A. Settlement of Disputes through Diplomacy Diplomacy is the process of getting parties to a disagreement to an understanding through negotiation, mediation, or inquiry. The word “diplomacy” is formally applied only to disputes between states, but the same processes can be applied to disputes involving institutions and individuals as well, where it is often referred to as alternative dispute resolution. Diplomacy A form of international dispute settlement that attempts to reconcile parties to a disagreement by use of negotiation, mediation, or inquiry. Negotiation Negotiation is the process of reaching an agreement through discussion between two parties to a dispute. Negotiation is the most important tool in the process of dispute settlement. It is used not merely to resolve disputes but also to prevent them from arising in the first place. Negotiation can also lay the groundwork for other forms of dispute settlement. Negotiation (From Latin negotiari: “to carry on business.”) The process of reaching an agreement by conferring or discussing. Negotiations between states are most commonly conducted on an ad hoc1 basis, but sometimes the procedure is more formal. In such cases, states negotiate through normal diplomatic channels, through the use of competent authorities, through the establishment of mixed or joint commissions, or even through summit meetings. Summit meetings have been popular in recent years because they can be an effective way to bypass the official bureaucracy of the participating states. At other times, summits are staged to gain political capital out of an agreement already finalized through negotiations between the states’ bureaucracies. Mediation Mediation involves the use of a third party who transmits and interprets the proposals of the principal parties and sometimes advances independent proposals. When mediators provide a channel of communications only, it is said that they are offering their good offices. When they make a formal investigation and present a formal proposal, they are involved in a conciliation.2 Mediation (From Latin mediates: “to be in the middle.”) Bringing about a peaceful settlement or compromise between parties to a dispute through the benevolent intervention of an impartial third party. Good offices A third party who provides the means by which two disputing parties may communicate with each other. Conciliation (From Latin conciliare: “to call or bring together.”) The process by which an impartial third party makes an independent investigation and suggests a solution to a dispute. The process of mediation can start with a request from one or more of the parties, but not infrequently, an outsider offers to serve as a mediator. For example, during the 1982 Falklands War between Argentina and the United Kingdom, both U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig and UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuellar tendered their good offices. And in a dispute between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir i.

1. A. Settlement of Disputes through Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the process of getting parties to a disagreement to
an understanding through negotiation, mediation, or inquiry.
The word “diplomacy” is formally applied only to disputes
between states, but the same processes can be applied to
disputes involving institutions and individuals as well, where it
is often referred to as alternative dispute resolution.
Diplomacy
A form of international dispute settlement that attempts to
reconcile parties to a disagreement by use of negotiation,
mediation, or inquiry.
Negotiation
Negotiation is the process of reaching an agreement through
discussion between two parties to a dispute. Negotiation is the
most important tool in the process of dispute settlement. It is
used not merely to resolve disputes but also to prevent them
from arising in the first place. Negotiation can also lay the
groundwork for other forms of dispute settlement.
Negotiation
(From Latin negotiari: “to carry on business.”) The process of
reaching an agreement by conferring or discussing.
Negotiations between states are most commonly conducted on
an ad hoc1 basis, but sometimes the procedure is more formal.
In such cases, states negotiate through normal diplomatic
channels, through the use of competent authorities, through the
establishment of mixed or joint commissions, or even through
summit meetings. Summit meetings have been popular in recent
years because they can be an effective way to bypass the
official bureaucracy of the participating states. At other times,
summits are staged to gain political capital out of an agreement
already finalized through negotiations between the states’
bureaucracies.
Mediation
Mediation involves the use of a third party who transmits and

