Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

The research study encompasses a critical analysis of viability of regional organizations as conflict management bodies. Despite the benefits that a regional composition and common history can afford, these organizations operate under many organizational constraints and other limitations. Moreover, their success as dispute resolution bodies is largely dependent upon a mix of different factors ranging from historical and geographical to political and cultural ones. Since mid-1990s, there has been a growing trend towards regionalization and this paper analyzes the viability of regional organizations as conflict management bodies, taking the case of SAARC and ASEAN as examples. Though the prime objective of both these organizations is to foster regional co-operation and enhance economic progress, it has been sought to be analyzed in the paper as to how far they can function as effective conflict resolution bodies.

With too many International and regional interest groups involved in the Syrian war, this paper analyses why the Syrian conflict is so complex, why the international effort to peace negotiations failed. At the end it tries to find options for a peaceful settlement.

International Law and Peace Settlements provides a systematic and comprehensive assessment of the relationship between international law and peace settlement practice across core settlement issues, e.g. transitional justice, human rights, refugees, self-determination, power-sharing, and wealth-sharing. The contributions address key cross-cutting questions on the legal status of peace agreements, the potential for developing international law, and the role of key actors – such as non-state armed groups, third-state witnesses and guarantors, and the UN Security Council – in the legalisation and internationalisation of settlement commitments. In recent years, significant scholarly work has examined facets of the relationship between international law and peace settlements, through concepts such as jus post bellum and lex pacificatoria. International Law and Peace Settlements drives forward the debate on the legalisation and internationalisation of peace agreements with diverse contributions from leading academics and practitioners in international law and conflict resolution.

POLÍTICA EXTERIOR ESPAÑOLA EN EL ÁREA DEL ESTRECHO. GIBRALTAR, CEUTA Y MELILLA, MARRUECOS
_______________
SPANISH FOREIGN POLICY IN THE STRAIT OF GIBRALTAR REGION. GIBRALTAR, CEUTA AND MELILLA, MOROCCO
_______________
CURSOS DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL Y RELACIONES INTERNACIONALES DE VITORIA-GASTEIZ 2018. 1ª ed., mayo 2019  --- Ed Thomson - Reuters -Aranzadi  2019  pp 389-460

