GROUP MEMBERS

ALHASSAN SAEED BUHARI – LAW/18/01/2509

DANIEL FRIMPONG NUMOAH - LAW/18/01/0014

ANTHONIA DEIKUMAH FAFA - LAW/18/01/0880

CHEFFA RAUF SUNTA – LAW/18/01/8544

IBRAHIM RASHIDA PATIENCE – LAW/18/01/2543

 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW.

GROUP 5 (b)

TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: SETTLEMENT OF

DISPUTES .

INTRODUCTION
Interactions may sometimes generate a discourse between people, as such, in public
international law there’s a normality in states disputing with each other.

Disputes has been the subject of some considerations. In so deciding, the ICJ referred to the
statement of its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), in
Mavrommatis: ‘A Dispute is a disagreement over a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views
or interests between two persons’. Eg: Trade Dispute, Maritime Dispute, Territorial Dispute,
Legal Dispute, Wars.

An effort of resolving dispute requires a dispute settlement mechanism. A dispute settlement is

defined as the process of resolving dispute between parties. It includes all dispute resolution
methods and approaches from early resolutions through to formal tribunal or court processes.

HISTORY
The settlement of dispute has been a culture of civilizations. Dating as far back as ancient
Greece. Aristotle recording in ancient text the necessity of resolutions as an alternative to
litigation.

On the domestic front, evident in Europe and parts of the world disputes are brought to the king
or the kings court for settlement. Also during the first half of the nineteenth century, most arbitral
awards decided were particularly in cases which sovereigns such as kings or heads of states as
well as government served as arbitrators. An example is the case of France v Great Britain (the
Portendick claim) where the arbitrator as the king of Prussia gave his decision without stating
any reason. In our African settings we have disputes being settled by the elders or chiefs or chiefs

in consultations with the elders. The turn of the 20th century with the effects of the world war ii
and the formation and evolution of the united nations modernized settlement of dispute
particularly in the global community.

The act of dispute settlement the modification with international dispute settlement pertaining to
states may virtually involve diplomacy, were states send out representatives to negotiate,
mediate, conciliate on the matter at hand between states or to show a gesture or perform a gesture
as a sign of compromise to a dispute thereby settling it. Today states again have ensured that
commitment to dispute resolutions is enforceable and binding through treaties and conventions
between themselves’’
 CHAPTER VI (ARTICLES 33-37) OF THE UN
CHARTER.
 Article 33 of the UN Charter provides that:

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger their maintenance of
international peace and security, shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,
mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or
arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their
disputes by such means.

 Under Article 35any State may bring any dispute to the attention of the Security Council
or the General Assembly.

 Under Article 36, the SC may, at any stage of a dispute the continuance of which is likely

to endanger the maintenance of international peace or security, recommend appropriate

procedures or methods of adjustments; in doing so, the SC should take into consideration
that legal disputes should be as a general rule be referred by the parties to the
International Court of Justice.
 Article 37 provides that, should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article
33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in Article 33, they shall refer it to SC which, if it
deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security, shall decide whether to take action under Article 36 or to
recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.
 Article 38 provides that: Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 33 to 37, the
Security Council may, if all the parties to any dispute so request, make recommendations
to the parties with a view to pacific settlement of the dispute.
 Other articles of the Charter authorize the General Assembly and Secretary General to
make recommendations or take certain action with respect to disputes, and encourage the
development of pacific settlement through regional agreements.
  It is apparent that the UN Charter establishes international obligations of the parties and
interjectory powers of the organization principally with respect to a particular category of
disputes- those whose continuance ‘’ is likely to endanger the maintenance of
international peace and security’’. It is less clear whether Member nations are also under
an obligation to seek to settle all disputes- even those which are not likely to threaten
international peace and security.
 Article 34 expressly authorizes the Council to investigate any dispute, or any situation
which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine
whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance
of international peace and security.

