionalism.

The Security Council and regional organizations often cooperate. Regional bodies may mediate, monitor, or deploy missions with Council support. The Council may endorse regional processes, receive reports, or authorize enforcement measures. The relationship works best when regional knowledge and universal authority reinforce each other.

Tension remains unavoidable. Regional bodies may act faster than the Council. The Council may be blocked by veto politics. Local actors may distrust universal institutions. Universal organs may distrust regional partiality. Peaceful settlement requires managing these tensions without losing the basic hierarchy: regional arrangements are valuable, but they are not legally superior to the Charter.

Regional mechanisms strengthen peaceful settlement when they provide access, legitimacy, expertise, and continuity. They weaken it when they become instruments of pressure or avoidance. Their proper role is complementary: to settle local disputes where possible, support universal peace and security, and keep regional practice aligned with international law.

9. Specialized dispute-settlement regimes

Modern international law does not rely only on the general methods listed in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. Many fields have developed their own procedures, institutions, deadlines, remedies, and technical rules. These regimes do not replace the general duty of peaceful settlement. They give that duty a more precise form in areas where ordinary diplomacy may be too slow, too broad, or too politically exposed.

Specialized procedures have two main advantages. They bring expertise to disputes that require technical knowledge, and they reduce uncertainty by giving parties a pre-agreed route for handling disagreement. Their weakness is fragmentation. A trade panel, a law of the sea tribunal, an investment tribunal, a human rights court, and an environmental compliance body may all examine related facts through different legal lenses.

The general doctrine remains important inside these regimes. Consent, jurisdiction, good faith, treaty interpretation, evidence, remedies, and compliance still matter. Specialization changes the forum and the procedure. It does not remove the basic legal discipline of peaceful settlement.

9.1 Law of the sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea contains one of the most developed dispute-settlement systems in international law. Part XV requires parties to settle disputes peacefully and begins with flexibility. States must exchange views on settlement, and they remain free to use negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other agreed procedures (United Nations, 1982).

If no settlement is reached, compulsory procedures may become available. States may choose the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, Annex VII arbitration, or Annex VIII special arbitration. If the parties have not made the same choice, Annex VII arbitration is the default. This design combines consent to the Convention with a compulsory mechanism for defined categories of disputes.

ITLOS has played an important role in urgent and technical matters. M/V Saiga helped clarify prompt release, flag State rights, and the relationship between enforcement at sea and procedural safeguards (ITLOS, 1999). MOX Plant and Southern Bluefin Tuna showed how provisional measures may preserve rights and prevent harm while jurisdiction and merits are still contested (ITLOS, 2001; ITLOS, 1999).

The system also has limits. UNCLOS allows optional exceptions for certain disputes, including some maritime delimitation, military activities, and law-enforcement activities. The South China Sea Arbitration showed the significance of those limits. The tribunal avoided ruling on territorial sovereignty, but it decided issues concerning maritime entitlements, historic rights claims, the status of features, and conduct under the Convention (PCA, 2016).

Ukraine v Russia under UNCLOS further illustrates the role of treaty-specific jurisdiction. The arbitral tribunal had to separate disputes about coastal State rights, maritime zones, and Convention obligations from issues excluded because they required prior determination of sovereignty over Crimea (PCA, 2020). Law of the sea dispute settlement is powerful, but it remains bound by the treaty that creates it.

9.2 International trade

The World Trade Organization dispute settlement system was designed to reduce unilateral retaliation in trade relations. It channels disputes through consultations, panel proceedings, appellate review, adoption of reports, implementation, possible compensation, and authorized suspension of concessions. Its structure reflects a simple idea: trade conflict should be handled through rules rather than escalating retaliation.

Consultations come first. They give members a chance to settle before litigation. If consultations fail, a panel may examine the measure and determine its consistency with WTO obligations. Panel reports are adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body unless there is a consensus against adoption. This reverse-consensus rule made WTO dispute settlement stronger than many earlier diplomatic systems under the GATT.

Appellate review was intended to correct legal errors and promote consistency. The Appellate Body could uphold, modify, or reverse legal findings. Its paralysis has become the system’s central institutional weakness. Because appointments have been blocked, the Appellate Body remains unable to hear appeals due to vacancies (WTO, 2026a). Some members have used an appeal to the void, which prevents the adoption of panel reports.

WTO members have created partial workarounds, including the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement. That mechanism does not bind all members, but it preserves appellate review among participants. WTO practice also shows that dispute settlement continues despite the blockage, with members still filing cases, adopting some panel reports, and reaching mutually agreed solutions (WTO, 2026b).

Trade law shows both the strength and fragility of specialized settlement. Strong procedure can discipline economic conflict, but institutional design depends on political maintenance. If appointments, implementation, or appellate review fail, the legal architecture weakens even where the substantive rules remain in force.

9.3 Investment disputes

Investment dispute settlement is different because it often allows private investors to bring claims directly against States. The procedure is mixed: the respondent is a State, but the claimant is usually a corporation or individual investor. Consent may come through an investment treaty, domestic investment legislation, or a contract.

Investor-State arbitration was designed to depoliticize investment disputes. Instead of asking the investor’s home State to exercise diplomatic protection, the investor may bring the claim directly. This can reduce inter-State tension, but it also gives private actors a powerful procedural role in disputes involving public regulation, natural resources, taxation, public health, infrastructure, and environmental policy.

ICSID provides the best-known institutional framework. Its jurisdiction depends on consent, a legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, and the relationship between a Contracting State and a national of another Contracting State under the ICSID Convention (ICSID, 2022). Other cases proceed under UNCITRAL Rules or other arbitral frameworks.

The legitimacy debate is serious. Critics point to high costs, inconsistent awards, limited appellate review, arbitrator conflicts, regulatory chill, and asymmetry between investor rights and public obligations. Reforms have focused on transparency, code of conduct, third-party funding disclosure, expedited procedures, mediation, appellate options, and proposals for a multilateral investment court (UNCITRAL, 2023; ICSID, 2022).

Investment arbitration still belongs within peaceful settlement, but it cannot be treated as ordinary inter-State adjudication. It expands access beyond States, while raising difficult questions about democratic regulation, public interest, and equality of arms.