2. interprets the proposals of the principal parties and sometimes
advances independent proposals. When mediators provide a
channel of communications only, it is said that they are offering
their good offices. When they make a formal investigation and
present a formal proposal, they are involved in a conciliation.2
Mediation
(From Latin mediates: “to be in the middle.”) Bringing about a
peaceful settlement or compromise between parties to a dispute
through the benevolent intervention of an impartial third party.
Good offices
A third party who provides the means by which two disputing
parties may communicate with each other.
Conciliation
(From Latin conciliare: “to call or bring together.”) The process
by which an impartial third party makes an independent
investigation and suggests a solution to a dispute.
The process of mediation can start with a request from one or
more of the parties, but not infrequently, an outsider offers to
serve as a mediator. For example, during the 1982 Falklands
War between Argentina and the United Kingdom, both U.S.
Secretary of State Alexander Haig and UN Secretary-General
Javier Pérez de Cuellar tendered their good offices. And in a
dispute between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir in 1965,
the U.S.S.R., a major Asiatic power, helped obtain a ceasefire
between these two Asiatic countries.
Mediation can occur only if all the parties to a dispute consent
to it. Thus, South Africa’s policy of apartheid3 could not be
mediated because South Africa regarded it as an internal matter.
And during Nigeria’s war with the secessionist state of Biafra
(1967–1970), Nigeria refused all offers of mediation because it
regarded the war as an internal affair.
The mediator, in particular, must be acceptable to both parties.
In the Falklands War, Argentina objected to Secretary Haig
because the United States was a NATO ally of the United
Kingdom and was providing logistical support for the British
task force. (In fact, Secretary Haig’s offer of mediation

3. antagonized the Argentines.) Because Secretary-General Pérez
de Cuellar had remained impartial, he was acceptable to both
sides.
Inquiry
1From Latin: “for this.” Something done for a specific purpose,
circumstance, or case.
2Article 1 of the Institute of International Law’s model
Regulation on the Procedure of International Conciliation
defines conciliation as “a method for the settlement of
international disputes of any nature, according to which a
Commission is set up by the parties, either on a permanent basis
or an ad hoc basis to deal with the dispute, proceeds to the
impartial examination of the dispute and attempts to define the
terms of a settlement susceptible of being accepted by them, or
of affording the parties, with a view to its settlement, such aid
as they may have requested.”
3From Afrikäans (South African Dutch): apart “apart” and heid
“hood.” Racial discrimination against blacks and others of non-
Caucasian descent.
An inquiry is a process used to determine a disputed fact or set
of facts. Unlike a mediation, which tries to resolve an entire
dispute, an inquiry focuses only on a particular incident. The
Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes of 1899 called for the use of commissions of inquiry to
determine factual questions of an international nature. However,
fearing that commissions of inquiry might threaten national
sovereignty, the convention limited the use of inquiries to
disputes “involving neither honor nor essential interests” of the
parties. The limitation proved unnecessary, however, as the
1904 Dogger Bank Inquiry made clear. That commission, made
up of representatives from Russia, Britain, France, Austro-
Hungary, and the United States, was asked to determine whether
a Russian fleet on its way to the Orient during the Russo-
Japanese War had cause for opening fire on a group of British
trawlers fishing on the Dogger Bank. The Russian admiral in
charge of the fleet had said that he feared attack by Japanese

4. torpedo boats. The commission found that there had been no
torpedo boats in the area and the Russian admiral was not,
therefore, justified in opening fire. It diplomatically added,
however, that these findings were not “of a nature to cast any
discredit upon the military qualities or the humanity of Admiral
Rojdestvensky or the personnel of his squadron.” Both parties
accepted the report, and Russia paid Britain £65,000 in
damages.4
Inquiry
(From Latin inquirere: “to seek after” or “to search for.”) The
process by which an impartial third party makes an
investigation to determine the facts underlying a dispute
without resolving the dispute itself.
In 1907, a second Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement
of International Disputes devised more extensive and less
limiting rules for commissions of inquiry. For instance, it said
that parties could agree in advance to be bound by the decision
of the commission. This happened in the Tubantia Incident of
1916, in which Germany was held responsible for the sinking of
a neutral Dutch ship during World War I.
Several treaties setting up commissions of inquiry were signed
and ratified during the 1910s and 1920s, most notably the Taft
Treaties negotiated by the United States, the United Kingdom,
and France, and the Bryan Treaties between the United States
and several Latin American countries. Despite these treaties,
only one inquiry has been conducted since 1922.5 Matters that
inquiries might have considered have been resolved instead by
negotiation, mediation, or investigations conducted by
independent international organizations. For example, the staff
of the International Civil Aviation Organization investigated the
downing of a Korean Air Lines jet in 1983 by the military
forces of the U.S.S.R.
B. Settlement of Disputes in International Tribunals
An international dispute is settled in much the same way that a
domestic dispute is settled. Parties usually try diplomacy first.
If diplomacy fails, it is common to turn to the courts. If a