Resumen:
El Área del Estrecho es una zona esencial para Europa y el Mediterráneo por la importancia estratégica del paso del Estrecho y su región circundante. Además, concentra en ella temas clave de la política exterior española: Gibraltar, Ceuta y Melilla, Marruecos y la cuestión del Sahara, que son los temas de controversias y  reclamaciones territoriales, soberanía y fronteras que nos afectan más directamente como Estado en nuestro entorno próximo. Estos temas territoriales de altísimo potencial conflictivo se encuentran localizados en una zona vital para España. Pero cada contencioso o controversia es diferente y evoluciona de manera distinta. España debe considerar un tratamiento de conjunto, las interconexiones y coherencia en el diseño de una política exterior para estas diferentes temáticas. Y para ello debe determinarse los intereses específicos de España con cada uno de estos diferendos, y el planteamiento estratégico de conjunto de España en la Región del Estrecho.
En este trabajo se realiza una comparación desde el Derecho Internacional de las situaciones de las tres ciudades a ambos lados del Estrecho, Ceuta, Melilla y Gibraltar, que concentran las problemáticas de controversias, fronteras, soberanía y reclamaciones territoriales que enfrentan a tres Estados en esta zona. Comparativamente las  situaciones de estos territorios tienen en común más diferencias que semejanzas jurídicas. Hay similitudes como las contestadas delimitaciones y demarcaciones fronterizas, o las exigencias de integridad territorial. Pero también enormes diferencias en el estatuto jurídico internacional e interno. Con todo, los argumentos y títulos jurídicos no son sólo lo único a tener en cuenta en la realidad internacional, pues hay aspectos de simbolismo y de debate mediático en la sociedad internacional que pueden eclipsar las diferencias legales.
      En la práctica España ha venido dando tratamientos separados y sin conexión a cada uno de los temas. Nunca ha habido una posición estratégica de Estado sobre el Área del Estrecho, que articule las diferentes cuestiones y reconozca las interacciones de cada decisión de política exterior. Además, los sucesivos Gobiernos han proporcionado orientaciones diferentes. Se aprecia, sin embargo, una progresiva conciencia de la relevancia estratégica del Área del Estrecho, y una mayor explicitación de la importancia y necesidad de su específica consideración.
Esta toma de conciencia debe llevar también a una progresiva  identificación de los elementos comunes y de las interacciones que existen entre los diferentes  contenciosos» que afectan a Gibraltar, los territorios de España en la costa africana, y las relaciones con Marruecos. De hecho, la práctica internacional demuestra que los actores perciben una interconexión entre los muy diferentes diferendos del Área del Estrecho. Además, estamos ante controversias, reclamaciones y relaciones muy volubles y sometidas a imprevistos de la realidad internacional, lo que directa o indirectamente pueden afectar a las otras cuestiones conflictivas de la Zona.
En consecuencia, muy probablemente existe la necesidad de establecer un subsector de política exterior diferenciado, y que cuente con amplio consenso nacional, con una visión a largo plazo de la coherencia de los diferentes acciones y políticas. Por lo que conviene considerar el debate explícito de las conexiones entre nuestros territorios en África, Gibraltar y Marruecos, en el marco internacional y de la UE. Lo que puede llevar a articular al menos de una serie principios de actuación en política exterior en esta zona.
A este debate hemos contribuido con dos propuestas de interconexión de temas conflictivos: respecto a los territorios en la costa africana, con la idea de separar el estatuto legal de las Ciudades del de las Islas y Peñones, e implicar a la UE en la coordinación y gestión de este último bloque, en su caso con la intervención de Marruecos. Respecto a Gibraltar, mediante la propuesta del Principado o ‘Ciudad de las dos Coronas’, con un modelo ad hoc de soberanía simbólica que permita a Gibraltar y Reino Unido ejercer jurisdicción con supervisión de la UE.
Además, este supuesto de internacionalización de la «Ciudad de Gibraltar», podría en el futuro, llegado el caso, resultar inspirador en la búsqueda de alternativas para los supuestos de Ceuta y de Melilla.
__________________________
Abstract: The Strait of Gibraltar Region is an essential area for Europe and the Mediterranean due to the strategically strategic importance of the passage of the Strait and its surrounding region. It also focuses on key issues of Spanish foreign policy: Gibraltar, Ceuta and Melilla, Morocco and the question of the Sahara, which are the issues of disputes and territorial claims, sovereignty and borders that affect us more directly as a State in our immediate environment.
These territorial issues of very high conflict potential are located in a vital area for Spain. But each dispute or controversy is different and evolves differently. Spain should consider a joint treatment, interconnections and coherence in the foreign policy treatment of these different issues. And for that, the specific interests of Spain must be determined with each of these differences, and the strategic approach of Spain as a whole in the Strait Region. In this paper a comparison is made from the International Law approach of the situations of the three cities on both sides of the Straits, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar, which  concentrate the problems of disputes, borders, sovereignty and territorial claims that face three States in this zone. Comparatively the situations of these territories have in common more differences than legal similarities. There are resemblances such as the contested delimitations and border demarcations, or the demands of territorial integrity. But also huge differences in the international and domestic legal status. However, arguments and legal titles are not only the single thing to take into account in international reality, as there are aspects of symbolism and media debate in international society that can eclipse the legal differences.
In practice, Spain has been giving separate treatments and without connection to each of the issues. There has never been a strategic State position on the area of the Strait, which articulates the different issues and recognizes the interactions of each foreign policy decision. In addition, successive governments have provided different orientations. However, there is a progressive awareness of the strategic relevance of the Strait Area, and a greater enunciation of the importance and necessity of its specific consideration.
This awareness must also lead to a progressive identification of the common elements and interactions that exist between the different «disputes» that affect Gibraltar, the territories of Spain on the African coast, and relations with Morocco. In fact, international practice shows that the actors perceive the interconnection between the very different disputes of the Strait Area. In addition, we are facing disputes, claims and relationships that are very fickle and subject to unforeseen circumstances of the international reality, which directly or indirectly may affect the other conflictive issues of the Zone.
Consequently, there is most likely a need to establish a differentiated foreign policy subsector, with a broad national consensus, with a long-term vision of the coherence of the different actions and policies. So it is convenient to consider the explicit debate of the connections between our territories in Africa, Gibraltar and Morocco, in the international framework and the EU. What can lead to articulate at least a series of principles of action in foreign policy in this area.
We have contributed to this debate with two proposals for the interconnection of conflictive issues. Regarding the territories on the African coast, with the suggestion to separate the legal status of the Cities of the Islands and rocks, and to involve the EU in the coordination and management of this last block, in its case with the intervention of Morocco. Regarding Gibraltar, through the proposal of the Principality or ‘City of the Two Crowns’, with an ad hoc model of symbolic sovereignty that allows Gibraltar and the United Kingdom to exercise jurisdiction with EU supervision. In addition, this assumption of internationalization of the «City of Gibraltar»,could in the future, if necessary, be inspiring in a search for alternatives for the cases of Ceuta and Melilla.

