Author : Asst. Lec. Luqman Mohammed Essa
First edition “2022” – Book: – The Settlement of International disputes by Peaceful Means: Issues and Challenges
All rights reserved to the Democratic Arab Center – Germany – Berlin. Reproduction of this book or any part of it, or storing it in the scope of retrieving or transmitting the information in any form, without the prior written permission of the publisher, is not permitted.
The more important issue of our time is the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. While, amongst other issues, human rights, the climate as well as financial and economic issues represent obstacles that need to be resolved if our world is to have a sustainability, the challenges that these subjects pose will always produce an accumulation of international conflicts. That use of violence in some conflicts, however, may lead to the destruction of civilization. Though without these atomic nightmares it’s also evident that the callousness of modern war would be that it inflicts an unparalleled amount of destruction. However, putting aside for a moment the awful dangers associated with aggression, a recurrent inability to settle disputes leads just to needless initiative however animosity for governments, as for individuals. In this research, I have tried to show how well the intellect as well as resourcefulness that has created modern arms has also established dispute resolution strategies which can make use of violence not necessary.
It is perhaps impossible to think that a time will come when all international conflicts will be settled by amicable means. Meanwhile the current situation could and should be changed. The devices are already available to us. Today, it’s the moral obligation of governments, advisors and people to see that they are being used more than before. Of course the main question is: how should one select the appropriate means of dispute resolution? Maybe it is worth emphasizing those observations without attempting to answer the question.
International law demands that conflicts be resolved by peacefully, nevertheless, there is no requirement to adhere to a specific mechanism whenever the sides agreed otherwise. Nations may choose within methods of diplomatic or judicial response. The very first ones provide a whole gamut of techniques, with it by not always clear-cut distinctions between them. That distinguishes all diplomatic means is the absence of the report’s enforceable impact that can be arranged at the end of this process, and the ability to take all applicable situations into account. According to their own definition, diplomatic means are more cooperative and less antagonistic than judgment.
While submitting to arbitration or a court of law is discretionary, the judgment is binding and it has to be enforced when the tribunal has reached a decision. Arbitration is much more versatile and could be better suited to the preferences of the Nations parties to the conflict, particularly as concerning arbitrator choice as well as the rules to be implemented. Obviously, the proceedings before the International Court are much more formal, international law must be implemented as well as the process laid down in the Law and the Rules of Procedure must be observed, however with the prospect of an adjudication by a tribunal, the participants may exert some control on the appointment of the judges who are to deal with the issue.
History tells that most dispute settlement incidents involved mediation, meditations or arbitration’s,but on the whole the number of cases on The Hague Court’s list is also very remarkable. What, then, are the conditions to be addressed when determining which approach to prefer? We must first explain whether we should be concerned with a conflict which already exists or one that can still be resolved by preventive measures. Secondly, what’s the essence of the conflict-whether it is a legal or political one dispute, therefore, the stakeholders are at odds over their current rights or about adjustments to be made in those rights. Thirdly, do the sides differ on matters of fact or law, or even both?
Fourthly, is the conflict primarily technical in nature? Fifth, account must be taken of the common relationships between the parties. Sixth, will this conflict concern a Country’s crucial interests?
In fact, many Nations would be hesitant to refer such a conflict to mandatory adjudication by third parties. The range of options open to the stakeholders mean there is still a way of resolving a conflict peacefully wherever there is a willingness.
Publisher – Democratic Arab Center – Germany – Berlin