Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of International Adjudication in Conflict Resolution and Transformation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Difficult Task of Peace

  • 491 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter explores the positive role that international adjudication can play in "conflict resolution" (and transformation) between parties by distinguishing it from the traditional role played by adjudication in "dispute settlement". Through an exploration of transdisciplinary literature, legal instruments, and jurisprudence, it distinguishes between “conflict” and “dispute”, “resolution” and “settlement”, and “conflict resolution” and “dispute settlement”, and suggests that despite pervasive employment of these terms interchangeably by scholars, such teleological distinctions not only have firm theoretical grounding but are essential for structured analysis of adjudication so as to devise appropriate processes for conflict resolution and transformation. It challenges the common assumption that adversarial litigation is counter-productive or inimical to conflict resolution and transformation under all circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For instance, Article 36(3) of the UN Charter stipulates that “In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court”.

  2. 2.

    For instance, see UNCLOS—Section 5, Articles 186–191; Section 6, Articles 264–265; Part XV, Sections 1, 2 and 3, Articles 279–299.

  3. 3.

    In addition to cases discussed in this Section, see, for instance, Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Preliminary Objections) [1957] ICJ Rep 125f, 148–149; Northern Cameroons (Preliminary Objections) [1963] ICJ Rep 15f, 27; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) [1978] ICJ Rep 3f, 12–13; East Timor (Portugal v Australia) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1995] ICJ Rep 90f, 99; Certain Property (Leichtenstein v Germany) (Preliminary Objections, Judgement) [2005] ICJ Rep 6f, 18, para. 24.

  4. 4.

    “Dispute” is understood to arise when a Party alleges violation of its rights or of the obligations of another party under any WTO Agreement. See, DSU Article 7, with respect to the terms of reference of the Panels. It is also noteworthy that in terms of DSU Article 3(8), “in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment. This means that there is normally a presumption that a breach of the rules has an adverse impact on other Members parties to that covered agreement, and in such cases, it shall be up to the Member against whom the complaint has been brought to rebut the charge”.

  5. 5.

    Whether or not “transformation” of conflicts is considered separate or included in “resolution” does not affect the conclusion that both focus on transforming relationships.

  6. 6.

    See, European Convention on Human Rights, Article 35, with respect to the European Court of Human Rights.

  7. 7.

    See, American Convention on Human Rights, Article 44, with respect to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

  8. 8.

    See, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 55, with respect to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights.

  9. 9.

    Under the Inter-American system, only the Inter-American Commission can bring “cases” before the Inter-American Court on behalf of the victims; See, American Convention on Human Rights, Article 61. Under the African system, “cases” can be brought directly by victims before the African Court against those States that have submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction. See, Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Articles 6, 8.

  10. 10.

    See, European Convention on Human Rights, Article 34, with respect to the European Court of Human Rights; See, American Convention on Human Rights, Article 61, with respect to the Inter-American Court; With respect to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, see Protocol, Article 6. But, also see, Article 3 of the Protocol where the jurisdiction of the Court extends to all “cases and disputes”.

  11. 11.

    With respect to the African Commission on Human Rights, see African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 47; With respect to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, see Article 45 of the American Convention.

  12. 12.

    Such references are with respect to friendly/amicable settlement between parties. See, American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 48, 49, 50; In the context of Inter-State cases under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, see Article 48; Also, see Article 9 of the Protocol to the African Charter; Also, see Article 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, references are also made to the term in relation to jurisdiction of regional courts in instances where the matter is pending for “settlement” elsewhere. See, Article 46(c) of the American Convention; and Articles 2(b), 55 of the European Convention.

  13. 13.

    Article 94 of the UN Charter stipulates that “If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment”.

References

  • Abdalla, Amr. 2016. C. R. SIPPABIO—A Model for Conflict Analysis. https://www.academia.edu/28362021/C._R._SIPPABIO-_A_Model_for_Conflict_Analysis.