В статті досліджуються можливі сценарії мирного вирішення арабо-ізраїльського конфлікту. У якості методології соціально-філософського дослідження складного соціального конфлікту використовується теорія соціальних систем, розроблена Талкотом Парсонсом та Нікласом Луманом. Проводиться аналіз різноманітних програм та ініціатив по налагодженню діалогу між євреями та палестинцями (і загалом арабами). Наводиться ряд позитивних прикладів діяльності таких проектів, аналізуються причини їхнього успіху та ті нюанси, які вимагають доопрацювання та більшої уваги. Також в статті наводяться висновки, які слідують з вищезазначеного аналізу, зокрема необхідність побудови мирних ініціатив «знизу», а не насадження їх «згори».

The article explores possible scenarios for peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As a methodology of socio-philosophical study of a complex social conflict author used the theory of social systems, developed by Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann. The article also provides an analysis of various programs and initiatives for establishing a dialogue between Jews and Palestinians (and, in general, the Arabs). Presented a number of positive examples of the activities of such projects, analyzed the reasons for their success and those nuances that require further elaboration and attention. Also in the article provided conclusions that follow from the above analysis, in particular the need to build peace initiatives «from the bottom-up», rather than implementation them «from above».

Ключові слова: теорія соціальних систем, Ніклас Луман, Талкотт Парсонс, арабо-ізраїльський конфлікт, мирне врегулювання, конфліктологія, іудаїзм, іслам.

Keywords: Social Systems Theory, Niklas Luhmann, Talcott Parsons, Arab-Israeli Conflict, Peaceful Settlement, Conflict Resolution, Judaism, Islam.

Despite globalization and the increasingly transnational character of human activities, territorial disputes remain a significant source of tensions in international relations and constitute a large share of inter-state cases brought before international tribunals and courts. The Research Handbook on Territorial Disputes in International Law analyses the concepts, technical rules, and norms applicable to territorial disputes. Available in:
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781782546863/9781782546863.xml

GIBRALTAR , THE BREXIT, THE SYMBOLIC SOVEREIGNTY,
AND THE DISPUTE. A PRINCIPALITY IN THE STRAITS ?

Alejandro del Valle Gálvez

I. NEGOTIATION DEADLOCK AND CROSSBORDER COOPERATION
II. GIBRALTAR AND BREXIT: CHANGES IN THE MAIN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
III. THE NEED FOR A NEW STATUS IN THE EU AND
THE KEY ROLE OF SPAIN IN TUE ART. 50 WITHDRAWAL NEGOTIATIONS
IV. REMAINING IN THE EU: SCOTLAND AND THE ‘GREENLAND’ MODEL AND THE MICRO STATE-STYLE RELATIONSHIP
V. IS JOINT SOVEREIGNTY A SOLUTION?
VI. A PROVISIONAL MODUS VIVENDI
VII. LOOKING FOR NEW IMAGINATIVE PROPOSALS. A PRINCIPALITY IN THE STRAITS? THE SYMBOLIC SOVEREIGNTY FORMULA
VIII. CONCLUSIONS

Cuadernos de Gibraltar – Gibraltar Reports
Número 2/Issue # 2, 2016-2017, pp. 67-96
ISSN 2444-7382

Abstract: The outcome of the United Kingdom’s ‘Brexit’ referendum on leaving the European Union necessarily entails both a reconsideration of the status of Gibraltar and changes in Spain’s perspective on a solution to the dispute. Following Brexit, negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will not only pave the way for a new European and international legal framework, but will also create a historic opportunity for Spain to redefine its relationship with Gibraltar, offering the possibility of new approaches to resolve this historical dispute.

After the crisis of 2013, negotiations reached a stalemate, but the unexpected outcome of the Brexit referendum could have tragic consequences for Gibraltar because the obligation to negotiate the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will likewise oblige Gibraltar to redefine its legal status with the EU, which constitutes the legal framework of greatest practical daily application, together with two other international legal frameworks, namely the Treaty of Utrecht and the UN declaration on decolonisation. The European framework will continue to apply for at least the two years during which withdrawal negotiations are held, providing sufficient legal certainty concerning applicable law in the coming years. However, the effects of uncertainty could have a very negative impact on the economy of Gibraltar, whose population adopted a clear stance in favour of ‘Bremain’ in the referendum. Furthermore, a possible return to the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht has raised fears of the very probable legality of closing the border, at Spain’s instigation, if EU law ceases to be applicable in the future.