5. dispute is between states or intergovernmental organizations
(IGOs), they may be able to take their case to an international
tribunal, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or a
dispute resolution panel of the World Trade Organization, or, in
the alternative, to arbitration. If a dispute is between private
persons or between a private person and a state or between a
private person and an IGO, the dispute will normally end up in
arbitration or in a municipal court. Arbitration between private
persons and states, and between persons and persons, is
commonly arranged through a permanent arbitration tribunal (or
facility) such as the International Center for the Settlement of
Investment Disputes.6
International Court of Justice
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Its
seat is at the Peace Palace in The Hague, The Netherlands (see
Figure 3.1). It began work in 1946, when it replaced the
Permanent Court of International Justice, which had functioned
in the Peace Palace since 1922. It operates under a statute
largely similar to that of its predecessor, which is an integral
part of the United Nations Charter.
Functions
The ICJ has a dual role: to settle in accordance with
international law the legal disputes submitted to it by states,
and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it
by duly authorized international organs and agencies.
Composition
4The Hague Court Reports, p. 410 (James B. Scott, ed., 1916).
5Red Crusader Incident (1962), International Law Reports, vol.
35, p. 485 (1963).
6This dispute settlement process is outlined in Article 33(1) of
the United Nations Charter as follows: “The parties to any
dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of
all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional
agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own

6. choice.” The United Nations Charter is posted on the UN Web
site at www.un.org/aboutun/charter.
7The present composition of the ICJ is as follows: Antonio
Augusto Cançado Trinidade (Brazil), Christopher Greenwood
(United Kingdom); Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan); Xue
Hanquin (China); Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone); Joan
Donoghue (United States); Hisashi Owada (Japan); Bruno
Simma (Germany); Peter Tomka (Slovakia); Ronny Abraham
(France); Kenneth Keith (New Zealand); Bernardo Sepúlveda
Amor (Mexico); Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco); Leonid
Skotnikov (Russian Federation); and Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf
(Somalia).
The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of
office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security
Council sitting independently of each other. The members of the
Court do not represent their governments but are independent
magistrates.7
FIGURE 3.1 The Peace Palace Is the Home of the International
Court of Justice
The United Nations Charter declares that all the member states
of the United Nations are automatically parties to the Statute of
the International Court of Justice, which is included as an annex
to the charter. Nonmembers may adhere to the statute, but to do
so, they must agree to respect the Court’s decisions and to help
cover the court’s expenses.8
The ICJ has the jurisdiction to hear two kinds of cases:9 (1)
those between states (based on the court’s contentious
jurisdiction)10 and (2) those requested by organs or specialized
agencies of the United Nations (based on the Court’s advisory
jurisdiction).11 The ICJ has no authority to hear cases involving
individuals or entities other than those just mentioned.12
Jurisdiction
(From Latin jurisdictio: “administration of the law.”) The
authority or power of a court or tribunal to hear a particular
case or dispute.
Contentious jurisdiction

7. The power of a court to hear a matter that involves a dispute
between two or more parties.
Contentious Jurisdiction
Chapter 3 Dispute Settlement
Before the ICJ can hear a contentious case, all of the states
parties to the proceeding must have recognized the court’s
contentious jurisdiction. This is most commonly done on an ad
hoc basis; that is, parties to an existing dispute negotiate a
special agreement to let the ICJ decide the case.13 Sometimes
these agreements are made permanent by being included in a
bilateral treaty (Article 36(1)). A less common and more
controversial means by which the court can acquire jurisdiction
is through unilateral declarations made by each of the parties.
Optional Clause Jurisdiction
8Security Council Resolution 9 (October 15, 1946) provides:
“The International Court of Justice shall be open to a state
which is not a party to the Statute of the International Court of
Justice, upon the following condition, namely, that such state
shall previously have deposited with the Registrar of the Court
a declaration by which it accepts the jurisdiction of the Court in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and with the
terms and subject to the conditions of the Statute and the Rules
of the Court, and undertakes to comply in good faith with the
decision or decisions of the Court and to accept all the
obligations of a member of the United Nations under Article 94
of the Charter.” The only non-UN member is the Vatican.
9The opinions of all of the Court’s decisions are posted on the
Internet at www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=2.
10Statute of the International Court of Justice, Articles 34 and
36. The statute is posted at
www.wcl.american.edu/…/icj/ICJ…/ICJ-Statute.pdf.
11Id., Article 65(1); United Nations Charter, Article 96. Id.,
Article 65(1); United Nations Charter, Article 96.
12Before West Germany became a member of the United
Nations and while its status as a state was still at issue, it was