9.4 Environmental disputes

Environmental disputes often turn on risk, science, prevention, and long-term harm. Litigation may come too late if the damage is irreversible. For that reason, environmental law places strong emphasis on consultation, notification, environmental impact assessment, monitoring, expert evidence, compliance procedures, and precautionary reasoning.

Trail Smelter remains the classic arbitral authority on transboundary harm. The tribunal held that a State must not use or permit the use of its territory in a manner that causes serious injury in another State when the consequences are established by clear and convincing evidence (Trail Smelter Arbitration, 1941). The award continues to influence discussions of prevention and responsibility.

Pulp Mills gave procedural duties a central role. The Court held that notification and consultation obligations under the River Uruguay regime were legally significant, while also addressing the substantive duty to prevent pollution (ICJ, 2010). Certain Activities and Construction of a Road added further analysis of environmental impact assessment, reparation, and evidence in transboundary environmental disputes (ICJ, 2015; ICJ, 2018).

Whaling in the Antarctic shows that environmental disputes may also involve scientific justification for regulatory conduct. The Court examined Japan’s whaling programme and assessed whether it fell within the scientific research exception under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICJ, 2014). The reasoning demonstrates that courts may scrutinize technical claims without becoming scientific agencies.

The ITLOS Climate Advisory Opinion has added a major development in marine environmental law. The Tribunal stated that greenhouse gas emissions can constitute pollution of the marine environment under UNCLOS and that States have due diligence obligations to prevent, reduce, and control such pollution (ITLOS, 2024). Climate-related disputes now sit at the intersection of environmental law, law of the sea, human rights, science, and intergenerational concern.

9.5 Human rights procedures

Human rights procedures have changed the structure of dispute settlement by giving affected individuals a direct or indirect role. Classical peaceful settlement centred on States. Human rights law allows individuals, groups, and sometimes non-State actors to trigger international procedures, subject to admissibility rules.

Treaty bodies under the United Nations system may receive individual communications where the State has accepted the relevant procedure. Their views are not judgments in the same sense as those of a court, but they can clarify obligations, recommend remedies, and influence domestic law. They also create an international record where domestic systems fail to provide effective redress.

Regional human rights courts have stronger adjudicatory roles. The European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights can issue binding judgments within their respective systems, subject to their treaties and jurisdictional limits. These courts frequently deal with detention, fair trial, disappearances, discrimination, property, political rights, indigenous land claims, and violence by State agents.

Friendly settlement is important in human rights systems. It allows parties to resolve a case through acknowledgment, compensation, reform, or other measures without a full judgment. This can be efficient, but it must protect the applicant’s rights and avoid settlements that conceal structural violations.

Exhaustion of domestic remedies remains a central admissibility rule. International procedures usually act after domestic courts or authorities have had a genuine chance to address the violation. Interim measures, implementation monitoring, and supervision by political organs or committees then help connect international findings to practical change. Human rights dispute settlement does not replace domestic justice. It pressures domestic systems to meet international standards.

10. Forum choice and litigation strategy

Forum choice is often decisive. The same factual conflict may look different before the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal, ITLOS, a WTO panel, a human rights court, an investment tribunal, a treaty body, or a domestic court applying international law. Each forum has its own jurisdictional gate, remedies, evidentiary habits, speed, cost, and political consequences.

A strong legal claim can fail in the wrong forum. A weak claim may gain leverage through a procedure that creates publicity, delay, or negotiation pressure. A good strategy does not mean manipulation. It means matching the dispute to a lawful procedure capable of producing a useful result.

10.1 Matching the forum to the dispute

The nature of the dispute should guide the forum. Territorial and boundary disputes often require ICJ litigation, arbitration, or a special agreement because they involve title, maps, treaties, effectivités, and historical conduct. Maritime disputes may fit UNCLOS procedures if the issue concerns maritime entitlements, delimitation, prompt release, or environmental obligations under the Convention.

Trade disputes usually belong in the WTO system where the challenged measure concerns goods, services, subsidies, technical barriers, sanitary measures, or trade remedies. Investment disputes require a jurisdictional basis in a treaty, law, or contract and usually focus on treatment of a foreign investor, expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, protection and security, or discrimination.

Human rights disputes depend on victim status, exhaustion of domestic remedies, time limits, and acceptance of individual petition. Environmental disputes may require a forum able to handle technical evidence, risk, impact assessment, and prevention. Use-of-force disputes may require the ICJ, Security Council action, General Assembly debate, fact-finding, or a combination of procedures.

The first professional question is not “which forum is best?” It is “which forum has jurisdiction, and what can it actually do?” Remedy matters as much as legal principle. A declaration, provisional measures, compensation, annulment of a measure, release of a vessel, cessation, guarantees of non-repetition, or political recommendation may each serve different goals.

10.2 Binding and non-binding outcomes

Binding and non-binding procedures serve different functions. Negotiation, good offices, mediation, enquiry, and conciliation preserve flexibility. They may allow compromise, protect confidentiality, reduce political cost, and address issues that a court cannot decide. Their weakness is the absence of final legal compulsion unless the parties transform the outcome into a binding instrument.

Arbitration and judicial settlement provide final legal determinations. They are stronger where the parties need a binding answer on jurisdiction, title, treaty interpretation, responsibility, or compensation. Their weakness is rigidity. Once a case begins, positions may harden. The court or tribunal can decide only issues within its jurisdiction. A legal victory may still require negotiation for implementation.

The choice is not simply law versus diplomacy. Many successful settlements use both. Negotiation may define the dispute before litigation. Provisional measures may protect rights while talks continue. Mediation may assist implementation after judgment. Conciliation may prepare a treaty. Binding and non-binding methods often work better as connected tools than as rivals.

10.3 Parallel proceedings

Parallel proceedings arise when the same factual conflict is placed before several bodies. A dispute may reach the ICJ, WTO, ICAO, ITLOS, human rights courts, investment tribunals, arbitral panels, and domestic courts. Each body may have a different mandate and apply different rules.

This can be useful. One forum may address trade restrictions, another human rights consequences, another aviation measures, and another treaty responsibility. The Qatar diplomatic crisis showed this pattern, with proceedings involving the ICJ, WTO, ICAO, and diplomatic mediation. Complex disputes rarely fit one legal box.

