Cilt 3, Sayı 7, Sayfalar 6 - 20 2017-04-30

PEACEFUL MEANS FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER-STATE DISPUTES: REFLECTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

Elena Temelkovska-Anevska [1]

46 78

Disputes, tensions and conflicts are present in all spheres of human society, either at the national, regional, or international level. Therefore, international law requires peaceful methods for dispute settlement and somehow it becomes an imperative in international relations.

From a legal point of view, the dispute settlement in international law creates an obligation for states to settle their disputes in accordance with the international law by using the peaceful means and mechanisms. They can choose between diplomatic, judicial and institutional means. Such means include legally binding and non-binding mechanisms: negotiation, good offices and conciliation (as diplomatic means and non-binding third party facilitation); intervention of an international or regional organization and its bodies or representatives (as an institutional mechanism), and legally-binding mechanisms such as arbitration and international adjudication (as judicial means). Although there is a specific obligation for the states to settle their disputes through peaceful means, they are also free to choose the most suitable peaceful mechanism for their dispute. 

The distinction between the diplomatic and judicial means is related to the difference between two categories of disputes: legal and political. The legal disputes are more related to judicial means of settlement, within the international law. Political disputes use diplomatic channels and political principles instead of international law in order to settle disputes. The diplomatic means are characterized by the lack of binding effect to any conclusion and taking into account all relevant circumstances. By their nature they are less ambiguous compared to judicial means. Arbitration as judicial mean is optional, more flexible and adapted to the objectives of the states. Its conclusions have binding effect. The International Court of Justice and its proceedings are also binding, more rigid, less flexible and take only legal aspects as relevant.

States are not always willing to make conciliation in terms of dispute settlement, mostly due to national interests and sovereignty. When states need to choose among these various means, they have to take into consideration their mutual relations and the nature of their dispute.

Nowadays, inter-states disputes are real problems in maintaining stability and promoting peaceful relations between states. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to identify the peaceful means and delicate techniques known in the international law and to distinguish their advantages and disadvantages and how states can apply them in order to reach an acceptable and reasonable solution and reduce the risk of new disputes and conflicts between them in future.