METHODS/TECHNIQUES OF DISPUTE
SETTLEMENT
1. INFORMAL TECHNIQUE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
2. FORMAL TECHNIQUE OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

INFORMAL TECHNIQUE OF DISPUTE

SETTLEMENT.

This 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. Informal
dispute has been further expatiated to:
1. Negotiations
2. Mediation
3. Inquiry
4. Conciliation
5. Involvement of Third Parties
 NEGOTIATIONS
 It is a process whereby disputing parties discuss the various issues contention
between them, either with a view to finding an amicable solution or, at least to
achieve an understanding of their differences. And also there is no involvement of
third parties.
 Negotiation as an informal method is;
i. Private
ii. Cost Effective
iii. Fast
iv. Direct
v. Easy and Flexible

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NEGOTIATIONS

 A SEPARATION OF THE INTEREST FROM POSITION

A good negotiation should separate interest from positions. This means that disputing states need
to separate what their people want from what they as states need in negotiations. By being able to
deal with the dispute more effectively and to reach an agreement much sooner
 THE APPLICATION OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA

One of the most difficult aspect of settling disputes is the application of objective standards and
rules. Once disputing parties decide to negotiate, it will be a great advantage for them to agree to
a set of objective criteria from the onset.
 READINESS TO MAKE CONCESSIONS

Parties to negotiations will get results quickly if they show, from the outset, that they are willing
to make concessions on some of the most difficult and contentious points. Making concessions
does not show weakness, rather it shows the utmost desire of disputing parties to prioritize
finding amicable solution to the problem. There is no doubt that parties to negotiations do not
want to be considered weak but the disadvantages of being unreasonable rigid and
uncompromising far outweigh the benefits of being flexible.
 THE IDENTIFICATION OF COMMON GROUNDS

Parties involved in negotiations must identify a common ground from the start. By doing so, the
parties are able to narrow their disputes to specific issues and are able to identify. This saves the
time of the negotiating parties and it allows them to establish a reasonable level of engagement
from the start.

IS THERE AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION

TOWARDS A NEGOTIATION?
Definitely with majority of the states existing in the globe being a member to the united nations
has pledge allegiance to world peace and cooperation. Article 2(3) of the United Nations Charter
provides that, ‘all members shall settle their international dispute by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security is not endangered.”.

Again, Article 33 of United Nations Charter provides that parties shall in pursuit of dispute
settlement seek a solution of negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement or resort to regional arrangements.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEGOTIATION AND

LITIGATION
As a principle of law, negotiation can exist simultaneously with other form of dispute settlement,
including recourse to the courts. Negotiation and judicial settlement are enumerated together in
Article 33 of the Charter of The UN. Where negotiations and judicial settlement are
simultaneously pursued, the success of negotiation terminate the judicial process.

IN PAKISTAN V INDIA: Pakistan brought an action against India, claiming that it, Pakistan,
had sovereign right to prosecute 195 Pakistanis who were in custody of India. Pakistan brought
an action against India but both parties commenced negotiations, which later resulted in an
agreed settlement. Pakistan then brought a notice to the court for the discontinuation no its case
before the court. The court agreed and the case was terminated

THE EXISTENCE OF PARALLEL NEGOTIATIONS

Another important issue to consider is whether the fact that parties to a dispute may have
negotiation within in an international organization, to which they both belong, precludes them
from simultaneous recourse to the courts. The court considers that even if the existence of an
active negotiations in which both parties might be involved should not prevent both the security
council and the court from exercising their separate functions under the charter and the statute of
the court.

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH NEGOTIATION WILL

BE IMPOSSIBLE.

