Peaceful Methods of Resolving International Disputes and The Current Situation in Gaza
How to resolve the conflict between Palestine and Israel
Peaceful Settlement Methods
The history of using peaceful settlement methods goes back centuries. The earliest existing treaty dates back to about 3,000 BCE, where it was carved in stone and documents the successful settlement of a boundary dispute between Egyptian kings.
The mechanism for peaceful settlement of disputes developed by the Greeks remains unsurpassed to this day. Until the end of the 12th century, there was no provision in international law for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
The only legal remedy was going to war. Of course, the method of arbitration was there, but it was only rarely used.
Jay’s Treaty of 1794 between the United States and Great Britain marks the beginning of the extensive use of arbitration in modern times.
Chief Methods of Peaceful Settlement
Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) obliges states to settle their disputes peacefully. Articles 33 to 38 of the Charter (Chapter 6) deal with the methods of a peaceful settlement. The methods are:
- Negotiation
- Good offices
- Mediation
- Commission of inquiry and conciliation
- Arbitration and judicial settlement
- Pacific settlement and regional agencies
Negotiation
Negotiation is a legal and orderly administrative process by which governments adjust or settle their differences.
Negotiations may be carried out by either a head of state or their agents or by the exchange of notes. Some of the well-known examples of successful negotiation are the Indo-Pak Agreement on Minorities (1950), Indo-Pak, Indus Water Treaty (1960), and the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements during the Second World War.
Most international disputes are settled through the normal channels of diplomacy. Such machinery is provided both by the Organization of the American States (OAS) and the UN.
Good Offices
When a third party offers its services with the view of compromising differences between two states who are not willing to negotiate directly, it is said to tender its good offices.
In this method, a third party acts as a go-between. To illustrate, Kosygin, the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union, played this role admirably at Tashkent between India and Pakistan in 1966.
The Shaat-al-Arab River boundary dispute between Iraq and Iran was resolved in 1975 through the good offices of the late Algerian President, Boumeddin.
Mediation
Mediation involves conducting negotiations through the agency of the third party. A mediator may look into the dispute either on his own initiative or at the request of the disputants.
The distinction between "good offices" and "mediation" is subtle. The former is different from the latter in the fact that, unlike good offices, the third party itself takes part in the negotiations and suggests terms of a settlement.
To illustrate, in 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt of the United States acted as a mediator in the Russo-Japanese War. Switzerland has also played this role in a number of disputes.
The UN Good Offices Commission for Indonesia (1947) performed a notable service in settling disputes between the Dutch Government and the Indonesian Republic after the Second World War. Count Bernadotte functioned as a mediator on the Jerusalem issue in 1948.
Commission of Inquiry and Conciliation
A commission of inquiry and conciliation is a process of formulating proposals for settlement after the investigation of facts.
The First Hague Conference (1899) favored a commission of inquiry, and the Second Conference (1907) favored conciliation. The League Assembly also endorsed this method in 1922, and within five years, about 52 conciliation treaties were made.
The use of commissions of inquiry, however, has been infrequent. The commission has to investigate the facts of a dispute, but it largely confines itself to a statement of facts and a clarification of the issues.
This technique was employed in the Dogger Bank incident of 1904. In this incident, some Russian warships fired by mistake on British fishing vessels in the North Sea.
The commission of inquiry provides a cooling-off period while an investigation is underway and hostilities are suspended during the inquiry period.
Conciliation differs from inquiry in that it assumes an obligation on the part of third parties to take the initiative in the search for agreement.
The distinction between conciliation and mediation is more or less nominal. Mediation is commonly performed by an individual, but conciliation is by a committee, commission, or council.
Again, conciliation denotes the reference of a dispute to a body of persons for ascertaining facts, but in mediation, the initiation comes from the third party.
Conciliation is a constructive approach to non-justifiable disputes. In a nutshell, it is a combination of inquiry and mediation.
The UN has made successful use of such conciliation commissions in dealing with intricate problems, such as the Palestine issue in the past. This method is better than arbitration or adjudication, as it has greater flexibility in comparison to the latter.
Arbitration and Judicial Settlement
Arbitration is a judicial process. It is different from conciliation in the sense that conciliation merely recommends a solution, but arbitration decides a dispute. The former is friendly advice, while the latter is a legally binding decree.
On the whole, arbitration is the most important means of amicable dispute settlements. Its value resides in its quasi-judicial character. The methods of arbitration on disputes are consensual, flexible, and efficacious.
Judicial settlement or adjudication itself is a form of arbitration in which a permanent court acts as the arbitral tribunal.
In modern times, the 19th century alone added some 400 examples of successful arbitration, the most famous one being the settlement of the Alabama Claims Controversy (1872).
Pacific Settlement and Regional Agencies
The charter recommends the settlement of disputes by resorting to regional agencies of arrangements.
All regional systems make elaborate provisions for the peaceful settlement of disputes among their participating members. For instance, the OAS Charter devotes an entire chapter to it.
In a number of political disputes among American states, the OAS has played a useful intermediary role. The UN Charter also provides for this procedure.
Article 1 of the Charter emphasizes the aspect of settling disputes peacefully. If parties to a dispute fail to settle their conflicts by the means indicated in Article 33, they may refer the same to the Security Council.
The Failure of the International Community and the Current Situation in Gaza
For years, the international community has strived to find peaceful resolutions to conflicts. Diplomacy, dialogue, and negotiations have been the tools of choice, aiming to create understanding and harmony between nations. Yet, in places like Gaza, these efforts have failed to bring an end to the violence and the loss of innocent lives.
The situation in Gaza is dire. Families are torn apart, homes reduced to rubble, and dreams shattered. Children, the most vulnerable victims, suffer the most. Their innocence is marred by the horrors of war, and their childhoods stolen by the conflict raging around them.
Despite the overwhelming human toll, the world appears to be turning a blind eye to the suffering in Gaza. The reasons for this silence are complex. Political interests, historical tensions, and power struggles often cloud the judgment of nations and impede decisive action. In some cases, the fear of escalating tensions or disrupting delicate diplomatic balances leads to inaction, leaving those caught in the crossfire to bear the brunt of international indifference.
The failure of peaceful methods to resolve the Gaza crisis highlights the urgent need for a collective reassessment of global priorities. It calls for a renewed commitment to the principles of compassion, empathy, and humanity. The world must rise above political differences and prioritize the welfare of innocent lives, regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, or religion.
War is unacceptable
To break this cycle of violence and silence, nations must invest in education and promote understanding among different cultures and religions.
Empathy and tolerance are the building blocks of lasting peace.
Additionally, international organizations and influential leaders must work tirelessly to mediate conflicts, encourage dialogue, and ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need. This world cant afford any more wars, which can even lead to World War III.
Raise Voice on Social Media
Moreover, it is crucial for ordinary people around the world to raise their voices against injustice. Social media platforms and grassroots movements can amplify the cries of the oppressed and mobilize support for humanitarian causes. By standing together, individuals can create a powerful force for change, compelling governments and institutions to take meaningful action.
Final Thoughts
In conclusion, the tragic situation in Gaza serves as a stark reminder of the limitations of peaceful methods in resolving international disputes. It exposes the harsh reality that millions of innocent lives continue to be lost while the world remains largely silent.
The path to peace lies in a collective commitment to empathy, understanding, and decisive action. It is only through these efforts that we can hope to bring an end to the suffering in Gaza and other conflict-stricken regions, ensuring a brighter and more peaceful future for all.
Thank you for reading. I wish you a healthy and long life. And I wish this tense situation in Gaza end up soon. What are your thoughts? Share in the comments!
