● Ever since Great Britain and United States agreed to submit a border dispute to

arbitration in 1794, in accordance with the Jay Treaty,' international arbitration has
proved a useful method of settling limited territorial disputes between nations.
● One of the most attractive features of arbitration is that the proceedings are generally
conducted in ad hoc courts of arbitration specifically designed to deal with a
particular dispute.
● The parties can participate in defining the issue to be adjudicated, and they have the
power to select the arbitrators, the forum, and the rules of procedure that will be used
to settle the dispute. Arbitration also provides the parties with the option of holding
hearings in secret.
● Thus, arbitration provides an appealing forum for nations that have decided to resolve
their differences through peaceful means because it is much more flexible than a
permanent court and allows the parties to maintain more control over the
proceedings.'
● Arbitration has been used in the past, with much success, to settle limited issues of
territorial sovereignty.' The question remains, however, as to whether it is an
appropriate dispute resolution mechanism to settle ethnic-based claims to land. The
proliferation of ethnic-based violence in the context of the secession and breakup of
states currently poses one of the greatest threats to public order and human rights.
● But these conflicts are not only about ethnic groups seeking self-determination
through political independence and statehood; they are fundamentally issues about
control over land.
● Thus, constructing effective means to peacefully resolve territorial disputes is a matter
of profound importance.
● Today, I would like to present 2 famous and successful territorial disputes resolved by
arbitration - the Rann of Kutch and the Taba Area disputes.
● The Rann of Kutch Arbitration - The dispute between India and Pakistan over the
Rann of Kutch has been heralded as "one of the major instances of international
arbitration in the post-war period."' The object of the arbitral tribunal was to
determine a sector of the boundary between the territory that, in British times, was
known as Sind (and the State of Kutch and other Native Indian States. The Rann of
Kutch spans approximately 200 miles across the southern portion of the Indo-West
Pakistan border.
● Based on Sind's acts of sovereignty over Dhara Banni and Chhad Bet, the Tribunal
awarded these areas to Sind's successor, Pakistan.The Tribunal also awarded a
peninsula of land, known as Nagar Parkar, to Pakistan, even though Pakistan had not
established legal title to it. The Tribunal based this decision on the fact that the area
was wholly surrounded by Pakistani territory. Thus, the Tribunal reasoned that
awarding the area to India would inevitably lead to friction and conflict. With regard
to the remainder of the territory, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence of Sind
sovereignty over the majority of the Rann was insufficient to establish sovereignty.
The Tribunal thus relied primarily on the evidence produced by India of British
relinquishment of rights over the Rann, and awarded the remainder of the territory,
approximately ninety percent of the Rann, to India.
● The Taba Area Arbitration - The successful arbitration of the dispute over the Taba
area between Egypt and Israel "represent[ed] a significant milestone in the
development of relations between the two formerly warring nations."' The objective
of the arbitral tribunal was restricted to deciding the location of fourteen boundary
pillars of "the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former
mandated territory of Palestine,"' thus deciding the status of the Taba area, a strip of
land in the Sinai on the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba.
● Judgement - The Tribunal concluded that the Parker pillar existed at the location
advanced by Egypt, and that the Parties had recognized this pillar as a boundary
throughout the critical period. Thus, Israel could not at this point challenge its
location on the basis of an alleged error. In its Award, the Tribunal commended the
parties for the "spirit of cooperation and courtesy which permeated the proceedings in
general and which thereby rendered the hearing a constructive experience."" On
March 15, 1989, following negotiations and the conclusion of an agreement, Israel
transferred to Egypt sovereignty over the Taba area in its entirety, including the resort
facilities located there.
● THE USE OF OTHER DisPuTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS APPROPRIATE
IN SETTLING TERRITORIAL DISPUTES The Three Methods 1. Negotiations
Diplomatic negotiation between the parties concerned is often considered the most
efficient method of settling international disputes and is "clearly the predominant,
usual and preferred method.'' Parties usually prefer negotiation to other methods for a
variety of reasons: negotiation allows the parties to maintain maximum control over
the outcome; a negotiated settlement is more likely to be accepted by the parties; and
negotiation is simpler and less costly than other methods.' More often, however,
parties to a dispute hold such divergent views that they are unable or unwilling to
compromise, making negotiations impossible. Ideas of national pride and honor may
exacerbate the issue and make even the appearance of compromise too contentious to
permit effective negotiation. Thus, third party involvement becomes critical to
reconciling the views of the two states if a solution is to be reached.
● Mediation - Parties to a dispute often agree to mediation when bilateral negotiations
break down or cannot be initiated, and the parties desire limited third party
intervention.The mediator may offer specific suggestions for settlement. States may
be more willing to request or consent to mediation, as opposed to other third party
dispute resolution mechanisms such as adjudication, primarily because any decision
reached is not legally binding.Thus, as with bilateral negotiations, states have no
obligation to reach a settlement or to implement one.
● Judicial Settlement - Judicial settlement involves the reference of the dispute, by the
consent of the parties, to a permanent judicial body, such as the International Court of
Justice. Judicial settlement and arbitration are often grouped together in discussions of
third party dispute resolution mechanisms, because both usually apply international
law as the basis for adjudication. In addition, adjudication usually leads to final and
legally binding decisions. The advantages and disadvantages of referring a dispute to
a permanent court are similar to those of arbitration.Furthermore, if a state believes it
has a superior legal claim, it may prefer to be heard publicly by a permanent court in
 the hope that the strength of its arguments and commitment to peaceful settlement
may strengthen domestic and international support for its cause.
● In view of the danger and cost that the use of force poses for all in the international
community, it is important to develop every conceivable peaceful means of resolving
international conflicts. Increasingly, international conflicts involve complex issues of
territorial control based on ethnicity. The inclusion in peace treaties of such dispute
resolution mechanisms as arbitral clauses may be one way to peacefully solve such
disputes. Such clauses may not only provide a peaceful means of settlement, but may
also allow negotiators to defer a final decision on a politically sensitive issue until the
parties have had time to cool off and the issue is no longer in the public eye. Resort to
adjudication, however, is not appropriate in every situation,Because states are usually
reluctant to turn to adjudication for the settlement of disputes involving their vital
interests, there is little precedent for the use of arbitral tribunals to resolve disputes
resulting from recent, large-scale, armed conflicts. The use of other dispute resolution
mechanisms may, therefore, be more appropriate in these situations the use of
arbitration to solve territorial disputes can be successful only where the parties are
committed to resolving the dispute peacefully through arbitration, and that such a
commitment is unlikely if the dispute involves an issue considered to be of vital
national importance.