8. allowed to participate in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases,
International Court of Justice Reports, vol. 1969, p. 3 (1969),
under a declaration accepting the Court’s jurisdiction. The
parties did not raise its status as a state, nor did the court
consider it.
13Sometimes a special agreement is negotiated even though
there is already another basis for jurisdiction. Thus, in the
Arbitral Award (Honduras v. Nicaragua) Case, International
Court of Justice Reports, vol. 1960, p. 160 (1960), the parties
used a special agreement to refer a case involving the validity
of an arbitral award made by the king of Spain even though the
parties already were subject to the Court’s jurisdiction under the
Optional Clause.
14From Latin: “by that very fact.”
Optional Clause jurisdiction
A unilateral grant of jurisdiction by a state to the ICJ that
allows the Court to resolve disputes involving that state.
Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court—known as the Optional
Clause—allows states to make a unilateral declaration
recognizing “as compulsory ipso facto14 and without special
agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same
obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes.”
Many states have recognized the Court’s jurisdiction under the
Optional Clause. A few have put no restrictions on the kinds of
cases they will respond to. For example, Uganda’s Optional
Clause declaration states:
I hereby declare on behalf of the government of Uganda, that
Uganda recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special
agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same
obligation, and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice in conformity with paragraph
2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court. New York, 3 October
1963
Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Uganda to the
United Nations
Unrestricted Optional Clause declarations, however, are rare.

9. Most states have added a wide variety of restrictions on the
kinds of suits they are willing to let the Court hear without a
special arrangement. An excellent example is the American
Optional Clause declaration of 1946, even though it is no longer
in force.15 It states:
I, Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America,
declare on behalf of the United States of America, under Article
36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice, and in accordance with the Resolution of 2 August 1946
of the Senate of the United States of America (two-thirds of the
Senators present concurring therein), that the United States of
America recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without
special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the
same obligation, the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice in all legal disputes hereafter arising concerning—
a. the interpretation of a treaty;
b. any question of international law;
c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would
constitute a breach of an international obligation;
d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the
breach of an international obligation;
Provided, that this declaration shall not apply to—
a. disputes the solution of which the parties shall entrust to
other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or
which may be concluded in the future; or
b. disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America as
determined by the United States of America; or
c. disputes arising under a multilateral treaty, unless (1) all
parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to
the case before the Court, or (2) the United States of America
specially agrees to jurisdiction; and
Provided further, that this declaration shall remain in force for a
period of five years and thereafter until the expiration of six
months after which notice may be given to terminate this
declaration.

10. (Signed) Harry S. Truman
Done at Washington this twenty-sixth day of August 1946.16
15On October 7, 1985, the United States informed the secretary-
general that it was terminating its Optional Clause declaration.
Id., p. 27.
16International Court of Justice yearbook, p. 77(1976-1977).
Article 36(2) requires that a state respond to a suit brought
against it only if the state bringing the suit has also accepted the
jurisdiction of the Court. This is known as the rule of
reciprocity. When both states have limited the jurisdiction that
they will recognize, the ICJ has power to decide a case only to
the extent that both states have agreed to the same sort of
matters. For example, in the Norwegian Loans Cases (France v.
Norway), Norway objected to the Court taking jurisdiction on
several grounds, including the lack of reciprocity in the
declarations of the two parties. The Court said: “… since two
unilateral declarations are involved, such jurisdiction is
conferred upon the Court only to the extent to which the two
declarations coincide in conferring it. A comparison between
the two declarations shows that the French declaration accepts
the Court’s jurisdiction within narrower limits than the
Norwegian declaration; consequently the common will of the
parties, which is the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, exists
within these narrower limits indicated by the French
reservation.”17
Rule of reciprocity
A state has to respond to a suit brought against it before the ICJ
only to the extent to which the state bringing the suit has also
accepted the jurisdiction of this court.
Chapter 3 Dispute Settlement