There are situations in which it will be impossible to insist on negotiation even if an obligation to
negotiate exists. EG: if one party or both parties, to a dispute fails or refuses to negotiate, then
litigation can commence.
1. Where the nature of this dispute is such that there is no clear party with which to negotiate.
Certain elements of the Iranian Revolution Guard took the staff of the US embassy in Tehran.
This was during an insurrection following the overthrow of the Iranian government. In the
ensuing confusion, it was unclear who was in charge of the country.
2. Where one party to a dispute insists on particular mode or place of negotiation that may make
negotiation impossible. The US government closed the office of the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) Observer Mission in New York. The court held that the UN Secretary
General had tried his utmost best to have the parties settle the dispute by negotiation, but that
 litigation of the dispute in the USA, as the USA insisted, could not be regarded as an agreed
mode of settlement.

MEDIATION AND GOOD OFFICES

Situations make it almost impossible for countries to deal with each other. Dispute between
states tend to be sensitive, because they may encompass on issues of territory, sovereignty and
breach of treaties. In such a circumstance, a third neutral party is introduced to help find a
compromise between the parties in dispute, that process is Mediation and the third party
introduced is the Mediator. The Mediator per the process of Mediation observes the rules of
Natural Justice and provides a resolution. However, the resolution is not binding upon the parties
unless both parties have agreed so.

According to Article 2 of The Hague Convention: In case of serious disagreement or conflict,

before an appeal to arms, the signatory powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances
allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly powers. According to Article 3 of
the convention: Independently of this recourse, the signatory powers commend that one or more
powers, strangers to the dispute, should on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may
allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the states at variance. Regardless of how mediation
comes about the role of the mediator, according to Article 4: consist in reconciling the opposing
claims and appeasing the feedings of resentment which may have risen between the states at
variance.

THE PRINCIPLE OF MEDIATION AND GOOD

OFFICES.

 CONFIDENCE OF ALL SIDES TO THE DISPUTE:

Where a mediator is appointed jointly to parties to a dispute, there is usually a higher probability
that the mediator is fair, however, a mediator initiative, as clearly permitted by The Hague
Conventions, there is a risk that a mediator may not inspire the confidence of one or both the
parties to the dispute.
 IMPARTIALLY OF THE MEDIATOR:
Irrespective of how mediation come about, its vital that a mediator remains impartial at all times.
Impartial is the key to the success of mediation and many efforts have been ruined because of the
perception that mediations were biased against certain parties.
 VOLUNTARINESS
Mediation is voluntary and any party or he mediator may terminate at any time. It is important

that parties are made to understand that they are under no obligation to mediate their dispute. In
the final analysis, mediation is what parties decide to make of it. Results cannot be imposed
neither can a mediator do more than the parties are ready to accept and allow. The core role of a
mediator is to ease the tension between parties, to facilitate communication, to help them identify
common grounds and to isolate contentious positions.

INQUIRY
It is used, first and foremost, in trying to get to the bottom of the facts of a dispute. Inquiry is
mainly concerned with seeking facts, not the application of the law. Disputing states should
resort to inquiry if they are unable to negotiate a settlement on their own. The necessity of
inquiry is finding a common proof of evidence to the matter at hand.

NB: Prior to the 1899 peace conference in HAGUE, there was no system regulating how inquiry
was to be conducted. The 1899 convention proved considerably useful and was applied to several
disputes, the most popular which was an incident involving the RUSSIAN and BRITISH ships in
1904, known as the Dogger bank incident.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS AND

INQUIRY.
International organization also make regular use of inquiry in dispute settlements The Latin
American Contador process is clearly an example of a regional arrangement. There are instances
in which international organization can use inquiry to settle disputes between their member
states. International organizations can use inquiry in respect of disputes occurring within a
member state. EG, Inquiries made in Yemen and Syria Wars. International organizations can use
inquiry to investigate matters concerning another international organization, although this is not
common.

NB: It must be noted that the use of inquiry by one organization to investigate the affairs of
another, as we have just been, is unique to relations between organizations, states do not use
inquiry in this manner. Under international law, states are all equal and sovereign.