The unavoidable renegotiation of the status of Gibraltar within the EU will inevitably involve Spain, which in 1986 did not question the status endowed in 1972. In the present context, however, Spain could leverage the requirement for unanimity at several crucial moments during the process of negotiating British withdrawal as regulated by Art. 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); thus, various possible future scenarios for Gibraltar, such as the Norwegian or Swiss models or the antecedent of Greenland, will depend on Spain’s consent. In addition, solutions that seek to maintain application of the European Single Market to Gibraltar would in practice be unworkable in the international arena, because Gibraltar is not part of the British State and its only status under international law is that of a territory awaiting decolonisation in a process supervised by the United Nations.

The unavoidable renegotiation of the status of Gibraltar within the EU will inevitably involve Spain, which in 1986 did not question the status endowed in 1972. In the present context, however, Spain could leverage the requirement for unanimity at several crucial moments during the process of negotiating British withdrawal as regulated by Art. 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); thus, various possible future scenarios for Gibraltar, such as the Norwegian or Swiss models or the antecedent of Greenland, will depend on Spain’s consent. In addition, solutions that seek to maintain application of the European Single Market to Gibraltar would in practice be unworkable in the international arena, because Gibraltar is not part of the British State and its only status under international law is that of a territory awaiting decolonisation in a process supervised by the United Nations.

At the same time, Brexit has opened a window of opportunity for resolving this historical dispute, which encompasses both peaceful coexistence between Spain and the small neighbouring community of Gibraltar just over the border, and the question of sovereignty that underlies the dispute with the United Kingdom. The acting Spanish Government took two important decisions in 2016: it announced the need to negotiate the status of Gibraltar outside the framework of TEU Art. 50, and it proposed joint sovereignty. This historic moment requires strategic decisions supported by broad domestic consensus in Spain, since it is a key issue strongly symbolic of Spanish foreign policy which may have important domestic and international consequences.

Spain now has the opportunity to adopt a strategic approach that incorporates a new narrative and focus for Gibraltar, and which addresses the pending issue of regulating cross-border relations and coexistence with the people of Gibraltar. The unanimous support given in 2016 by all political parties for a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) with Gibraltar within the EU framework demonstrates that significant changes are possible for cross-border coexistence. Gibraltar and Campo could even adopt a common approach to Brexit and its consequences for Gibraltar and the region, enforcing this in their respective States and the EU as negotiations begin.

Instead of Joint Sovereignty negotiations as the answer for the Gibraltar question, the article advocate a twofold approach in the current historical negotiating situation for the UK’s departure from the EU: a provisional Modus Vivendi for cross-border coexistence, and in parallel an agreement to seek a new international and European model for Gibraltar, trying to put an end to historical controversy.

A provisional Modus Vivendi for the cross-border coexistence with Gibraltar could be an interim agreement to regulate the aspects that most urgently need the daily normalization. Especially the border crossing by the Border/Fence, but also others such as the issues of transparency and economic-financial collaboration, navigation and jurisdiction over Bay waters, or the use of the airport.

This historic moment could be conducive to moving forwards in new and imaginative ways, with initiatives such as that of ‘symbolic sovereignty’ formula via the proposed Principality of Gibraltar or City of the British and Spanish Crowns linked to the EU, which offers sufficient constitutional and international margins for consideration. This proposal of the Two Crowns Principality, linked to the EU, would restore Gibraltar to the Spanish nation and sovereignty, in addition to incorporating it into the EU as part of the Kingdom of Spain, ensuring the maintenance of its current organisation and powers and entailing agreements on Gibraltar’s economic and financial regime and British retention of its military bases.

http://catedras.uca.es/jean-monnet/revistas/cuadernos-de-gibraltar/abstracts/02/info002eng

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6037322

http://catedras.uca.es/jean-monnet/revistas/cuadernos-de-gibraltar/contenidos/02/cgib02-valle-principality.pdf

http://catedras.uca.es/jean-monnet/revistas/cuadernos-de-gibraltar/abstracts/02/info002eng

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6037322

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is "per se" an international criminal jurisdiction established through an agreement with the aim to resolve those social conflicts that arise as a consequence of certain unlawful behaviors of individuals: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression, considered as the most serious crimes by the international community as a whole. Thus, the ICC is an instance or mechanism for the recomposition of the respect of fundamental values, such as the international peace and security and the dignity of the human being. However, as a result of its functioning is that certain controversies can emerge either on the occasion of the exercise of its judicial functions, or between two or more States Parties regarding the interpretation and application of the Statute.
The description of the nature of the controversies that may arise as well as the means to settle them (established in the Statute), are the object of study in this work.
This paper is part of the book "La Solución de Controversias en Derecho Internacional y Temas Vinculados. Liber Amicorum Alejandro Turyn"