11. Next Page
.
Self-Judging reservations
One questionable device that states have used to recognize the
Court’s jurisdiction under the Optional Clause but to still have a
way out if they decide they do not want to respond to a
particular suit is known as a self-judging reservation or
Connally Reservation.18 Such a clause allows a state to exclude
from its acceptance of Optional Clause jurisdiction any matter
that it later determines is within its own domestic jurisdiction.
This can be a double-edged sword, however, because the
principle of reciprocity allows would-be defendants to invoke
the plaintiff’s self-judging reservation. In fact, this happened in
1957 in a suit brought by the United States against Bulgaria
after Bulgaria shot down an American aircraft that had strayed
into Bulgaria’s air space. Bulgaria let it be known that it would
invoke the self-judging reservation contained in the United
States’ Optional Clause declaration. To avoid embarrassment,
the United States promptly withdrew its suit.19
Self-judging reservation

12. A reservation that allows a state to exclude from the jurisdiction
of the ICJ any dispute that it determines is a domestic matter.
The validity of self-judging reservations has been a matter of
some speculation among legal writers. It seems to violate
Article 36(6) of the Statute of the Court, which says that “in the
event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the
matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.” The ICJ
itself, however, has never definitively answered the question.20
The ICJ seldom decides cases that have direct commercial
implications, though from time to time the Court has settled
border disputes, investment disputes, and disputes over fishing
grounds. In the following reading, however, commerce played a
part in the Court’s decision over a dispute between Iran and the
United States.
Advisory Jurisdiction
The ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction exists so that the Court may
give opinions about issues of international law at the request of
the United Nations or one of its specialized agencies. But the
Court will reject a request for such an opinion, if it has the
effect of making a state a party to a dispute without that state’s
consent.
Advisory jurisdiction
The power of the ICJ to give opinions about issues of
international law at the request of the United Nations or one of
its specialized agencies.
Chapter 3 Dispute Settlement
Judgments
A case can be concluded in one of three ways: (1) If the parties
tell the Court that they have reached a settlement, the Court will
issue an order removing the case from its list; (2) if the
applicant state withdraws its suit, the Court will order the case
to be removed from its list; or (3) the Court will deliver a
judgment.
17International Court of Justice Reports, vol. 1957, p. 9 (1957).
Because the narrower of these two declarations “excludes from

13. the jurisdiction of the Court the dispute which has been referred
to it,” the Court declined to hear the case. Id.
18It is called the Connally Reservation after the U.S. senator
who introduced an amendment to include a self-judging
reservation in the American Optional Clause declaration when
the declaration was being debated in the U.S. Senate. Actually,
however, it was the brainchild of U.S. Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles.
19Aerial Incident of July 27, 1955 (United States v. Bulgaria),
International Court of Justice Reports, vol. 1960, p. 146 (1959).
20It has had the opportunity on several occasions. In
Interhandel (Switzerland v. United States), International Court
of Justice Reports, vol. 1957, p. 77 (1957), the United States
asserted its self-judging reservation in a suit brought by
Switzerland, both at the hearing for interim measures and at the
hearing on jurisdiction. The Court sidestepped the issue by
holding that Switzerland had not exhausted all local remedies.
In separate opinions, Judges Lauterpacht, Spender, and Klaestad
commented on the reservation. All three agreed that the
reservation violated Article 36(6). Judge Klaestad added:
“These considerations have led me to the conclusion that the
Court, both by its Statute and by the Charter, is prevented from
acting upon that part of the Reservation which is in conflict
with Article 36, paragraph 6 of the Statute, but that this
circumstance does not necessarily imply that it is impossible for
the Court to give effect to the other parts of the Declaration of
Acceptance which are in conformity with the Statute.” In the
Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory
(Portugal v. India) (Preliminary Objections), International Court
of Justice Reports, vol. 1957, p. 125 (1957), India sought to
escape the ICJ’s jurisdiction by arguing that the reservation in
Portugal’s Optional Clause declaration violated the basic
principle of reciprocity. The Court stated: “[India has]
contended that the condition [i.e., reservation] offends against
the basic principle of reciprocity underlying the Optional
Clause inasmuch as it claims for Portugal a right which in effect