CONCILIATION
Conciliation is an alternative out-of-court dispute resolution instrument. Like mediation,
conciliation is a voluntary, flexible, confidential, and interest based process. The parties seek to
reach an amicable dispute settlement with the assistance of the conciliator, who acts as a neutral
third party. The main difference between conciliation and mediation proceedings is that, at some
point during the conciliation, the conciliator will be asked by the parties to provide them with a
non-binding settlement proposal. A mediator, by contrast, will in most cases and as a matter of
principle, refrain from making such a proposal

TYPES OF CONCILIATION.
1. FORMAL CONCILIATION METHOD
2. INFORMAL CONCILIATION METHOD
 FORMAL CONCILIATION (CONCILIATION
CONFERENCE).
This is where a client and a lawyer meet to discuss and try to solve the issue with the help of
conciliator in attendance. The type of conciliation that is appropriate depends on the nature of the
complaint, which is determined on an individual basis by the assigned conciliator. If the lawyer
has a preferred conciliation approach, then this will be taken into account.

INFORMAL CONCILIATION METHOD

This is where disputes are addressed between a client and a lawyer over the phone by email or
writing. It is a voluntary proceeding, where the parties involved are free to agree and attempt to
resolve their dispute by conciliation. The process is flexible, allowing parties to define the time,
structure and content of the conciliation proceedings. These proceedings are rarely public. They
are interest-based, as the conciliator will when proposing a settlement, not only take into account
the parties' legal positions, but also their; commercial, financial and / or personal interests.

MAIN BENEFITS

 n proConciliation ensures party autonomy.

The parties can choose the timing, language, place, structure and content of the conciliation
proceedings.

 Conciliation ensures the expertise of the decision maker.

The parties are free to select their conciliator. A conciliator does not have to have a specific
professional background. The parties may base their selection on criteria such as; experience,
professional or personal expertise, availability, language and cultural skills. A conciliator
should be impartial and independent.
 Conciliation is time and cost efficient.
Due to the informal and flexible nature of conciliation proceedings, they can be conducted in
a time and cost-efficient manner.

Considerably
THIRD PARTY INVOLVEMENT
It may be necessary to seek the help of a third party.

Although the existence of several treaties in the settlement of disputes, there would be no
agreement that will be binding on the parties to resort to third party to any means of settling a
particular dispute in most cases. It would be necessary for the parties to negotiate on a method of
settlement be it mediation or conciliation unless there is an agreement which provides for the
parties to accept or resort to third parties which neither of them are legally bound to accept.

FORMAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT:

COMPULSORY BINDING SETTLEMENT
The real value of a compulsory binding settlement procedure is that a party to a dispute should
not have to resort to it. A party which really knows it is in the wrong should be well aware that if
it persists in its unlawful action it risks all the trouble and expense of international legal
proceedings, and eventual judgment against it. The settlement of a dispute by compulsory means
requires mutual consent. Whether a party is legally bound to submit the dispute to a particular
method of dispute settlement depends entirely on whether it has agreed to do so, either in
advance of the dispute arising or subsequently.

MAIN PRINCIPLES IN COMPULSORY BINDING

SETTLEMENT
A prior agreement to submit disputes to a third party and

A provision in the agreement that the decision of the third party will be binding
 JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY
Before it judges the merits of a case, an international tribunal must decide both that it has
jurisdiction (legal competence to hear the case) and that the claim is admissible. Although
jurisdiction and admissibility are separate legal issues, the respondent frequently raises them
both at an early stage as preliminary objections to the tribunal dealing with the dispute, although
raising them together can sometimes have the effect of blurring the distinction between them in
tribunal decisions. The proceedings on the merits are suspended until these preliminary issues
have been decided, although when an issue of admissibility is closely related to the merits of the
case the tribunal may postpone dealing with the issue until the merits stage. A bilateral treaty
under which the parties agree to submit future disputes (not just disputes about treaties) to
arbitration or judicial settlement. The treaty can be bilateral or multilateral.

