UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES PANJAB

UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

TOPIC:

PEACEFUL SETTLEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL

DISPUTES

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Deveshi Harjani Mr. Jatinder Mann
B.A.LLB (Hons)
 INTRODUCTION
International relations and disputes are closely related. These conflicts are becoming less and
less about merely states against other parties, such as international organizations and other
non-state players, as well as between these actors themselves. The United Nations (UN)
Charter is significant in this sense, especially when it comes to disputes between states.
According to Article 2(3) of the UN Charter, all Member States must use peaceful measures
to resolve their international disputes so as not to jeopardize global justice, security, or peace.
The UN General Assembly's resolution (Res. 37/10), known as the Manila Declaration on the
Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, reiterated this position in 1982.
The goal of international law has always been to provide the procedures and strategies that
would allow national disputes to be resolved amicably and on the basis of justice. In this
sense, treaties and practices that create laws serve as some of the foundation for international
law. If a wrong has been committed by one state, the disagreement must be between nations
to qualify as an international dispute; yet, it does not officially exist until the aggrieved
national's country's government takes up the issue. The aggrieved nation must then take some
sort of action as a result of the dispute.

Extra-Judicial Peaceful Means

In the extra-judicial settlement, a dispute is settled by means of an agreement between the
disputant parties.

• NEGOTIATION
This is thought to be the earliest and most basic method of resolving conflicts. Negotiations
are the processes by which disputing parties resolve their differences through discussion or
by making adjustments to one another. Negotiation is defined by the dictionary as a
conversation with the goal of coming to a consensus. Therefore, when there is a
disagreement, a peaceful compromise can be reached through the negotiating process. The
heads of state, their delegates, or diplomatic officials may conduct this negotiation process.
Yet, the degree to which one party's statements are accepted by the other determines how
successful this strategy will be. But it also has certain drawbacks. Several times, it has been
observed, that it is extremely difficult to arrive at a conclusion

• MEDIATION
The mediator is the third party that is involved. It is always expected of the mediator to act
impartially and justly. Throughout the mediation process, the mediator contributes to the
conversation, shares his opinions, and makes recommendations for settling the conflict. Since
he might even assist in writing the agreement that embodies the settlement that is achieved,
the mediator is typically recognized for resolving conflicts.

A well-known instance of mediation occurred when Soviet Premier Kosygin signed the
Tashkent Agreement in 1966 to end the conflict between India and Pakistan.
 • GOOD OFFICES
If the mediator must be present during the mediation process, In essence, good offices refer to
the actions of a third party who either sets up a meeting between the disputing parties or takes
other actions that facilitate the possibility of a peaceful resolution. The fact that the third
party is not actively involved in this process should be noted. The third party offers their
good offices for the peaceful settlement of disputes when the parties have not been able to
reach an agreement through negotiation. The third party can no longer actively intervene once
the disputing parties are housed together. Although good offices are not mentioned in
Paragraph 1 of Article 33 as a method of dispute resolution, the paragraph may not be
interpreted as exhaustive.

• CONCILIATION
Conciliation is the procedure wherein a Commission or Committee is appointed, the dispute
is referred to them, and they are then required to gather information, compile a report, and
recommend a resolution. Here, an attempt is made to reach a peaceful resolution and sign a
contract, but it's crucial to remember that the commission's recommendations are never
legally enforceable against the parties involved. This approach is distinct in its own right and
is not like mediation, inquiry, or arbitration in any way. In mediation, a third party
participates in meetings with the parties to the dispute and proposals for a settlement are
made once the facts about the dispute have been determined. Furthermore, unlike in
conciliation, the mediator is not responsible for learning the details of the case.

• ARBITRATION
The process of resolving disputes through the assistance, counsel, and recommendation of a
third party known as an arbitrator is known as arbitration. "A procedure for the settlement of
disputes between states by a binding award on the basis of law and as a result of a voluntarily
accepted undertaking," is how the International Law Commission describes it. International
arbitration is sometimes referred to as a hybrid form of international dispute resolution due to
its propensity to combine common law and civil law procedures. In the Qatar v. Bahrain case,
the International Court of Justice declared that, for the purposes of international law, "the
settlement of disputes between states by judges of their own choice" is what is typically
meant to be meant by the word arbitration.

• INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

The International Court of Justice is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands. It was
established in San Francisco on June 26, 1945. Article 34, paragraph 1 was originally
intended to prevent private parties from filing lawsuits against States in the Permanent Court
of Justice. Nonetheless, a 1929 proposal calling for an amendment to Article 34 was
presented to the Committee of Jurists. They can currently request an advisory opinion even
though they still do not have access to the Court in contentious cases.
One of the recognized forerunners of the ICJ is the Permanent Court of International Justice.
This implies that the Permanent Court of International Justice was responsible for resolving
party disputes prior to the establishment of the International Court of Justice. The willingness
of the parties concerned is the only factor determining its jurisdiction. This is frequently
referred to as the judicial method of resolving a dispute, along with arbitration. Before the
cases can be heard in the ICJ, the parties must consent. The arbitrators are chosen by the
parties themselves, although the court's judges are chosen by the UN Security Council and
General Assembly.

The International Court of Justice decides cases that are presented to it in one of three ways:

1. Parties are free to resolve their differences on their own, and the state or the court may
withdraw cases or render a decision.
2. The International Court of Justice bases its decisions and decisions on international
laws.
3. Writing that is done by experts is also referred to.

It is well known that the ICJ handles disputes between sovereign states as its main duty.
Parties to the dispute that is brought before it may only be States. The Kulbhushan Jadav case
was recently decided by the International Court of Justice. In this instance, the disputing
parties were Pakistan and India.

CONCLUSION
In summary, it is critical to realize that order and security have always been central to man's
long march from cave to computer and from the age of stones to the modern world. We must
remember that until nations as distinct entities and their citizens are unwilling to resolve the
conflict, there will be no international peace. Just as a conflict between nations spreads many
times more widely than a conflict between individuals, so too does its resultant expansion
reach many times greater heights than does a conflict between individuals. As a result, each
nation should use diplomatic and peaceful methods to end all disputes.