Negotiation:
Negotiation is the most basic and widely used method of resolving disputes. It involves direct
discussions between the concerned parties without third-party involvement. It helps clarify
misunderstandings and often serves as a first step before other dispute resolution methods. Negotiation
works best when there is mutual goodwill, flexibility, and understanding. However, it can fail due to
public hostility, political opposition, or mistrust.
In some cases, international agreements, like the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Article
283), legally require parties to negotiate disputes in good faith. Courts, such as in the North Sea
Continental Shelf and German External Debts cases, have stressed that negotiations must be genuine
and aim at reaching an agreement—not just a formality.
Furthermore, Article 33 of the UN Charter obliges parties in serious disputes that threaten peace to first
seek peaceful solutions through negotiation, inquiry, or mediation before moving to other methods.
Good offices and mediation are peaceful methods of dispute resolution that involve a third party—
which may be an individual, a state, a group of states, or an international organization—helping
opposing parties reach a settlement. Unlike arbitration or adjudication, these methods do not impose
decisions but help the parties find a mutually acceptable solution.
Goods offices and mediation:
Good offices: The third party encourages the disputing sides to start negotiations.
Mediation: The third party actively participates in discussions, proposes solutions, and works to
reconcile the opposing views.
Although these two approaches are technically different, they often overlap in practice. Historical
examples include:
The US President's role in ending the Russo-Japanese War (1906).
The USSR’s assistance in resolving the India-Pakistan conflict (1965).
The UN Secretary-General can also provide good offices, as seen in the 1988 Geneva Agreements on
Afghanistan. He may act independently or in cooperation with regional organizations.
The Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) established that good offices and mediation can be offered
even during war and should not be considered unfriendly. These processes are non-binding, but
countries in serious conflict are encouraged to use them before resorting to war, consistent with the UN
Charter on the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Inquiry:
Commissions of inquiry are used when disputes arise due to disagreements over facts. This method
involves appointing neutral and trustworthy observers to investigate and clarify the disputed facts. It is
most useful in international disputes where vital interests or national honor are not at stake, and where
the conflict is based on genuine factual uncertainty.
The idea was first introduced at the Hague Conference of 1899, as an alternative to arbitration. A
notable success was the Dogger Bank incident (1904), where Russian ships mistakenly attacked British
fishing vessels. An international inquiry commission investigated the event and helped bring about a
peaceful resolution, encouraging further development of the process at the 1907 Hague Conference.
Between 1913 and 1940, the United States signed 48 bilateral treaties (known as the Bryan Treaties)
that included provisions for permanent inquiry commissions. However, inquiries under the 1907 Hague
Convention have rarely been used in practice.
Still, the inquiry method has gained importance within UN frameworks and specialized agencies, often
as part of broader fact-finding missions. Despite this, its use as a standalone method of dispute
settlement has declined. Many disputes involve issues that go beyond factual clarification, and some
states avoid inquiries due to their third-party nature.
Concillation:
Conciliation is a method of dispute resolution that involves a third-party conducting an investigation into
the dispute and then issuing a non-binding report with suggested solutions. It combines elements of
both inquiry and mediation and originally developed from treaties that created permanent inquiry
commissions. Unlike arbitration, conciliation does not result in binding decisions.
The process gained popularity between 1920 and 1938, with many treaties supporting its use. However,
it has not been used as widely as expected. Despite this, conciliation remains useful due to its flexibility.
It can clarify facts, stimulate negotiations, and encourage parties to consider creative solutions.
Rules on conciliation were laid down in the 1928 General Act on the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes (revised in 1949), recognizing its dual function of inquiry and mediation. Many multilateral
treaties provide for conciliation, such as:
• 1948 American Treaty of Pacific Settlement
• 1957 European Convention on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
•1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
•1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
And several others across regions and topics.
A practical example is the Iceland–Norway dispute over the continental shelf between Iceland and Jan
Mayen island. A Conciliation Commission was formed, whose non-binding report proposed a joint
development zone, considering economic, legal, and political factors. This demonstrated the creative
and flexible nature of conciliation—offering outcomes that may not be possible through legal
adjudication.
Conciliation has also been used outside treaty frameworks. For instance, the UN set up conciliation
commissions such as:
• The Conciliation Commission for Palestine (1948) under General Assembly Resolution 194.
• The Conciliation Commission for the Congo (1960) under Resolution 1474.