EuropaSur 24.Junio.2017

http://www.europasur.es/gibraltar/Modus-vivendi-Gibraltar_0_1147985277.html

El 'Brexit' ofrece una oportunidad histórica para buscar un nuevo modelo internacional y europeo para el Peñón y alcanzar un acuerdo provisional para la coexistencia transfronteriza

This article reviews the ICJ judgment on the Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece). It argues that despite the formal separation between the name dispute and the object of the legal dispute before the ICJ, the Court’s judgement can in fact be construed as an intervention in the name dispute. As such, it was perhaps at the limits of the Court’s jurisdiction under the terms of Article 21(2) of the Interim Accord. However, irrespective of the jurisdictional question, the judgment might perform a useful function towards the long-awaited final resolution of the name dispute.

SUMARIO: I. Introducción; II. El debate sobre el sistema
de solución de controversias en la III Conferencia de las
Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar y sus
excepciones; II.1) Las sesiones iniciales y el debate sobre
el sistema de solución de controversias en general; II.2)
El debate del proyecto de artículos y las excepciones a la
solución de controversias; III. Las actividades militares
en el mar como excepción facultativa en la Sección 3 de
la Parte XV de la Convención; III.1) Examen del
concepto “actividades militares”; III.2) La contribución
de la noción “utilización del espacio oceánico con fines
pacíficos” en auxilio de una comprensión del significado
“actividades militares”; III.2.a) Las cláusulas sobre “fines
pacíficos” en instrumentos internacionales anteriores a la
Convención; III.2.b) Los debates sobre los “fines
pacíficos” en la III Conferencia; III.3) La relación entre
“fines pacíficos” y “actividades militares” en las
disposiciones finales de la Convención a la luz de la
Carta de la O.N.U.; IV. Conclusión.

2020--- DEL VALLE GALVEZ , A. “Las aguas de Gibraltar, ¿<<costa seca>>, o costa española?”
Capítulo 42 de  José Manuel Sobrino Heredia / Gabriela A. Oanta (Coords.) La construcción jurídica de un espacio marítimo común europeo, J.M. Bosch Editor, pp. 1011-1054,
ISBN: 9788412137651
ISBN: 9788412137644
http://libreriabosch.com/media/public/doc/Oanta_Sobrino_Resumen_Indice_Prologo.pdf

SUMARIO

I.- GIBRALTAR, CONTROVERSIA HISTÓRICA Y DERECHO DEL MAR 
1.- Controversia y Aguas en torno a Gibraltar
2.- Controversia y Derecho del Mar

II.- LAS TRADICIONALES POSICIONES SOBRE LAS AGUAS EN TORNO AL PEÑÓN Y AL ISTMO
1.- Posición  y práctica española.
2.- Posición  y práctica británica

III.-  CIERTAS CUESTIONES RELATIVAS A LAS AGUAS EN TORNO A GIBRALTAR, Y LAS POSICIONES ESPAÑOLA Y BRITÁNICA
1.- Aguas del Puerto
2.- Aguas junto a instalaciones militares 
3.- Submarinos nucleares 
4.- Navegación y Tráficos ilícitos
5.- Pesca 
6- Medio ambiente y Estrategia Marina europea
7.- Futura proyección por Gibraltar de espacios marítimos.

IV.- LA COSTA ORIENTAL DE GIBRALTAR : COSTA ESPAÑOLA, NO COSTA SECA
1.- Los límites de la cesión de la montaña de Gibraltar en Utrecht
2.- Territorio cedido en la montaña y sus consecuencias en las aguas.
3.- Territorio no cedido en la montaña y prescripción adquisitiva británica.
4.- Las consecuencias de la consideración del lado oriental de Gibraltar como costa española

V.- CONCLUSIÓN –REFORMULAR COHERENTEMENTE LA POSICIÓN ESPAÑOLA DE LA ‘COSTA SECA’ Y SOBRE EL PUERTO DE GIBRALTAR.

Stella Ghervas (2015). “The Long Shadow of the Congress of Vienna: From International Peace to Domestic Disorders”, Journal of Modern European History, 15, 4 (2015): 458-464.

To link to this article: https://elibrary.chbeck.de/10.17104/1611-8944-2015-4-458/the-long-shadow-of-the-congressof-vienna-from-international-peaceto-domestic-disorders-jahrgang-13-2015-heft-4

The international legal system encompasses a variety of legal norms, but the perceived increase in "fragmentation" of these norms has recently been seen as a problem for the system as a whole. Consequently, many writers have suggested forms of increased comity among international tribunals in order to combat the problems associated with fragmentation; indeed, locating harmonies among international legal regimes within a coherent international legal system appears to be the dominant trend. Yet these perspectives dismiss, or at the very least, largely overlook, the benefits of competition among international tribunals.

