International Dispute Settlement : An Inevitable Element Of International Relations

The United Nations fights for humanitarian issues through the use of peaceful dialogue between countries and leaders. The UN's powers of authorising peacekeeping, sanctions and force when absolutely necessary is given to it by the UN charter, an international treaty. They are limited by the fact that they cannot make their resolutions and policies the law, however the important conversations they start and ideas that are shared are influential upon the many powerful leaders who choose to listen.

Throughout this course thus far we have generically discussed the various models of mediation(in particular facilitative),skills and tasks needed by a mediator to conduct a successful mediation. The facilitative approach we have been studying, via theory and in-class exercises has afford us some great insight into mediating into a variety of domestic conflicts from family to business disputes.However,there is a whole other subfield in mediation ,which we have not discussed and that is international mediation. International mediation also has a variety of forms. Cases for mediation can range from a conflict between two states, an ethnic conflict that, has bought violence within a particular state, or perhaps a business dispute between

In Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, it requires that all members "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. Most importantly, member states agree to a broad prohibition against use of force: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from 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.'' These words

The UN Charter was created after the Second World War to prevent future wars and to promote international peace and security. It states that a nation may only use force if it is an act of self defense to protect its own country or if it gets approval from the UNSC (United Nations Security Council). If a country is a part of the UN, a violation of the UN charter is a violation

No nation is ever merely able to act at its people’s whim; a system of alliances and treaties has formed over the course of history, and breaking any of those agreements can mean anything from a small conflict to a large-scale war. One such

Misunderstandings arise looking at Article 51 in international law that gives the right to self- defence. It is debatable as to whether this is an explicit right, only exercisable in response to armed attack or whether it allows force in response to potential attacks. Article 2(4) of the UN charter states that the use of force by states is banned however this has not stopped over one hundred large conflicts since 1945. States generally use international law as an excuse and form of justification for their actions (Evans, 2006: 589). Article 2(4) declares “all members shall abstain in their international relations from 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 UN.” Yet the main exception is self- defence (Evans, 2006: 598). The article does not make clear what constitutes self- defence. How is a state to distinguish self-defense from hegemonic desires?

The United States needs to apply the instruments of power (IOP) by first addressing what are available to them. The IOPs available are the diplomatic, military, economic and informational. Each has its own significant impact on arbitration possibilities. Utilizing the diplomatic IOP is the most appropriate way when attempting to negotiate a constructive end result with another country, however, is not always a practical opportunity, especially during times of political turmoil, or when there is no indication of reaching a common goal. It is primarily controlled by the state, not by the civilians. The diplomatic IOP relies on cooperation and persuasion and is reluctant to force. Normally, it has a strong military backing. Another IOP

Nevertheless, certain categories of ADR have been named and understood to involve the use of particular means and methods to produce the desired end result. These procedures include: negotiation, mediation, arbitration, med-arb, early neutral evaluation, settlement conference and conciliation to name a few. However this essay will concentrate on mediation as a form of alternative dispute resolution.

Well-organized structure. There is clear defined stages and the fixed timetable to follow during the dispute settlement procedure. This dispute settlement system indeed become more effective than that of GATT 1947 (Food Fight n.d.), which is capable of dealing with complicated cases.

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an

The World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Dispute Settlement System and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) are two of the most widely used methods of international dispute settlement.

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.

However resolving international commercial disputes via litigation by national courts entailed many complications. For instance host state may come up with legislations or policies which may affect the business and prevent the investor from getting any remedy for damages suffered; the country may not have strong and update laws to protect the investments. Also the adversarial nature of the litigation may not help to maintain good business relationship. As such arbitration which is consensual, flexible, informal, binding and enforceable can be considered as a better form of dispute resolution. The Convention on Peaceful Resolution of International Dispute signed in 1907 provided for conclusion of Bilateral Arbitration Treaties however there was no direct cause of action by the foreign national which had suffered damages. In 1965 there was a major reform by the creation of ICSID mechanism after the conclusion of Washington Convention. As a result many states entered into Bilateral Investment Treaties ‘BITS’ to promote and protect investment. As per the treaties disputes were submitted to International arbitration which were completely delocalised and Investors could seek remedy

Malaysia’s approach on resolving the SCS disputes works through diplomacy, which consists of peaceful resolutions, friendly relationship, stronger defense capabilities, and stronger economic ties. Against this backdrop, this paper will briefly show that Malaysia is committed to resolving the SCS disputes using diplomacy at all means in order to keep a harmonious environment amongst claimants and its users.