Parallelism also creates risks. Proceedings may produce inconsistent factual findings, conflicting remedies, duplicative costs, or tactical pressure. A party may use one forum to influence another or to gain publicity rather than a legal resolution. The same documents, witnesses, and arguments may be tested under different standards.

International law has tools to manage overlap, but they are limited. Res judicata applies where parties, objects, and legal grounds align closely. Lis pendens is less developed across separate international regimes. Abuse of process may prevent extreme manipulation, but tribunals are cautious. Most coordination depends on jurisdictional restraint, procedural discretion, and good faith.

10.4 Forum shopping

Forum shopping is the strategic selection of a favourable venue. It is not automatically improper. Where several lawful procedures are available, a State or claimant may choose the forum that offers jurisdiction, suitable remedies, expertise, speed, or procedural strength.

The problem begins when forum choice undermines agreed procedures or procedural fairness. A party may repackage the same dispute to avoid a jurisdictional bar, bypass a negotiation clause, pressure an opponent through duplicative claims, or seek inconsistent rulings. The line between strategy and abuse depends on consent, treaty design, identity of claims, timing, and conduct.

Forum shopping is common in fragmented legal systems. A measure affecting trade, investment, human rights, and the environment may fall under several treaties at once. No single tribunal owns the whole dispute. Good faith requires parties to use available forums without distorting jurisdiction or evading obligations freely accepted.

A careful strategy asks three questions. Is the forum lawfully available? Can it grant a useful remedy? Will the choice support settlement, or will it multiply proceedings without resolving the core disagreement?

10.5 Lex specialis and general law

Specialized regimes often contain their own rules, but they do not exist in isolation. A WTO panel, investment tribunal, human rights court, or law of the sea tribunal may apply its constitutive instrument, yet general international law often remains relevant.

Treaty interpretation follows the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. State responsibility may inform attribution, breach, reparation, countermeasures, and circumstances precluding wrongfulness. General principles may affect evidence, procedural fairness, good faith, abuse of rights, and remedies. Custom may fill gaps where the specialized treaty is silent.

Lex specialis means that a more specific rule may prevail over a general rule in the same field. It does not mean that the general law disappears. The relationship depends on the wording, object, and structure of the treaty. A special regime may modify general law for a particular context, but it rarely excludes the wider legal system entirely.

This interaction is essential for coherence. Specialized tribunals should respect the autonomy of their regimes, but they should avoid treating their treaty as if it were disconnected from international law. Peaceful settlement depends on both specialization and systemic awareness.

10.6 Time, cost, and publicity

The procedure has practical consequences. Time, cost, confidentiality, publicity, evidentiary burden, interim protection, enforcement prospects, and reputational effects may decide the real value of a forum.

A slow procedure may be useless where harm is immediate. Provisional measures may be decisive in cases involving detention, military action, environmental damage, or risk to life. A costly procedure may exclude weaker States, small investors, or affected individuals unless legal aid, institutional support, or simplified rules exist. A confidential process may protect negotiations, but it may also hide public-interest issues.

Public hearings and published decisions can strengthen legitimacy. They create a record, clarify the law, and allow scrutiny. They may also harden political positions and make compromise harder. Confidential diplomacy may produce faster results, but it may lack transparency and public trust.

Evidence production also matters. Some forums handle expert evidence better than others. Environmental, maritime, cyber, health, and climate disputes may require scientific expertise, satellite imagery, technical modelling, or classified material. A forum without the capacity to manage that evidence may struggle to deliver a credible result.

Reputation remains a quiet enforcement tool. A State may comply with a decision not because police power exists, but because non-compliance carries diplomatic, legal, economic, and institutional costs. The strategic value of a procedure often lies in that wider pressure. A well-chosen forum does more than produce a legal document. It changes the bargaining environment around the dispute.

11. Duties pending settlement

A dispute does not create a legal vacuum. While negotiations continue, while a court considers jurisdiction, or while an arbitral tribunal examines the merits, the parties remain bound by international law. The existence of disagreement may explain why procedures are needed; it does not suspend the rules governing force, treaties, human rights, diplomatic relations, humanitarian protection, environmental duties, or responsibility for wrongful conduct.

This point is essential to a peaceful settlement. If States could disregard existing obligations while a dispute remained unresolved, the settlement process would lose much of its value. The law requires restraint during disagreement. It also requires conduct that preserves rights, evidence, safety, and the practical possibility of a later solution.

11.1 No force or coercive settlement

No international dispute gives a State the right to impose its preferred outcome through force. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945). Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) must be read together. The duty to settle disputes peacefully would be hollow if States could switch to armed pressure once negotiations became inconvenient.

The prohibition covers more than a full-scale invasion. Military threats, armed reprisals, annexation, coercive occupation, and the use of force to change borders all contradict the Charter framework. The International Court of Justice confirmed in Nicaragua that the prohibition on force and the principle of non-intervention form part of customary international law as well as Charter law (ICJ, 1986). A State cannot avoid those rules by presenting armed action as a dispute settlement.

Self-defence is not a general licence to solve legal or political disagreements. It is a narrow response to an armed attack, subject to necessity and proportionality. In Oil Platforms, the Court rejected the claim that attacks on Iranian oil platforms could be justified as self-defence on the evidence before it (ICJ, 2003). In Armed Activities, the Court rejected broad security arguments used to justify military action on the territory of another State (ICJ, 2005).

Annexation is even further outside lawful settlement. A territorial dispute may require negotiation, adjudication, arbitration, mediation, or a boundary commission. It cannot be resolved by unilateral acquisition through force. The Wall Advisory Opinion also shows that prolonged security concerns do not erase legal obligations concerning occupation, self-determination, humanitarian law, and human rights (ICJ, 2004).

11.2 Non-aggravation

Parties must avoid conduct that aggravates or extends a dispute, especially when proceedings are pending before a court or tribunal. This duty protects the integrity of peaceful settlement. A party that continues to escalate on the ground while invoking procedure undermines the process it claims to respect.

Non-aggravation is especially important in provisional-measures proceedings. The International Court of Justice often orders parties to refrain from actions that might aggravate or extend the dispute. Such orders may accompany more specific measures protecting life, property, evidence, treaty rights, or territorial claims. LaGrand confirmed that provisional measures indicated by the Court are legally binding (ICJ, 2001).