Fragmenting norms could provide opportunities for better norms, particularly since differing legal traditions bring differing norms to adjudication, all of which may have their relative strengths. This continual updating of law and legal dispute resolution is healthy for the law to maintain legitimacy while keeping up with social change. How popular courts weigh the need for equality, the right to a hearing, and so on might suggest a balance among principles that is the most just approach. Other tribunals may look to the decisions of more popular fora as examples of justice, and reform themselves and their image appropriately. Thus, increased competition may increase the diversity of legal norms and the legitimacy of the norms applied.

Any objection to the beneficial role of fragmentation is based on one's conception of justice and whether justice can be a democratic and competitive preference. If international tribunals are created by States in order to do justice among them, then being recognized as the most attractive forum is evidence that a particular tribunal may have a better appreciation for justice. Fragmentation may not be a problem to be solved, but rather, a sign that the international legal system needs to consider a variety of legal norms. As society's definition of justice evolves, so do many tribunals, not necessarily towards a top-down, constitutionalized, hierarchical system overseeing a coherent, unitary international legal order, or for that matter towards a network of friendly, lending, and borrowing professionals. Instead, they may affirm a bottom-up, vigorous system where different legal actors compete for the best realization of justice.

This essay is about impartiality in international mediation. The core research question is: To what extent is impartiality a component of international mediation: when it is important, when not? Mediation is defined in this essay following the definition offered by the United Nations (2012: 4) ''a process whereby a third party assists two or more parties, with their consent, to prevent, manage or resolve a conflict by helping them to develop mutually acceptable agreements. The premise of mediation is that in the right environment, conflict parties can improve their relationships and move towards cooperation. Mediation outcomes can be limited in scope, dealing with a specific issue in order to contain or manage a conflict, or can tackle a broad range of issues in a comprehensive peace agreement.'' The Charter of the United Nations identifies mediation as an important means for the peaceful settlement of disputes and conflicts, and it has proven to be an effective instrument to address both inter-State and intra-State conflicts. According to the United Nations (2012: 10), ''Impartiality is a cornerstone of mediation – if a mediation process is perceived to be biased, this can undermine meaningful progress to resolve the conflict. A mediator should be able to run a balanced process that treats all actors fairly and should not have a material interest in the outcome. This also requires that the mediator is able to talk with all actors relevant to resolving the conflict. Impartiality is not synonymous with neutrality, as a mediator, especially a United Nations mediator, is typically mandated to uphold certain universal principles and values and may need to make them explicitly known to the parties.'' Evidently, there are cases in international mediation when impartiality matters more although effective mediation has got its unique logic of which impartiality is a cornerstone value. For example, according to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon (2012), ''To be effective, however, a mediation process requires more than the appointment of a high-profile individual to act as a third party. Antagonists often need to be persuaded of the merits of mediation, and peace processes must be well-supported politically, technically and financially. Ad-hoc and poorly coordinated mediation efforts – even when launched with the best of intentions – do not advance the goal of achieving durable peace.'' Mediation often exists alongside facilitation, good offices and dialogue efforts. Mediation, however, has its own logic and approach, aspects of which may be relevant to other approaches to the peaceful settlement of disputes. Mediation differs from “good offices” in that the mediator usually takes more initiative in proposing terms of settlement. It differs from arbitration in that the opposing parties are not bound by prior agreement to accept the suggestions made. However, in this essay, mediation will be considered in the context of studies on International Relations. There are not many works that aim to trace the idea of impartiality to the original debate between opposing camps of idealists and realists within the field of International Relations. The big idea is that the essence of mediation is to bring the conflicting sides to the negotiating table, establish some legitimated norms whilst attempting to understand parties’ motivations, and the source of force that pushes them to remain in conflict. The concept of 'cosmopolitan ethics' and 'dialogic community' will be discussed, as well as the notion of ripe time for resolution will be highlighted. A conflict becomes ripe for resolution when the parties realize that the status quo, namely - no negotiation - is a lose-lose situation (because they cannot win), not a zero-sum (win-lose) situation. Thus to avoid the mutual loss, they must consider negotiation. For example, Zartman (2001: 8) observed, ''While most studies on peaceful settlement of disputes see the substance of the proposals for a solution as the key to a successful resolution of conflict, a growing focus of attention shows that a second and equally necessary key lies in the timing of efforts for resolution (Zartman 2000). Parties resolve their conflict only