Law Optional (Peaceful Settlement of Disputes ) by Rajnish Jindal

Model Answer

Question #1. What is the difference between legal and political dispute? While mentioning provisions of U.N. Charter related to peaceful means of settlement of dispute, discuss the difference between Negotiation and Mediation.

Ans.

The distinction between legal and political disputes  is important  because,  in International  law,  the  procedure for  the settlement of disputes has  been  laid  down for  only legal  disputes.  In the case concerning Border  and Transborder Armed Action (Nicaragua  v. Honduras),the Court stated  that the  Court is  only  concerned with cases  involving with  cases  involving  a legal dispute,  in the sense of a  dispute capable  of being  settled by the application of  principles and  rules  of International  law. Para 2 of  Article 36 of  the  Statute  of International Court of Justice  uses  the  term “legal  disputes” in relation  to the  compulsory jurisdiction  of  the Court. It  is so  because,  perhaps,  the  judicial procedure  provided  by the  Court may  not  be suitable  for political  disputes.  If in any legal dispute,  political  aspects  are present,  the  Court  as a  judicial organ will  be  competent  to deal  with a legal  question  only,  and cannot  concern  itself  with the  political  motivation,  as  observed  by the  ICJ  in an  advisory  opinion  given  in Legality  of the Threat or  Use of  Nuclear Weapons  case. However, when  there  is a dispute between  two  states  on  the  question  as  to whether  a particular  dispute  is or  is not  a legal  dispute,  the dispute  is settled  by  the decision  of the  Court  in  accordance  with Article  36,  para 6 of  the Statute  which says  that  in  the event of  a dispute  as  to whether  the  Court  has  jurisdiction, the matter  shall  be settled  by the decision  of the  Court.

Historically,  International  Law  has  been  regarded  by  the  international  community  as  a  means  to  ensure  the establishment  and  preservation  of  world  peace  and  security.    The  maintenance  of  international  peace  and  security has  always  been  the  major  purpose  of  the  International  Law.   It  was  the  basic  objective  behind  the  creation  of  the League  of  Nations  in  1919  and  the  United  Nations  in  1945.  Since  the  direct  cause  of  war  and  violence  is  always  a dispute  between  States,  it  is  therefore  in  the  interest  of  peace  and  security  that  disputes  should  be  settled.    Methods and  procedures  for  the  peaceful  (pacific)  settlement  of  disputes  have  been  made  available  in  the  International  Law. States  have  concluded  a  great  number  of  multilateral  treaties  aiming  at  the  peaceful  settlement  of  their  disputes  and differences.    The  most  important  treaties  are  the  1899  Hague  Convention  for  the  Pacific  Settlement  of  International Disputes  which  was  revised  by  the  Second  Hague  Peace  Conference  in  1907,  and  the  1928  General  Act  for  the Pacific  Settlement  of  Disputes  which  was  concluded  under  the  auspices  of  the  League  of  Nations.  Furthermore, there  are  regional  agreements,  such  as  the  1948  American  Treaty  on  Pacific  Settlement,  the  1957  European Convention  for  the  Peaceful  Settlement  of  Disputes,  and  the  1964  Protocol  of  the  Commission  of  Mediation  and Arbitration  of  the  Organization  of  African  Unity.    In  addition  to  such  general  treaties  on  dispute  settlement,  there are  many  bilateral  and  multilateral  agreements  which  include  specific  clauses  related  to  dispute  settlement.  The Charter  of  the  United  Nations  devotes  Chapter  VI  to  the  methods  and  procedures  for  the  pacific  settlement  of disputes. Article  33, Paragraph  1  of  the  UN Charter  states  the  methods  for  the  pacific  settlement  of  disputes  as  the following:  negotiation,  enquiry,  mediation,  conciliation,  arbitration,  judicial  settlement,  and  resort  to  regional agencies  or  arrangements.    This  paragraph  obliges  States  parties  to  any  dispute,  the  continuance  of  which  is  likely  to endanger  the  maintenance  of  international  peace  and  security,  to  seek  a  solution  by  any  of  the  listed  methods  or other  peaceful  means  of  their  own  choice.     The  methods  of  peaceful  settlement  of  disputes  fall  into  three categories:  diplomatic,  adjudicative,  and  institutional  methods.    Diplomatic  methods  involve  attempts  to  settle disputes  either  by  the  parties  themselves  or  with  the  help  of  other  entities.    Adjudicative  methods  involve  the settlement  of  disputes  by  tribunals,  either  judicial  or  arbitral.    Institutional  methods  involve  the  resort  to  either  the United  Nations  or  regional  organizations  for  settlement  of  disputes.

Negotiation is the oldest, most common, and the simplest methods of settling international disputes. It is recognized by the great majority of treaties of pacific settlement as the first step towards the settlement of international disputes. Most of the treaties make a failure to settle a dispute by negotiation a condition precedent to compulsory arbitration or judicial settlement. It is, therefore, not surprising that negotiation comes first in the list of means of pacific settlement of disputes stipulated in Article 33(1) of the Charter of the United Nations.