Aggravation may take many forms. Military deployments in a contested area may alter the factual balance before judgment. Construction works, settlement activity, or infrastructure projects may create irreversible changes in disputed territory. Resource extraction in a contested maritime zone may intensify conflict and prejudice claims. Official rhetoric may also matter where it encourages violence, discrimination, or refusal to comply with interim duties.

Environmental disputes provide another example. If one State proceeds with a high-risk project while consultation or litigation is pending, a later judgment may come too late to prevent damage. In Pulp Mills, the Court treated procedural cooperation and environmental assessment as real legal duties, not diplomatic courtesy (ICJ, 2010). In Certain Activities and Construction of a Road, the Court again addressed evidence, environmental harm, and reparation in a dispute where conduct during the controversy affected the legal analysis (ICJ, 2015; ICJ, 2018).

Non-aggravation does not freeze every act by the parties. States may continue ordinary administration, protect public order, and defend their legal positions. The line is crossed when conduct increases risk, prejudices rights, destroys evidence, changes the disputed situation, or makes settlement materially harder.

11.3 Provisional arrangements

Provisional arrangements preserve rights while final settlement remains pending. They do not require the parties to abandon their claims. They create a temporary framework that reduces risk and keeps the dispute manageable.

Maritime disputes often need this type of arrangement. Before a boundary is delimited, States may agree on provisional fisheries rules, joint development zones, incident-prevention mechanisms, or resource-sharing arrangements. Such arrangements can protect economic interests without deciding sovereignty or delimitation. They also reduce the danger that oil exploration, naval patrols, or licensing disputes will escalate.

Humanitarian arrangements serve a similar function in conflict-related disputes. Access corridors, prisoner exchanges, evacuation mechanisms, medical access, and monitoring missions may operate while deeper legal questions remain unresolved. These steps do not settle responsibility for the conflict. They reduce harm and preserve space for later legal and political engagement.

Environmental protection may also require provisional measures or interim cooperation. States may agree to suspend a project, exchange scientific data, monitor water quality, create expert groups, or maintain emergency communication channels. Such arrangements are particularly valuable where damage may be irreversible.

Ceasefire monitoring is another form of provisional settlement. A ceasefire does not decide territorial title, responsibility, or reparations. It reduces violence and creates conditions in which those questions can be addressed through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or judicial settlement. The best provisional arrangements are precise, monitored, time-bound where needed, and drafted without prejudice to the parties’ underlying claims.

11.4 Continuing legal obligations

Pending settlement does not suspend existing international obligations. Treaties remain binding unless a valid rule on termination, suspension, material breach, impossibility, or fundamental change of circumstances applies. Even then, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties sets strict conditions (United Nations, 1969). A State cannot treat a dispute as a general permission to disregard inconvenient obligations.

Diplomatic and consular law continues to apply during political crises. The Tehran Hostages case made this clear. The Court held that Iran breached obligations concerning the inviolability of diplomatic premises and personnel, despite the revolutionary and political background of the dispute (ICJ, 1980). Diplomatic law exists precisely to preserve communication and protection during tension.

Human rights and humanitarian law also remain relevant. Armed conflict, emergency, occupation, or internal instability may affect the application of some rules, but they do not remove the legal framework. Certain rights may be derogated from under strict treaty conditions; many obligations remain non-derogable. Humanitarian law applies where the factual threshold of armed conflict is met.

Environmental duties remain in force as well. A State may not ignore due diligence, prevention, notification, assessment, or cooperation duties because a neighbouring State disputes the project. The same is true for obligations arising from State responsibility. A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act may owe cessation, assurances of non-repetition, and reparation while settlement procedures unfold (ILC, 2001).

The practical rule is simple: a dispute changes the need for procedure, not the existence of law. Peaceful settlement works only if the parties continue to act within the legal order they are asking to resolve the disagreement.

11.5 Countermeasures and settlement

Countermeasures are regulated acts of self-help taken by an injured State in response to an internationally wrongful act. They are not methods of dispute settlement. Their function is to induce compliance, not punish the responsible State or impose a final outcome.

The Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts set strict conditions. Countermeasures must be directed against the responsible State, must be proportionate, and must be reversible as far as possible. They must not affect obligations concerning the prohibition on force, fundamental human rights, humanitarian obligations prohibiting reprisals, or peremptory norms. The injured State must usually call on the responsible State to comply before taking countermeasures, subject to limited urgency exceptions (ILC, 2001).

Countermeasures can easily be abused. A State may present economic pressure, suspension of cooperation, or restrictive measures as lawful countermeasures when the underlying breach is contested. That is why proportionality, prior notice, reversibility, and connection to compliance matter. The measure must aim to bring the responsible State back into lawful conduct, not to extract unrelated concessions.

They also interact with peaceful settlement. If a dispute is before a court or tribunal, countermeasures may complicate proceedings, aggravate relations, or affect provisional measures. They may be lawful in some circumstances, but they remain secondary tools. They should not replace negotiation, adjudication, arbitration, mediation, or other procedures.

Countermeasures show the line between lawful pressure and unlawful coercion. International law does not leave injured States powerless, but it does not allow them to become judges and executioners without limits.

12. Compliance and implementation

A settlement procedure has practical value only if its outcome affects conduct. Implementation is the bridge between legal result and real-world change. A negotiated agreement must be performed. A conciliation proposal must be accepted or incorporated into a binding instrument. An arbitral award must be respected. A judgment must be complied with. Remedies must be carried out in a form that addresses the breach.

Compliance in international law is not produced by one mechanism. It may come through legal obligation, reciprocity, reputation, domestic courts, political pressure, institutional supervision, sanctions, monitoring, or the desire to preserve future cooperation. Weak enforcement does not mean the absence of law. It means that international law relies on a wider set of compliance pressures than most domestic systems.

12.1 Negotiated settlements

Negotiated outcomes may take different legal forms. Some become treaties. Others are political commitments, memoranda of understanding, ceasefire arrangements, joint declarations, technical protocols, exchanges of letters, or implementation plans. Their legal effect depends on intention, wording, form, context, and conduct after adoption.

A document called a memorandum may be binding if the parties intend legal effect. A document called a declaration may be political if the language avoids obligation. Words such as “shall”, “agree”, “undertake”, and “enter into force” may indicate legal intention. Expressions of aspiration, cooperation, or political support may point the other way. Form matters, but intention is central (Aust, 2013).

Negotiated settlements often contain implementation machinery. Boundary agreements may require demarcation commissions. Ceasefires may require monitoring missions. Environmental settlements may require expert panels and data exchange. Reparations agreements may require payment schedules. Trade settlements may require the removal of measures or legislative changes.

The weakness of a negotiated settlement is ambiguity. Parties may agree on broad wording to secure political acceptance, only to dispute its meaning later. Careful drafting should address obligations, deadlines, verification, dispute clauses, amendment, termination, and consequences of breach. A vague settlement may postpone conflict rather than resolve it.

12.2 Conciliation and mediation outcomes

Mediation and conciliation outcomes often begin as non-binding proposals. A mediator may present a framework. A conciliation commission may issue a report. A special envoy may draft principles. These instruments do not usually bind the parties by themselves, but they can carry strong political and legal significance.

Their effect increases when the parties accept them. Acceptance may occur through signature, incorporation into a treaty, endorsement by an international organization, domestic implementation, or repeated conduct treating the framework as authoritative. A non-binding proposal can become the basis of a binding settlement if the parties give it that status.

Conciliation reports may also clarify facts and legal positions. Even if rejected, they can narrow disagreement, influence later arbitration, or shape Security Council and General Assembly debate. In the Timor Sea Conciliation, the structured process under UNCLOS helped Timor-Leste and Australia reach a maritime boundary treaty, showing how a non-judicial procedure can produce a binding legal outcome through later agreement (PCA, 2018).

Mediation outcomes can be fragile where implementation is weak. A peace framework without monitoring, sequencing, guarantees, or domestic support may collapse. Legal drafting and political design must work together. A settlement that looks elegant on paper may fail if it ignores security, resources, affected communities, or institutional capacity.

12.3 Arbitral awards

Arbitral awards are binding and final between the parties. This finality is one of arbitration’s main attractions. States choose arbitration because they want a legal answer that ends the submitted dispute. If the losing party could reopen the merits whenever it disliked the reasoning, arbitration would lose its settlement function.

Interpretation or correction may be available where the award is unclear or contains clerical errors. Exceptional challenges may arise where a tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction, violates essential procedural rules, fails to state reasons, or is affected by corruption. These grounds are narrow. They protect the integrity of the process without turning arbitration into an ordinary appeal.

Compliance depends on more than formal binding force. Reputation matters. A State that refuses an award may damage its credibility in future negotiations, treaty relations, investment relations, and institutional settings. Reciprocity also matters. States that expect others to respect arbitral awards have reason to respect awards against themselves.

Implementation may require domestic action. Boundary awards may require demarcation, removal of forces, administrative adjustment, or legislation. Compensation awards may require budgetary measures. Maritime awards may require revision of licences, patrol practices, or resource arrangements. The legal award is final, but practical execution may need further cooperation.

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission shows the difficulty. The award was binding, yet implementation became politically contested on the ground (EEBC, 2002). The South China Sea Arbitration shows a different challenge: a legally binding award may clarify the law while the respondent rejects the process and resists compliance (PCA, 2016). Arbitral finality is powerful, but it is not self-executing.

12.4 ICJ judgments

Article 59 of the ICJ Statute provides that the Court’s decision has no binding force except between the parties and in relation to that particular case (ICJ Statute, 1945). This rule limits formal effect. An ICJ judgment does not become legislation for all States. It resolves the dispute submitted to the Court.

Article 94 of the United Nations Charter adds the compliance obligation. Each UN Member undertakes to comply with the Court’s decision in any case to which it is a party. If a party fails to comply, the other party may go to the Security Council, which may make recommendations or decide on measures to give effect to the judgment (United Nations, 1945).

The Security Council route is politically constrained. A permanent member may block action. Allies may shield a non-compliant State. The Council may treat non-compliance as less urgent than other security questions. This does not erase the legal obligation. It shows that enforcement is mediated through politics.

ICJ judgments still influence law beyond the parties. Their reasoning is cited by States, tribunals, treaty bodies, domestic courts, scholars, and international organizations. Judgments on the use of force, diplomatic law, provisional measures, genocide, maritime delimitation, environmental duties, and treaty interpretation have shaped the wider development of international law.

Compliance may also occur gradually. A State may initially reject a judgment, later negotiate implementation, adjust domestic law, pay compensation, or accept a practical arrangement reflecting the Court’s findings. The legal effect is immediate between the parties. Political absorption may take longer.

12.5 Remedies

Remedies translate responsibility into legal consequences. The law of State responsibility provides the general structure. A responsible State must cease the wrongful act if it is continuing, offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition where circumstances require, and make full reparation for the injury caused (ILC, 2001).

Restitution aims to restore the situation that existed before the wrongful act, where possible and not materially impossible or disproportionate. It may involve the return of property, the release of persons, the withdrawal from territory, or the restoration of legal status. It is the primary form of reparation, but it is not always practical.

Compensation covers financially assessable damage that is not made good by restitution. It may include material loss, lost profits in appropriate cases, and other quantifiable injury. The Armed Activities compensation judgment shows the difficulty of assessing mass harm, unlawful military action, exploitation of resources, and evidentiary uncertainty (ICJ, 2022).

Satisfaction addresses injury that cannot be fully repaired by restitution or compensation. It may include acknowledgment of breach, expression of regret, formal apology, or a judicial declaration. A declaration of wrongfulness may have real legal value, especially where the injured State seeks vindication, clarification, or non-repetition.

Guarantees of non-repetition are forward-looking. They may require legal reform, monitoring, training, institutional changes, or assurances that the breach will not recur. They are especially important where the wrongful act reflects structural conduct rather than an isolated incident.

12.6 Limits of enforcement

International law should not be judged only by the absence of a world police force. That comparison is too crude. Domestic law also relies on voluntary compliance, reputation, settlement, institutional pressure, and social legitimacy. International law has weaker centralized enforcement, but it has multiple compliance channels.

Reputation is one channel. States care about credibility in diplomacy, trade, investment, security cooperation, treaty negotiations, and international organizations. Non-compliance may carry long-term costs even when no immediate sanction follows.

Reciprocity is another. A State that disregards judgments, awards, or settlement agreements weakens its ability to demand compliance from others. Reciprocity does not work perfectly, especially where power asymmetry is large, but it remains a real consideration in continuing relations.