when they are ready to do so—when alternative, usually unilateral means of achieving a satisfactory result are blocked and the parties feel that they are in an uncomfortable and costly predicament. At that ripe moment, they grab on to proposals that usually have been in the air for a long time and that only now appear attractive.'' As Zartman (2008: 9) noted, ''Ripeness is only a condition, necessary but not sufficient, for the initiation of negotiations. It is not self-fulfilling or self-implementing. It must be seized, either directly by the parties or, if not, through the persuasion of a mediator.'' If a mediator is impartial, it could only enhance peace process. ''MHS can be a very fleeting opportunity, a moment to be seized lest it pass, or it can be of a long duration, waiting to be noticed and acted upon by mediators.'' (Ibid.: 13). In mediation, there are different approaches that prescribe different levels of impartiality depending on the nature of conflict. It will be argued that there are two opposite styles of mediation that can be applied under different circumstances. The first is the power-political approach, which operates within the neorealist framework whereby stress is placed on strategic rationality and cost-benefit calculations of mediators. The second is the facilitative approach whereby mediators serve as communicators whose main task is to sustain dialogue between the parties. The chosen method of this paper is critical analysis and balanced discussion. This leads to a conclusion that there are some situations, in which impartiality is more important; and others, in which impartiality does not serve as a decisive factor. There are analysts who agree with the traditional thesis that mediator impartiality is a critical quality for successful mediation (Jackson, 1952: 125-9; Young, 1967: 81; Northedge and Donelan, 1971: 299; Assefa, 1987: 22; Miall, 1992: 62; Hume, 1994; quoted in Kleiboer, 1996: 369). These authors ''seem to assume a chain of effects following from impartiality: mediator impartiality is crucial for disputants' confidence in the mediator, which, in turn, is a necessary condition for his gaining acceptability, which, in turn, is essential for mediation success to come about.'' (Ibid.). There are also analysts who claim that ''a mediator need not to be impartial to be successful (Touval, 1975: 67; Kochan, 1981: 133; Smith, 1985: 371; Orme, 1989: 60; Jabri, 1990: 8). Some analysts go a step further by arguing that mediator acceptability is neither contingent upon impartiality not on trust in the mediator, but instead on a mediator's bias towards one of the parties (Touval and Zartman, 1985: 15; Bercovitch, Anagnoson and Wille, 1991: 15; quoted in Kleiboer, 1996: 370). Thus, if any summarizing statement can be made is that impartiality is not a definitive component of all successful mediation cases in all geographical settings and all contexts though it remains a substantial factor, at least, according to the first group of analysts mentioned above. Impartiality is among the key fundamentals that should be considered in a mediation effort next to: preparedness; consent; inclusivity; national ownership; international law and normative frameworks; coherence, coordination and complementarity of the mediation effort; and quality peace agreements. Although no golden formulas for achieving mediation success has been found yet, this essay argues that impartiality has to be at all times exercised by a skilful mediator since alongside other key fundamentals it may determine the overall success of international mediation process. According to the United Nations (2012: 23), the importance of a supportive external environment for the mediation process is vital. For the success of international mediation to be complete, emphasis is also placed on the need for cooperation among entities involved in mediation, ''While all these factors are important, the success or failure of a mediation process ultimately depends on whether the conflict parties accept mediation and are committed to reaching an agreement. If the parties are genuinely willing to explore a negotiated solution, mediators can play an invaluable role.'' The impact of the essay is to bring attention of statesmen, decision-makers and wider world to the peaceful resolution of conflicts through international mediation since the benefits of mediation outweigh costs plus the potential risk of legitimising past violations of international law. Consistency with international law and norms contributes to reinforcing the legitimacy of a process and the durability of a peace agreement. When applied skilfully international mediation could bring peace to many ongoing conflicts around the world.

Boris Krivokapić: DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS AS A WAY FOR PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

The article  deals with  direct  (diplomatic) negotiations which are for many reasons  widely  considered  not only as a basic but also as the most important  way  for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
After a brief introduction, the author first deals with some phenomena that are similar to negotiations, but are still for something different. He differs preventive measures that should contribute to make sure that the dispute will not occur at all. Within them he isolates preventive steps - notification, prior consent and consultation. On the other hand, he introduces a new term - "clarification of the situation", implying the steps taken when already occurred undesirable situation which stil is not a dispute, but which easily can grow into a serious problem.
The second, main part of the paper deals with the direct negotiations in the strict sense. The author in detail deals with such issues as the concept of direct negotiations, their types, stages, ending (the result), strengths and weaknesses and so on.