  • Abi-Saab, George. 2013. Comments on Presentation by David Unterhalter. In International Dispute Settlement: Room for Innovations? ed. Rüdiger Wolfrum and Ina Gätzschmann, 13–22. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey) (Judgment). 1978. ICJ Rep 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) (Preliminary Objections, Judgment). [2016] ICJ Rep (I), p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aluko, Benjamin, and Nneamaka Obodo. 2018. International Court of Justice Judgement on the Nigeria-Cameroon Borderland Conflict: Implications on Bakassi People. KIU Journal of Humanities 3 (3): 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation) (Preliminary Objections, Judgment). [2011] ICJ Rep (I), p. 84

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, Joerome, and Joseph Barrett. 2004. A History of Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Story of a Political, Social and Cultural Movement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, Kenneth. 1990. Three Faces of Power. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie, Ian. 2009. The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. Chinese Journal of International Law 8 (2): 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, John. 1990a. Conflict: Human Needs Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990b. Conflict: Resolution & Provention. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Conflict Resolution as a Political Philosophy. In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application, ed. Dennis Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe, 55–64. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Conflict Resolution: Towards Problem Solving. Peace and Conflict Studies 4 (2): Article 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. Conflict Provention as a Political System. International Journal of Peace Studies. http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol6_1/Burton2.htm.

  • Burton, John, and Frank Dukes. 1990. Conflict: Practices in Management, Settlement & Resolution. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, Sean, and Jessica Senehi. 2009. Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Multi-Discipline: A Work in Progress. In Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, ed. Dennis Sandole, Sean Byrne, Ingrid Sandole-Staroste, and Jessica Senehi, 1–16. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, David, Paulo Novais, and Jose Neves. 2014. Conflict Resolution and its Context: From the Analysis of Behavioural Patterns to Efficient Decision-Making. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya. 2010. 276/2003, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 4 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice. 1945. 1 UNTS XVI. United Nations, October 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, R.R., and A.V. Lowe. 1999. The Law of the Sea. New York: Juris Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, John, and Vaughan Lowe. 1999. The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions and Procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costintino, Cathy, and Christina Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to Creating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, Morton. 1949. A Theory of Cooperation and Competition. Human Relations 2: 129–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1973. The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Cooperation and Competition. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, ed. Morton Deutsch, Peter Coleman, and Eric Marc, 23–42. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, Morton, and Peter Coleman. 2000. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC—Bananas III (Article 21.5—Ecuador II)/EC—Bananas III (Article 21.5—US). 2008. Report of the Appellate Body, World Trade Organization, WT/DS27/AB/RW2/ECU and WT/DS27/AB/RW/USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESCR-NET. 2018. The Endorois Case. June 5. https://www.escr-net.org/news/2018/endorois-case.

  • Fisher, Ronald. 2009. Interactive Conflict Resolution: Dialogue, Conflict Analysis and Problemsolving. In Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, ed. Dennis Sandole, Sean Byrne, Ingrid Sandole-Staroste, and Jessica Senehi. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, Duncan, Matthew Saul, and Nigel White. 2010. International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) (Judgment). 1997. ICJ Rep 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallant, Michelle. 2009. Law and Legal Process in Resolving International Conflicts. In Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, ed. Dennis Sandole, Sean Byrne, Ingrid Sandole-Staroste, and Jessica Senehi, 396–406. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, Johan. 1969. Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research 6 (3): 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy. 1928. Adopted in Paris, August 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, E.E. 2000. Attorney’s Negotiation Strategies in Mediation: Business as Usual? Mediation Quarterly 17: 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haig, David. 2010. Transfers and Transitions: Parent Offspring Conflict, Genomic Imprinting, and the Evolution of Human Life History. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 1731–1735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, Rosalyn. 1999. Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 9 December 1999, No. 38349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów) [Germany v. Poland], Judgment. 1927. P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, John. 2004. International Law Status of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports: Obligation to Comply or Option to “Buy Out”? American Journal of International Law 98: 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) (Provisional Measures). 2017. ICJ Rep, 231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawaguchi, Kazuko Hirose. 2003. A Social Theory of International Law: International Relations as a Complex System. Leiden: Springer-Science+Business Media B.V.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Preliminary Objections, Judgment). 1998. ICJ Rep 275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, John Paul. 2003. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. New York: Good Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Judgment. 1924. P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrills, J.G. 2003. The Meaning of Dispute Settlement. In International Law, ed. Malcolm Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. International Dispute Settlement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miall, Hugh. 2004. Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task. In Transforming Ethnopolitical Conflict, ed. A. Austin, M. Fischer, and N. Ropers, 67–89. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment). 1984. ICJ Reports, p. 392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. 2014. Official Spokesperson’s Response to a Question on the Award of the Tribunal on the Maritime Boundary Arbitration between India and Bangladesh, July 8. https://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/23575/Official+Spokespersons+response+to+a+question+on+the+award+of+the+Tribunal+on+the+Maritime+Boundary+Arbitration+between+India+and+Bangladesh.