JAY TREATY OF 1794

In this case; Jay Treaty, (Nov. 19, 1794), agreement that assuaged antagonisms between the
United States and Great Britain, established a base upon which America could build a sound
national economy, and assured its commercial prosperity. Negotiations were undertaken because
of the fears of Federalist leaders that disputes with Great Britain would lead to war. In the treaty
Britain, conceding to primary American grievances agreed to evacuate the Northwest Territory
by June 1, 1796; to compensate for its depredations against American shipping; to end
discrimination against American commerce; and to grant the U.S. trading privileges in England
and the British East Indies. Signed in London by Lord Grenville, the British foreign minister, and
John Jay, U.S. chief justice and envoy extraordinary, the treaty also declared the Mississippi
River open to both countries; prohibited the outfitting of privateers by Britain’s enemies in U.S.
ports. The first multilateral treaties concerning dispute settlement were The Hague Conventions
for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 1899 and 1907 which the Pacific Settlement
of Disputes 1928, as revised in 1949,26 has but eight parties, and it established the Permanent
Court of Arbitration (PCA). Adherence to an optional protocol to a treaty that is the subject of the
dispute. Such a protocol is essentially a compromissory clause but, being a separate treaty, a
party to the principal treaty will need to adhere to the protocol in order to accept the jurisdiction
of the tribunal. A good example is the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations 1961, which the United States invoked successfully in its dispute with Iran over the
Tehran hostages and the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
1963, which Paraguay invoked in its dispute with the United States in 1998.

LEGAL DISPUTE
In addition to the states in dispute having consented to its jurisdiction, for an international
tribunal to have jurisdiction, there must be a dispute between the parties and the dispute must be
legal. We are not concerned with a dispute about a matter regulated by domestic law, such as

over a lease governed by the land law of one of them, unless there is also an international law

aspect.
The concept of a legal dispute is best explained by reference to Article 36(2) of the Statute of the
ICJ. This defines legal disputes as those concerning:

 the interpretation of a treaty;

 any question of international law;

 the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an
international obligation;
 the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international
obligation.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
Arbitration is the submission of a dispute to a judge or judges, in principle chosen by the parties,
who agree to accept and respect the judgment. The judges are called ‘arbitrators’ and their
judgment an ‘award’. Although some arbitrations are conducted by a single arbitrator, this is
really only suitable for a relatively simple case involving a narrow, essentially factual, point. It is
normally better to have one arbitrator appointed by each party and one (or, even better, three)
neutral arbitrators, the appointments being made as for a conciliation commission. Although it
may be more common to have only three arbitrators, this is not ideal since the chairman then
needs the support of one of the two national arbitrators in order to reach a decision. He may
therefore have to compromise, whereas three neutral arbitrators should be better able to reach an
impartial decision. Many multilateral and bilateral treaties like the 1957 European Convention
for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, contain arbitration clauses and, apart perhaps from a
regional specialist tribunal like the European Court of Justice, rather more treaty disputes are
decided by arbitration than by judicial settlement.

PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

The Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 1899, established
the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague, and for which the Peace Palace, now
also home of the ICJ, was opened in 1913. These days, the PCA secretariat (the International
Bureau) is very active. The PCA’s name is misleading. It is not a court, but a permanent facility
(including a courtroom, chambers, office library, secretariat services and a list of potential
arbitrators) available to states and international organisations to help them conduct arbitrations,
whether under the 1899 or 1907 Hague Conventions, or otherwise. The cost of its services are
met by the parties in dispute.

