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

 

Elena Temelkovska-Anevska

PhD., Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University “St. Clement of Ohrid”- Bitola, MACEDONIA

e.temelkovska@gmail.com

 

Abstract

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.

Keywords: dispute, dispute settlement, peaceful means, United Nations..