  • Mitchell, Christopher. 1981. The Structure of International Conflict. London: Macmillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mwangi, Catherine. 2017. The Role of International Law in Conflict Resolution: A Compliance Case Study of the Bakassi Peninsula and China vs. Philippine Case. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research 5 (2): 763–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • North Sea Continental Shelf (Judgement). 1969. ICJ Rep 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) (Judgment). 1974. ICJ Rep 457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom) (Preliminary Objections, Judgement). 2016. ICJ Rep 833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onuma, Yasuaki. 2017. Conflict Resolution (and Dispute Settlement) and International Law. In International Law in a Transcivilizational World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pemmaraju, Srinivasa Rao. 2016. The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Assessment of the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility. Chinese Journal of International Law 15 (2): 265–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • People’s Republic of Bangladesh v. Republic of India (Award). 2014. Permanent Court of Arbitration, July 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, Dean, Jeffrey Rubin, and Sung Hee Kim. 1994. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsbotham, Oliver, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall. 2017. Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts. 4th ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman, Michael. 2012. The Diversity of Contemporary International Dispute Resolution: Functions and Policies. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 3 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Republic of Philippines v. The People’s Republic of China (Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility). Permanent Court of Arbitration, Case No. 2013-19, 29 October 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scovazzi, Tullio. 1988. Coastal State Practice in the Exclusive Economic Zone: The Right of Foreign States to Use this Zone. In The Law of the Sea: What Lies Ahead?, 310–337. Law of the Sea Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) (Preliminary Objections, Judgment). 1962. ICJ Rep 319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangler, Brad, and Heidi Burgess. 2003. Conflicts and Disputes. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflicts-disputes.

  • Subedi, Surya. 2010. The WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism as a New Technique for Settling Disputes in International Law. In International Law and Dispute Settlement: New Problems and Techniques, ed. Duncan French, Matthew Saul, and Nigel White, 173–190. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat, Christian. 2012a. Article 2(3). Vol. 1. In The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, ed. Bruno Simma, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Georg Nolte, and Andreas Paulus, 181–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012b. Article 33. Vol. 1. In Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, ed. Bruno Simma, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Georg Nolte, and Andreas Paulus, 1068–1085. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2 to the Agreement Establishing the WTO, 15 April 1994, United Nations Treaty Series, 1869: 401–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 1982. UNTS Vol. 1833, p. 3. United Nations, December 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council. 2015. Identical Letters Dated 17 June 2015 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council, A/70/95—S/2015/446, 17 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (Judgment). 1980. ICJ Rep 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNOWAS. 2019. Cameroon Nigeria Mixed Commission. https://unowas.unmissions.org/cameroon-nigeria-mixed-commission.

  • UPEACE. 2017. Global Perspectives on Conflict Resolution: Emerging Conflicts and Rethinking Innovative Solutions. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Occasion of the 10th Anniversary of the Asian Peacebuilders Programme. Ciudad Colon, Costa Rica: UPEACE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Väyrynen, Raimo. 1991. New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, A. Mark. 2016. Failings of the International Court of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilmot, William, and Joyce Hocker. 1998. Interpersonal Conflict. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum, Rudiger. 2013. Advisory Opinions: Are they a Suitable Alternative for the Settlement of International Disputes? In International Dispute Settlement: Room for Innovations? ed. Rüdiger Wolfrum and Ina Gätzschmann, 35–68. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolford, Andrew, and R.S. Ratner. 2009. Mediation Frames/Justice Games. In Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, ed. Dennis Sandole, Sean Byrne, Ingrid Sandole-Staroste, and Jessica Senehi. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO. 2019. Chronological List of Disputes Cases. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm.

  • Yarn, Douglas. 1999. Conflict. In Dictionary of Conflict Resolution, vol. 115. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyberi, Gentian. 2015. The Role and Contribution of International Courts in Furthering Peace as an Essential Community Interest. In Promoting Peace Through International Law, ed. Cecilia Bailliet and Kjetil Mujezinović Larsen, 342–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Law, University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica

    Mihir Kanade

Authors
  1. Mihir Kanade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mihir Kanade .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica

    Francisco Rojas Aravena

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kanade, M. (2020). Role of International Adjudication in Conflict Resolution and Transformation. In: Rojas Aravena, F. (eds) The Difficult Task of Peace. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21974-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation