It is fair to say that international law has always considered its fundamental purpose to be

the maintenance of peace. Although ethical preoccupations stimulated its development and
inform its growth, international law has historically been regarded by the international
community primarily as a means to ensure the establishment and preservation of world peace
and security.
Basically the techniques of conflict management fall into two categories: diplomatic
procedures and adjudication. The former involves an attempt to resolve differences either by the
contending parties themselves or with the aid of other entities by the use of the discussion and
fact-finding methods.
Of all the procedures used to resolve differences, the simplest and most utilised form is
understandably negotiation. It consists basically of discussions between the interested parties
with a view to reconciling divergent opinions, or at least understanding the different positions
maintained. It does not involve any third party, at least at that stage, and so differs from the other
forms of dispute management. In addition to being an extremely active method of settlement
itself, negotiation is normally the precursor to other settlement procedures as the parties decide
amongst themselves how best to resolve their differences. Where differences of opinion on
factual matters underlie a dispute between parties, the logical solution is often to institute a
commission of inquiry to be conducted by reputable observers to ascertain precisely the facts in
contention.
The process of conciliation involves a third-party investigation of the basis of the dispute
and the submission of a report embodying suggestions for a settlement. As the name implies, the
parties in dispute are encouraged to arrive at an amicable solution acceptable to both of them
with the help of an official called conciliator.
Mediation is another dispute resolution mechanism that is commonly adopted by parties
involved in a conflict. Mediation is a process that involves employing the services of a neutral
third party to help parties at dispute to arrive at an amicable and acceptable solution to all of
them. Mediation can be facilitative or evaluative, but it is in no case a mechanism where the
mediator can give a decision on his own accord.
The basic difference between mediation and conciliation is based on the role played by the
third party who is selected by the parties seeking a settlement, in consensus. In mediation, the
mediator acts as a facilitator who helps the parties in agreeing. Conversely, in conciliation, the
conciliator is more like an interventionist who provides probable solutions to the parties
concerned, to settle disputes.
Adjudication procedures involve the determination by a disinterested third party of the legal
and factual issues involved, either by arbitration or by the decision of judicial organs.
The role of political influences and considerations in inter-state disputes is obviously a vital
one, and many settlements can only be properly understood within the wider international
political context.