Domestic implementation also matters. Courts, legislatures, administrative agencies, and constitutional structures may give effect to international obligations. In some systems, judgments or treaty obligations require implementing legislation. In others, domestic courts may apply international law more directly.

Institutional pressure can be significant. Human rights bodies supervise implementation. The Security Council may impose measures in some situations. The WTO authorizes suspension of concessions under defined conditions. Investment awards may be enforced through domestic courts or ICSID mechanisms. Regional organizations may monitor compliance and impose political costs.

The limits remain serious. Powerful States may resist adverse rulings. Weak States may lack the capacity to implement. Political change may derail the settlement. Domestic opposition may block compliance. Some disputes involve facts on the ground that are hard to reverse. These limits do not make peaceful settlement meaningless. They show why legal procedure, political strategy, monitoring, and implementation design must be treated as parts of the same process.

Also read

• The Statute of the International Court of Justice

• Nicaragua v United States of America: ICJ Case Guide

• South China Sea Arbitration and Its Legal Impact

• Guyana v Venezuela and the Essequibo Dispute

• Territorial Disputes and International Law: Principles, Cases, and Resolutions

• State Responsibility in International Law

• Principle of Sovereign Equality of States

• What Is Diplomacy: Law, Practice, and International Order

13. Critiques and limits

Peaceful settlement is indispensable, but it is not neutral magic. It gives States procedures, language, forums, and standards. It does not erase power, political interest, institutional weakness, or unequal access to legal expertise. A serious account must recognize both sides: the system restrains conflict, yet it often reflects the same inequalities that produce conflict.

The main weaknesses are not accidental. They follow from the structure of international law itself: consent, sovereign equality, decentralized enforcement, institutional pluralism, and the political role of States. These features make peaceful settlement legitimate, but they also limit its reach.

13.1 Consent as shield and obstacle

Consent is the foundation of binding adjudication in international law. A State is not normally subject to an international court or tribunal unless it has accepted jurisdiction. That consent may be given through a treaty clause, an optional clause declaration, a special agreement, an arbitration clause, or a later acceptance of jurisdiction. The rule protects sovereign equality and prevents stronger institutions from exercising authority without a legal basis.

The same rule can block adjudication. A State may have a strong claim, reliable evidence, and a serious legal injury, yet no available court if the respondent has not accepted jurisdiction. This is one of the central limits of the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. The duty to settle peacefully remains, but the path to a binding judgment may be closed.

The International Court of Justice has repeatedly insisted on this limit. In Monetary Gold, the Court refused to decide a case where the legal interests of an absent third State formed the very subject matter of the decision (ICJ, 1954). In East Timor, Portugal’s claim against Australia could not proceed because the Court would have had to assess Indonesia’s conduct without Indonesia’s consent (ICJ, 1995). In the Marshall Islands, the absence of a legally established dispute at the time of filing prevented the Court from reaching the merits (ICJ, 2016).

Consent protects States against judicial overreach, but it also allows avoidance. A State can denounce a treaty, enter reservations, withdraw from optional jurisdiction, refuse arbitration, or decline mediation. These choices may be lawful. They may also leave serious disputes without compulsory settlement. The result is a system where legal rights and procedural access do not always align.

This does not make consent obsolete. A compulsory world judiciary without State consent would face legitimacy problems of its own. The better critique is narrower: consent is necessary in the current system, but it should not be romanticized. It can protect equality, and it can shield non-compliance.

13.2 Power asymmetry

Peaceful procedures reduce inequality, but they do not remove it. Stronger States may use time, money, diplomatic pressure, intelligence capacity, institutional influence, and procedural expertise to shape the settlement process. Weaker States may have law on their side and still struggle to sustain long litigation, gather evidence, resist pressure, or implement the result.

Delay is one common tactic. A stronger party may prolong negotiations, challenge jurisdiction repeatedly, refuse disclosure, fragment proceedings across forums, or wait for political conditions to change. A smaller State may lack the resources to maintain a case for years. Even where it wins, implementation may require further diplomatic leverage.

Procedural objections can be legitimate, but they can also become a strategy. Jurisdiction, admissibility, standing, necessary parties, treaty reservations, time limits, and exhaustion requirements are real legal issues. Yet repeated reliance on technical objections may prevent the merits from ever being heard. Law then becomes a gatekeeping instrument rather than a route to settlement.

Economic leverage also matters. A State dependent on trade, aid, security cooperation, or investment may accept a settlement that reflects pressure more than legal balance. Formal consent may hide a material constraint. This problem is especially visible where disputes involve natural resources, debt, sanctions, military presence, or foreign investment.

Selective compliance is another form of asymmetry. Powerful States may comply with favourable rulings, criticize adverse rulings, or treat judgments as politically optional. Weaker States often face sharper reputational and economic costs when they do the same. International law formally applies equally, but the price of resistance is not equally distributed (Koskenniemi, 2005).

Peaceful settlement still matters in unequal relationships. It gives weaker States a public record, legal vocabulary, institutional access, and sometimes a binding ruling. Nicaragua’s case against the United States remains a leading example of a weaker State using judicial process to obtain authoritative findings on intervention and the use of force (ICJ, 1986). The judgment did not remove power asymmetry, but it changed the legal assessment of the dispute.

13.3 Fragmentation

International dispute settlement has become fragmented. Different courts, tribunals, treaty bodies, panels, commissions, and compliance mechanisms may address related facts under different legal regimes. This reflects specialization. Trade, human rights, investment, law of the sea, environment, aviation, criminal law, and regional integration all require expertise. The cost is institutional overlap.

Fragmentation can produce inconsistent reasoning. A measure adopted during a crisis may be examined by a human rights court, a trade panel, an investment tribunal, and a domestic court. Each forum may apply a different treaty, use a different evidentiary standard, and grant a different remedy. None may have the authority to decide the whole conflict.

The problem is not merely theoretical. The Qatar diplomatic crisis generated proceedings before several bodies, including the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization, and the International Civil Aviation Organization. The South China Sea dispute involved arbitration under UNCLOS, while wider sovereignty and security issues remained outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction (PCA, 2016). Investment disputes often overlap with human rights, environmental regulation, public health, and domestic constitutional law.

