PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES IN

INTERNATIONAL LAW
ABSTRACT
The peaceful resolution of international disputes is a continuous and unbroken process based
on international law, in which states participate as equal entities in rights. Forced to prevent
the occurrence of any global situation or dispute, states have the duty, according to the 1982
Declaration, to resort only to peaceful means of settling disputes between them, with the right
to freely decide and choose those peaceful means that are considered convenient, timely, and
appropriate for a peaceful settlement, based on their joint agreement. The universality of this
obligation in current international law, along with the principle of non-return to force, has
contributed to significant modifications in the content and purpose of this right, emphasizing
and amplifying its function to promote and sustain international peace and security.
States have an obligation under international law to settle their disputes peacefully. However,
unless they have agreed otherwise, they are not required to use a specific mechanism. They
have the option of using diplomatic or judicial means. The prudent tools include providing
information and consultation to prevent disputes, negotiations, good offices, mediation,
inquiry, and conciliation to resolve disputes. The lack of binding effect on any conclusions
and the ability to consider all relevant circumstances characterize all diplomatic means.
On the other hand, courts and arbitral tribunals must resolve disputes only based on the law
(though parties to an arbitration can agree on more flexible procedures), and their decisions
are binding on the parties. These processes are more antagonistic than diplomatic ones. The
1997 draught Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International
Watercourses refers to all of the mechanisms mentioned above. However, states are only
required to commit to providing information and consultation, negotiating, and submitting to
a 'fact-finding' commission if the dispute cannot be resolved through other means. When
choosing amongst the various mechanisms, it is best to evaluate the nature of the
disagreement and the time constraints.