dispute,dispute settlement,peaceful means,United Nations
  • Bernier, Ivan and Latulippe, Nathalie. The International Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions: Conciliation as a dispute resolution method in the cultural sector. Available at: http://www.diversite-culturelle.qc.ca/fileadmin/documents/pdf/document_reflexion_eng.pdf [accessed 30th November 2016] Brennan, Lorraine M.(2015). Preparing the client in an international mediation: what to expect from the process. In: Rovine, Arthur W., Contemporary issues in international arbitration and mediation: The Fordham papers. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Charter of the United Nations.(1945). Available at: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/ [accessed: 10th December 2016] French, Duncan, Saul, Mathew and White, Nigel.(2010). (eds.). International law and dispute settlement: New problems and techniques, Hart Publishing, Oxford. Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. (1899). Available at: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000001-0230.pdf [accessed: 8th December 2016] Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. (1907). Available at: https://cil.nus.edu.sg/rp/il/pdf/1907%20The%20Hague%20Convention%20for%20the%20Pacific%20Settlement%20of%20International%20Disputes-pdf.pdf [accessed: 8th December 2016] Kohen, Marcelo.(2013). Interaction between diplomatic and judicial means at the initiation of proceedings. In: De Chazournes, Laurence Boisson, Kohen, Marcelo and Vinũales, Jorge E. (eds.). Diplomatic and judicial means of dispute settlement. MartinusNijhoff, Leiden, Boston. Lapidoth, Ruth. Some reflections on peaceful means for the settlement of inter-state disputes. Georgetown University Law Center. Available at: http://ciwr.ucanr.edu/files/186748.pdf [accessed: 5th December 2016] Merrills, J.G. (2011). International dispute settlement. 5th ed. Cambridge University Press. Murithi, Tim. (2015).The failure of the UN Security Council in creating the framework conditions for mediation. Paper presented at the International Mediation Conference, 2-4 June 2015, University of Pretoria, South Africa, Centre for Mediation, Department for Political Sciences. Murphy, Sean D. (2002). United States practice in International Law. Volume 1: 1999-2001. Cambridge University Press. Peck, Connie. (1996). The United Nations as a dispute settlement system: improving mechanisms for the prevention and resolution of conflict. Kluwer Law International, The Hague. Petersman, Ernst-Ulrich. (2004). Justice as Conflict resolution: proliferation, fragmentation and decentralization of dispute settlement in international trade. EUI Working Paper LAW No.2004/10. European University Institute, Florence, Department of Law. Palmer, Geoffrey. (2012). Perspectives on international dispute settlement from a participant, VUWLR, Vol.43. Peters, Anne. (2003). International dispute settlement: a network of cooperational duties. EJIL, Vol.14, No.1: 1-34. Rosenne, Shabtai. (2006). The law and practice of the International Court of Justice 1920-2005. 4th ed. MartinusNijhoft, Leiden. Sander, Frank E.A. (2014). Alternative dispute resolution in the United States: An overview. In: Betancourt, Julio Cesar, and Crook, Jason A. (eds.) ADR, Arbitration, and Mediation: A collection of essays. CIArb Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Author House UK. Simmonds, Kenneth R. (1987). Public International Arbitration – Roundtable, 22 Texas International Law Journal. Strutt, Keith. (2014). Mediation vs. negotiation. The Driver Trett Digest. Driver Group, London. Available at: https://www.driver-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BYTE-9-MEDIATION-VS-NEGOTIATION.pdf [accessed: 5th December 2016] Ury,William, Brett, Jeanne M., Goldberg, Stephen B. (1988). Getting disputes resolved: designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. Jossey-Bass. University of Michigan. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1155 UNTS 331. 8ILM 679. (1969). Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201155/volume-1155-I-18232-English.pdf [accessed: 10th December 2016] Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties 1946 UNTS 3. (1978). Available at:http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_2_1978.pdf [accessed: 10th December 2016]
Konular Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yazar: Elena Temelkovska-Anevska
E-posta: e.temelkovska@gmail.com
Ülke: Macedonia


Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { ijasos309310, journal = {International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences}, issn = {}, address = {OCERINT International Organization Center of Academic Research}, year = {2017}, volume = {3}, pages = {6 - 20}, doi = {10.18769/ijasos.309310}, title = {PEACEFUL MEANS FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER-STATE DISPUTES: REFLECTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES}, language = {en}, key = {cite}, author = {Temelkovska-Anevska, Elena} }
APA Temelkovska-Anevska, E . (2017). PEACEFUL MEANS FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER-STATE DISPUTES: REFLECTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES. International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 3 (7), 6-20. DOI: 10.18769/ijasos.309310
MLA Temelkovska-Anevska, E . "PEACEFUL MEANS FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER-STATE DISPUTES: REFLECTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES". International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences 3 (2017): 6-20 <http://ijasos.ocerintjournals.org/issue/28912/309310>
Chicago Temelkovska-Anevska, E . "PEACEFUL MEANS FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER-STATE DISPUTES: REFLECTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES". International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences 3 (2017): 6-20
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - PEACEFUL MEANS FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER-STATE DISPUTES: REFLECTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES AU - Elena Temelkovska-Anevska Y1 - 2017 PY - 2017 N1 - doi: 10.18769/ijasos.309310 DO - 10.18769/ijasos.309310 T2 - International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 6 EP - 20 VL - 3 IS - 7 SN - -2411-183X M3 - doi: 10.18769/ijasos.309310 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.18769/ijasos.309310 Y2 - 2017 ER -
EndNote %0 International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences PEACEFUL MEANS FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER-STATE DISPUTES: REFLECTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES %A Elena Temelkovska-Anevska %T PEACEFUL MEANS FOR SETTLEMENT OF INTER-STATE DISPUTES: REFLECTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES %D 2017 %J International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences %P -2411-183X %V 3 %N 7 %R doi: 10.18769/ijasos.309310 %U 10.18769/ijasos.309310