More examples include the US v. UK Heathrow User Charges Arbitration 1988–9360 and the
Eritrea–Yemen Arbitration 1996–2002. The PCA has developed model clauses and procedural
rules for fact- parties are free to determine most aspects of the procedure and to decide the extent
to which the International Bureau should be involved. It is increasingly involved with
international commercial arbitrations (such as ICSID (international centre for settlement of
investment disputes)) between states or international organisations and private persons or
entities, with the PCA secretary-general being called upon to designate arbitrators in default of
their appointment by the parties.
 MIXED ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS
A mixed arbitral tribunal is so-called because it is established to deal with disputes that are not
between two states, but between a corporation (and sometimes a natural person) and a foreign
state (hence ‘mixed’). Their most distinguishing feature is that the state of nationality and the
other state have agreed that a claim can be brought direct to the tribunal; thus there is no need for
the state of nationality of the claimant to be involved. And, generally, local remedies do not have
to be.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

The ICJ was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in
April 1946. With Article 92 of the United Nations Charter describing the International Court of
Justice as the principally judicial organ of the United Nations stipulates its importance in the
international course for dispute settlements. The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with
international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal
questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The Court
decides disputes between countries, based on the voluntary participation of the States concerned.
If a State agrees to participate in a proceeding, it is obligated to comply with the Court’s
decision. The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms
of office by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. The Court as a
whole must represent the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world.
These organs vote simultaneously but separately. In order to be elected, a candidate must receive
an absolute majority of the votes in both bodies. This sometimes makes it necessary for a
number of rounds of voting to be carried out. In order to ensure a measure of continuity, one
third of the Court is elected every three years.

JURISDICTION OF ICJ
The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases:
1. Contentious Case
2. Advisory Opinions
 CONTENTIOUS CASES
Contentious cases between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that
agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court. Only States (States
Members of the United Nations and other States which have become parties to the Statute of the
Court or which have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions) may be parties to
contentious cases. The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have
accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways by entering into a special
agreement to submit the dispute to the Court, by virtue of a jurisdictional clause.

NOTE
The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its
jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways by entering into a special agreement to submit
the dispute to the Court, by virtue of a jurisdictional clause;

 The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted
its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways by entering into a special agreement
to submit the dispute to the Court, by virtue of a jurisdictional clause
 By means of an application: the application, which is unilateral in character, is submitted
by an applicant State against a respondent State. It is intended for communication to the
latter State and the Rules of Court contain stricter requirements with regard to its content.
In addition to the name of the party against which the claim is brought and the subject of
the dispute, the applicant State must, as far as possible, indicate briefly on what basis - a
treaty or a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction - it claims that the Court
has jurisdiction, and must succinctly state the facts and grounds on which its claim is
based. At the end of the official title of the case the names of the two parties are separated
by the abbreviation v. (for the Latin versus), e.g., Nicaragua v. Colombia.
 ADVISIORY OPINIONS
They which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of
international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory
opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often
do. Advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted
questions of international law usually at the request of the United Nations General ASSEMBLY.
Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they
often do. Court receives on average over 1,000 applications per year from individuals, neither
they, corporations or even international organizations can be parties to cases before the Court.
The Court can request an international organization to provide it with information relevant to a
case before it, and must receive such information sent to it by an international organization on its
own initiative. And, whenever the interpretation of the constituent instrument of an international
organization, or of a convention adopted under it, is in question before the Court, it must notify
the organization and sent it all the written pleadings (Article 34). Only states can be parties.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it can be seen that the peaceful methods of settling disputes are very useful means
in diffusing tension among states and in promoting security and peace. Also in settling a dispute
between states or a state and an individual, the parties do not have to necessarily take the matter
straight to the ICJ to try and resolve it but rather they have to go through the various forms of
dispute settlement as stated in article 33 of Chapter VI of the UN charter in order to find a
solution to the dispute that has arisen.

REFERENCES
1. CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE
TH
2. INTERNATIONAL LAW (6 EDITION), MALCOM SHAW
3. HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, ANTHONY AUSTIN
4. https://www.iilj.org/publications/development-in-dispute-settlement-inter-state-
arbitration-since-1945/
5. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/the-history-and-development-of-a-dr-alternativeappropriate-
dispute-resolution/
6. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/how-the-court-works