Fragmentation can also be productive. Specialized bodies may handle technical issues better than a general court. A law of the sea tribunal can address maritime procedures quickly. A trade panel can assess market restrictions. A human rights court can focus on victims and remedies. A single universal court would not necessarily manage all these fields better.

The real danger is a lack of coordination. Parallel proceedings may multiply costs, encourage tactical litigation, and produce partial answers that do not speak to each other. General international law helps reduce this risk. Treaty interpretation, State responsibility, good faith, evidence, res judicata, and abuse of process provide common tools across regimes (ILC, 2006; Shany, 2003). They do not eliminate fragmentation, but they keep specialization connected to the wider legal system.

Fragmentation is a structural challenge, not proof of collapse. A complex legal order will have multiple forums. The task is to maintain coherence without destroying the advantages of specialized settlement.

13.4 Politicization

Peaceful settlement operates inside political reality. Mediation may depend on the influence of a powerful State. Security Council action may turn on veto politics. General Assembly resolutions may reflect voting blocs. Litigation may be used to shape public opinion, gain leverage, or impose reputational cost. None of this is surprising. International law is applied in a world of States, alliances, interests, and public pressure.

Politicization does not automatically invalidate a procedure. A dispute can be politically charged and legally justiciable. Nicaragua, Tehran Hostages, Wall, Chagos, and Gambia v Myanmar all involved politically sensitive settings, yet each produced legal analysis with lasting significance (ICJ, 1980; ICJ, 1986; ICJ, 2004; ICJ, 2019; ICJ, 2020). The presence of political consequences does not deprive the law of relevance.

The problem arises when politics distorts procedure. A mediator may pressure one side into accepting an unstable settlement. The Security Council may remain silent because a permanent member blocks action. A State may file proceedings mainly to generate headlines while refusing to comply with comparable obligations. A tribunal may face accusations of bias because of appointment patterns, institutional culture, or perceived regional imbalance.

Public pressure can cut both ways. It may force attention to serious violations, support victims, and raise the cost of non-compliance. It may also harden positions, make compromise politically dangerous, and turn legal proceedings into symbolic warfare. Courts are not immune to the environment around them, even when their reasoning remains legal.

The best protection against politicization is not the impossible removal of politics. It is procedural discipline: jurisdictional reasoning, evidence, transparency where appropriate, impartial decision-makers, reasoned decisions, and equal treatment of the parties. Law cannot escape politics, but it can require politics to pass through rules.

13.5 Affected communities

Classical peaceful settlement is State-centred. Article 33 speaks mainly to parties to a dispute, and the traditional parties are States. Yet many disputes affect individuals and communities more directly than governments. Border disputes may divide families. Maritime disputes may affect fishers. Environmental harm may damage local health and livelihoods. Armed conflicts may displace civilians. Investment disputes may affect access to water, housing, land, energy, or public services.

A settlement between States may leave these consequences unresolved. A boundary agreement may stabilize relations while ignoring local land use. A ceasefire may stop fighting without addressing missing persons, displacement, or accountability. An investment award may compensate a corporation while communities affected by the project remain outside the process. A maritime settlement may allocate resources without meaningful participation by those who depend on them.

Human rights systems partly correct this gap. Individual applications, regional courts, treaty bodies, interim measures, friendly settlements, and implementation monitoring allow affected persons to enter international procedures. Yet access remains uneven. Admissibility rules, exhaustion of domestic remedies, time limits, legal costs, fear of retaliation, and State non-compliance can prevent effective redress.

Indigenous communities face particular difficulties. Disputes over land, natural resources, consultation, self-government, cultural heritage, and environmental protection are often framed as State-to-State, investment, or development disputes. The communities most affected may not control the procedure, the evidence, or the remedy. International law increasingly recognizes consultation and participation duties, but procedural access remains limited in many forums.

This gap matters for legitimacy. A settlement that satisfies States may still be unstable if affected communities see it as imposed, incomplete, or blind to harm. Peaceful settlement should not be measured only by signatures, awards, or judgments. Its quality also depends on whether it addresses the human and local consequences of the dispute.

Conclusion

Peaceful settlement is the procedural foundation of an international legal order that rejects force as a method for resolving disputes. It does not remove conflict, and it does not guarantee agreement. Its function is more disciplined: it requires States to move disagreement into lawful channels before power turns into coercion.

The system is not one institution. It is a field made of negotiation, good offices, mediation, enquiry, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, United Nations procedures, regional mechanisms, and specialized regimes. Each method has a different role. Negotiation preserves direct control. Mediation restores communication. Fact-finding clarifies contested events. Conciliation proposes terms. Arbitration and judicial settlement provide binding legal answers. UN and regional organs can prevent escalation, recommend procedures, and create political pressure. Specialized regimes bring expertise to fields such as the sea, trade, investment, human rights, and the environment.

The strength of this structure lies in its flexibility. A territorial dispute, a maritime disagreement, a diplomatic crisis, an environmental injury, a trade restriction, and a human rights violation do not need the same procedure. The law gives States and other actors a range of tools. That diversity makes peaceful settlement adaptable to disputes with different facts, legal bases, urgency, and political risks.

Its weaknesses are real. Consent may block adjudication. Stronger States may use delay and leverage. Multiple forums may create overlap. Political pressure may distort mediation, Security Council action, or litigation. State-centred settlement may overlook affected communities. These limits should not be ignored, because a descriptive account that treats the system as automatically effective misses how international disputes actually work.

The value of peaceful settlement is not that it promises harmony. Its value is that it forces conflict into law, process, evidence, reasons, and accountability. A dispute handled through lawful procedure may still be difficult, slow, and politically charged. It is no longer left entirely to force. That restraint is one of the central achievements of modern international law.

References

1. Alabama Claims Arbitration (1872) Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain, Award of 14 September 1872, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXIX, pp. 125–134. Available at: https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXIX/125-134.pdf (Accessed: 12 April 2026).

2. Aust, A. (2013) Modern Treaty Law and Practice. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (2002) Decision Regarding Delimitation of the Border between Eritrea and Ethiopia, 13 April 2002. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXV, pp. 83–195.

4. Hague Convention (1899) Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The Hague, 29 July 1899.

5. Hague Convention (1907) Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The Hague, 18 October 1907.

6. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (2022) ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules [online]. Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/ICSID_Convention.pdf (Accessed: 12 April 2026).