14. is denied to other signatories who have made a declaration
without appending any such condition. The Court is unable to
accept that contention. It is clear that any reservation notified
by Portugal … becomes automatically operative against it in
relation to other signatories of the Optional Clause.”
21The judgments in the Oil Platforms Case were issued in
November 2003 and are available at www.icj-
cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=0a&case=90&code=op
&p3=4.
228 U.S.T. 899; T.I.A.S. 3853; 284 U.N.T.S. 93 (the 1955
Treaty).
23The treaty is an example of a friendship, commerce, and
navigation (FCN) treaty that the United States historically
entered into with various nations for bilateral trade purposes. In
recent years, the FCN treaty has given way to the more modern
bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The United States has
concluded dozens of BITs, mostly with developing nations.
These treaties usually select ICSID or some other arbitration
process for dispute resolution, not the ICJ.
A.
Settlement of Disputes
through
Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the process of getting parties to a disagreement to
an understanding through negotiation,
mediation, or inquiry. The word “diplomacy” is formally
applied only to disputes between states, but the
same processes can be applied to disputes in
volving institutions and individuals as well, where it is often
referred to as alternative dispute resolution.
D

15. iplomacy
A form of international dispute settlement that attempts to
reconcile parties to a disagreement by use
of negotiation, mediation, or
inquiry.
Negotiation
Negotiation is the process of reaching an agreement through
discussion between two parties to a
dispute. Negotiation is the most important tool in the process of
dispute settlement. It is used not
merely to resolve disp
utes but also to prevent them from arising in the first place.
Negotiation can also
lay the groundwork for other forms of dispute settlement.
N
egotiation
(From Latin negotiari: “to carry on business.”) The process of
reaching an agreement by conferring
or
discussing.
Negotiations between states are most commonly conducted on
an ad hoc1 basis, but sometimes the
procedure is more formal. In such cases, states negotiate
through normal diplomatic channels, through
the use of competent authorities, through
the establishment of mixed or joint commissions, or even
through summit meetings. Summit meetings have been popular
in recent years because they can be an
effective way to bypass the official bureaucracy of the

16. participating states. At other times, summits
are
staged to gain political capital out of an agreement already
finalized through negotiations between the
states’ bureaucracies.
Mediation
Mediation involves the use of a third party who transmits and
interprets the proposals of the principal
parties and sometimes advances independent proposals. When
mediators provide a channel of
communications only, it is said that they are offering their g
ood offices. When they make a formal
investigation and present a formal proposal, they are involved
in a conciliation.2
Mediation
(From Latin mediates: “to be in the middle.”) Bringing about a
peaceful settlement or compromise
between parties to a disp
ute through the benevolent intervention of an impartial third
party.
G
ood offices
A third party who provides the means by which two disputing
parties may communicate with each
other.
C
onciliation

17. A. Settlement of Disputes through Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the process of getting parties to a disagreement to
an understanding through negotiation,
mediation, or inquiry. The word “diplomacy” is formally
applied only to disputes between states, but the
same processes can be applied to disputes involving institutions
and individuals as well, where it is often
referred to as alternative dispute resolution.
Diplomacy
A form of international dispute settlement that attempts to
reconcile parties to a disagreement by use
of negotiation, mediation, or inquiry.
Negotiation
Negotiation is the process of reaching an agreement through
discussion between two parties to a
dispute. Negotiation is the most important tool in the process of
dispute settlement. It is used not
merely to resolve disputes but also to prevent them from arising
in the first place. Negotiation can also
lay the groundwork for other forms of dispute settlement.
Negotiation
(From Latin negotiari: “to carry on business.”) The process of
reaching an agreement by conferring or
discussing.
Negotiations between states are most commonly conducted on
an ad hoc1 basis, but sometimes the
procedure is more formal. In such cases, states negotiate
through normal diplomatic channels, through
the use of competent authorities, through the establishment of
mixed or joint commissions, or even
through summit meetings. Summit meetings have been popular
in recent years because they can be an
effective way to bypass the official bureaucracy of the
participating states. At other times, summits are
staged to gain political capital out of an agreement already

18. finalized through negotiations between the
states’ bureaucracies.
Mediation
Mediation involves the use of a third party who transmits and
interprets the proposals of the principal
parties and sometimes advances independent proposals. When
mediators provide a channel of
communications only, it is said that they are offering their good
offices. When they make a formal
investigation and present a formal proposal, they are involved
in a conciliation.2
Mediation
(From Latin mediates: “to be in the middle.”) Bringing about a
peaceful settlement or compromise
between parties to a dispute through the benevolent intervention
of an impartial third party.
Good offices
A third party who provides the means by which two disputing
parties may communicate with each
other.
Conciliation