Negotiation consists of discussions between the concerned parties with a view to understand the opposing positions and opinions and reconcile the differences. It is very suited to the clarification and elucidation of the opposing contentions. It is the most satisfactory means to settle disputes since it is a voluntary bilateral and self-help means; the parties are directly engaged in the process; intervention by any third party in the process is not necessary.

Negotiations, however, do not always succeed in reaching solutions to disputes or differences between the parties. Thus, third parties interventions are needed to help the parties in reaching a settlement to their disputes and differences; here comes the importance of the other diplomatic methods of dispute settlement.

Mediation, conciliation and good offices are three methods of peaceful settlement of disputes by which third parties seek to assist the parties to a dispute in reaching a settlement. All involve the intervention of a supposedly disinterested individual, State, commission, or organization to help the parties. When the parties are unwilling to negotiate, or fail to negotiate effectively, assistance by a third party through its mediation, conciliation, or good offices may be necessary to help in procuring a settlement. This assistance may be requested by one or both of the parties, or it may be voluntarily offered by a third party.

Although there is no distinction in the general features of mediation, conciliation, and good offices, a theoretical and practical distinction can be made among them according to the degree of third party participation, and the extent to which the disputants are obliged to accept the outcomes of the procedures.

Mediation is a process through which an outside party (third party) endeavours to bring the disputants together and assists them in reaching a settlement. The third party offers his assistance to the parties to a dispute. The consent of the disputants is not necessarily required initially, but no mediation proceedings can be commenced without their consent. The mediator actively and directly participates in the settlement itself.

Question #2. Discuss the merits and demerits of arbitration as a technique to settle international disputes. How has the international law regulated the recourse to arbitration by the disputing parties? Discuss with the help of some important arbitral awards.

Ans. Advantages of Arbitration

1. The parties to the dispute usually agree on the arbitrator, so the arbitrator will be someone that both sides have confidence will be impartial and fair.
2. The dispute will normally be resolved much sooner, as a date for the arbitration can usually be obtained a lot faster than a court date. In Virginia, a trial date is normally about twelve months from the date the lawsuit is filed.
3. Arbitration is usually a lot less expensive. Partly that is because the fee paid the arbitrator is a lot less than the expense of paying expert witnesses to come and testify at trial. (Most of the time the parties to arbitration split the arbitrator’s fee equally). There are also lower costs in preparing for the arbitration than there are in for preparing for a trial. Partly this is due to the fact that the rules of evidence are often more relaxed than in a trial, so that documents can be submitted in lieu of having a witness come to trial and testify. For instance, if a claimant has several doctors who are out-of-state, the cost of bringing them to trial or going out-of-state to take their depositions may be prohibitive for trial, but in arbitration you can usually use just their records and reports.
4. Unlike a trial, arbitration is essentially a private procedure, so that if the parties desire privacy then the dispute and the resolution can be kept confidential.
5. If arbitration is binding, there are very limited opportunities for either side to appeal, so the arbitration will be the end of the dispute. That gives finality to the arbitration award that is not often present with a trial decision.

Disadvantages of  Arbitration: 

1. There is  no right of  appeal even if the arbitrator makes a mistake of fact or law.   However,  there are  some limitations on that rule, the exact limitations are difficult to define, except in general terms, and are fact driven.
2. The arbitration process  may not be  fast and it may not  be inexpensive, particularly when there is  a panel of arbitrators.
3. Unknown bias and competency of the arbitrator unless the arbitration agreement set up the qualifications or the organization that administers  the arbitration, has  pre-qualified the arbitrator.

The standards used by an arbitrator are not clear

The PCA was the first permanent intergovernmental organisation to provide a forum for the resolution of international disputes through arbitration and other peaceful means. The PCA was established by the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, concluded at The Hague in 1899 during the first Hague Peace Conference. The Conference had been convened at the initiative of Czar Nicholas II of Russia “with the object of seeking the most objective means of ensuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and above all, of limiting the progressive development of existing armaments”.

Among the aims of the Conference had been the strengthening of systems of international dispute resolution, especially international arbitration. The delegates at the Conference were mindful that, during the previous one hundred years, there had been a number of successful international arbitrations, starting with the “Jay Treaty” Mixed Commissions at the end of the 18th century CE, and reaching a pinnacle with the Alabama arbitration in the beginning of the 1870s. In addition, the Institut de Droit International had adopted a code of procedure for arbitration in 1875.

This movement toward arbitration as a means of international dispute resolution was continued in 1899, and the most concrete achievement of the 1899 Conference was the establishment of the PCA as the first global mechanism for the settlement of disputes between states. Article 16 of the 1899 Convention recognised that “in questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions” arbitration is the “most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle”.

Accordingly, Article 20 of the 1899 Convention formally established the PCA, stating: “with the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the signatory Powers undertake to organize a Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible at all times and operating, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention”. The 1899 Convention was revised at the second Hague Peace Conference in 1907. Today the PCA provides services for the resolution of disputes involving various combinations of states, state entities, intergovernmental organisations, and private parties.

Cases

1. Cairn Energy PLC & Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India
2. Italy v. India (Enrica Lexie case)