7. International Court of Justice (1948) Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v Albania), Preliminary Objection, Judgment of 25 March 1948, ICJ Reports 1948, p. 15.

8. International Court of Justice (1949) Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v Albania), Merits, Judgment of 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 4.

9. International Court of Justice (1954) Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v France, United Kingdom and United States), Preliminary Question, Judgment of 15 June 1954, ICJ Reports 1954, p. 19.

10. International Court of Justice (1962) South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962, ICJ Reports 1962, p. 319.

11. International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3.

12. International Court of Justice (1971) Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia, Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16.

13. International Court of Justice (1974) Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v France; New Zealand v France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 253 and p. 457.

14. International Court of Justice (1978) Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey), Judgment of 19 December 1978, ICJ Reports 1978, p. 3.

15. International Court of Justice (1980) United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980, ICJ Reports 1980, p. 3.

16. International Court of Justice (1984) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 26 November 1984, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392.

17. International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

18. International Court of Justice (1992) Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 June 1992, ICJ Reports 1992, p. 240.

19. International Court of Justice (1995) East Timor (Portugal v Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 90.

20. International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226.

21. International Court of Justice (1997) Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7.

22. International Court of Justice (2001) LaGrand (Germany v United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 466.

23. International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Judgment of 6 November 2003, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 161.

24. International Court of Justice (2004a) Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America), Judgment of 31 March 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 12.

25. International Court of Justice (2004b) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 136.

26. International Court of Justice (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 168.

27. International Court of Justice (2007) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43.

28. International Court of Justice (2010a) Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 403.

29. International Court of Justice (2010b) Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14.

30. International Court of Justice (2011) Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1 April 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 70.

31. International Court of Justice (2012) Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 624.

32. International Court of Justice (2014) Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment of 31 March 2014, ICJ Reports 2014, p. 226.

33. International Court of Justice (2015a) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), Judgment of 3 February 2015, ICJ Reports 2015, p. 3.

34. International Court of Justice (2015b) Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), Judgment of 16 December 2015, ICJ Reports 2015, p. 665.

35. International Court of Justice (2016) Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 5 October 2016, ICJ Reports 2016, p. 833.

36. International Court of Justice (2018a) Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), Compensation, Judgment of 2 February 2018, ICJ Reports 2018, p. 15.

37. International Court of Justice (2018b) Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v Chile), Judgment of 1 October 2018, ICJ Reports 2018, p. 507.

38. International Court of Justice (2019a) Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 8 November 2019, ICJ Reports 2019, p. 558.

39. International Court of Justice (2019b) Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, ICJ Reports 2019, p. 95.

40. International Court of Justice (2020a) Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v Venezuela), Jurisdiction, Judgment of 18 December 2020, ICJ Reports 2020, p. 455.

41. International Court of Justice (2020b) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, ICJ Reports 2020, p. 3.

42. International Court of Justice (2021) Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 4 February 2021, ICJ Reports 2021, p. 71.

43. International Court of Justice (2022a) Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 March 2022, ICJ Reports 2022, p. 211.

44. International Court of Justice (2022b) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), Reparations, Judgment of 9 February 2022, ICJ Reports 2022, p. 13.

45. International Court of Justice (2023) Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v Venezuela), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 6 April 2023, ICJ Reports 2023, p. 105.

46. International Court of Justice (2024a) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures, Order of 26 January 2024.

47. International Court of Justice (2024b) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v Israel), Provisional Measures, Order of 28 March 2024.

48. International Court of Justice (2024c) Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Judgment of 31 January 2024.

49. International Court of Justice (2025) Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/187/advisory-opinions (Accessed: 28 April 2026).

50. International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two.

51. International Law Commission (2006) Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.

52. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1999a) M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) Case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea), Judgment of 1 July 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 10.

53. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1999b) Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 280.

54. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2001) MOX Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 December 2001, ITLOS Reports 2001, p. 95.

55. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (2024) Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, Advisory Opinion of 21 May 2024 [online]. Available at: https://www.itlos.org/en/main/cases/list-of-cases/request-for-an-advisory-opinion-submitted-by-the-commission-of-small-island-states-on-climate-change-and-international-law-request-for-advisory-opinion-submitted-to-the-tribunal/ (Accessed: 17 May 2026).

56. Klabbers, J. (2024) International Law. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

57. Koskenniemi, M. (2005) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Reissue with new epilogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

58. Merrills, J.G. (2017) International Dispute Settlement. 6th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

59. Mohamed, A.F. (2024) ‘Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes’, International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(1), pp. 1–7 [online]. Available at: https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/1/11586.pdf (Accessed: 17 May 2026).

60. Permanent Court of Arbitration (2016) The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v The People’s Republic of China), Award of 12 July 2016.

61. Permanent Court of Arbitration (2018) Timor Sea Conciliation (Timor-Leste v Australia), Report and Recommendations of the Compulsory Conciliation Commission, 9 May 2018.

62. Permanent Court of Arbitration (2020) Dispute concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Award concerning Preliminary Objections, 21 February 2020.

63. Permanent Court of International Justice (1924) Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment of 30 August 1924, PCIJ Series A, No. 2.

64. Shany, Y. (2003) The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

65. Tanaka, Y. (2018) The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

66. Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941) Trail Smelter Case (United States v Canada), Awards of 16 April 1938 and 11 March 1941, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III, pp. 1905–1982. Available at: https://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_iii/1905-1982.pdf (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

67. UNCITRAL (2023) Working Group III: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform [online]. Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/3/investor-state (Accessed: 19 May 2026).

68. United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. San Francisco: United Nations [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

69. United Nations (1965) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. New York: United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 660, p. 195.

70. United Nations (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Vienna: United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331.

71. United Nations (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Montego Bay: United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1833, p. 3.

72. United Nations General Assembly (1982) Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, UNGA Res. 37/10, 15 November 1982.

73. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs (1992) Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States. New York: United Nations [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/cod/books/handbookonpsd.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

74. World Trade Organization (1994) Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. Marrakesh: World Trade Organization [online]. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dsu_e.htm (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

75. World Trade Organization (2026a) Dispute Settlement: Appellate Body [online]. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/appellate_body_e.htm (Accessed: 21 May 2026).

76. World Trade Organization (2026b) Dispute Settlement Activity: Some Figures [online]. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispustats_e.htm (Accessed: 21 May 2026).