This study examines the resolution of conflicts between states based on the peaceful concept, while the ways that based on violence and military force has been considered by the international community as an illegal concept. The method of study is to compare and analyze the basic principles of resolution conflict based on peaceful that contained in the international law and Islamic law. The result of research, it is known that resolution of conflict which based on peaceful refer to how effectiveness of governance or good governance, mediation, investigation, conciliation and other means..

The designation of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations often leads commentators to the expectation that the Court will seize any available opportunity to authoritatively ‘say what the law is’ in the abstract, almost for the benefit of the legal system as a whole rather than the parties before it. The preeminent role of the Court’s jurisprudence in the life of most international lawyers reinforces this discourse. However, this is not the Court’s primary function – not even in the context of the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction.

This chapter departs from two basic claims. First, the Court exists to “decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it” (Article 38 of the Statute); that is, its function is to contribute to the “peaceful settlement of international disputes which might otherwise endanger the maintenance of international peace and security” (Article 33 of the UN Charter). Second, such a role is shared with many other actors on the international plane. Judicial settlement is only one of the many tools at the disposal of States in the settlement of such disputes, as Article 33 of the UN Charter makes especially clear. Not every international dispute needs the Court, and the Court is not necessarily the best tool to solve every dispute.

These premises put into question the meaningfulness of the recurring debates on the fragmentation of international law in light of the proliferation of international courts and tribunals. These debates often focus on the inconsistencies between statements concerning the law in decisions by different courts and tribunal, and the ICJ is encouraged to settle such inconsistencies as ‘first among peers’. However, despite the aspirations concerning universal and permanent compulsory jurisdiction at the turn of the 20th century, the Court was not in fact designed primarily as a mechanism for achieving uniformity in international law, but as a dispute settlement mechanism. This may be contrasted with the role of Supreme Courts, especially in civil law countries, whose explicit function is to correct and clarify matters of law arising from lower Courts. In Italian legal circles, for instance, the Corte di Cassazione is described as having the function of nomofilachia, or ‘tending to the law’. Such a function entails the authoritative selection of the ‘correct’ interpretation of legal provisions among the multifarious statements that a legal system without stare decisis inevitably engenders. International law similarly has no stare decisis, but the ICJ is not “the Cour de Cassation for all States” (Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea Bissau v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 53, at p. 80, Decl. Judge Mbaye). It may indeed be called to clarify international law, but always in relation to the dispute at hand.

This, in turn, demands that scholars manage their own expectations as to how the Court is in a position to contribute to the development of international law. When considering the role of the Court, more attention must be paid to the practical aspects of the Court’s function as one among many dispute settlement actors. It is crucial, for instance, to understand what types of disputes the Court is institutionally most fit to solve. It is only in this light that the contribution of the Court may be more fully appreciated.

Call for Papers for an international conference "The Rhodes 1949 Armistices Agreements at 70: International Conference on History, Law and Politics" to be held on 31 October - 1 November in Rodos, Greece, by the Department of Mediterrannean Studies of the University of the Aegean, on the occasion of the 70 years since the General Armistices Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria

In this paper I briefly discuss four issues regarding the 2016 Orders issued by the International Court of Justice for nominating independent experts in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua dispute (Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean). I tackle (1) the function to be developed by the experts; (2) the role of the parties in the procedure for nomination of experts; (3) some problems with regard to the principle of transparency and; (4) issues regarding the costs of the expertise.

This chapter examines settlement practice on detention in light of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Section 2 identifies the international legal frameworks that regulate detention, drawing the necessary distinctions between peacetime and armed conflict, and between international and non-international armed conflict, which frame questions on relevant applicable law. Section 3 then examines the specific legal norms relating to prisoners of war and civilian detainees within international armed conflict and their interaction with settlement practice; while Section 4 does the same in relation to legal norms regulating detention in non-international armed conflicts. In the context of peace agreements, the focus is on two interconnected issues which extend into a post bellum phase, as important subject matter for settlement practice: release and repatriation; and transitional justice. By way of conclusion, Section 5 considers whether settlement provisions on detainees reflect a common practice that develops international legal standards.

El objeto de este artículo es pasar revista de los requisitos y
características de los procedimientos de intervención de terceros y aquellas cuestiones procesales o jurisdiccionales que suelen ser objeto de discusión en el contexto de ciertos tribunales internacionales judiciales, como la Corte Internacional de Justicia y el Tribunal Internacional del Derecho del Mar.

This study examines the resolution of conflicts between states based on the peaceful
concept, while the ways that based on violence and military force has been considered
by the international community as an illegal concept. The method of study is to compare and analyze the basic principles of resolution conflict based on peaceful that contained in
the international law and Islamic law. The result of research, it is known that resolution
of conflict which based on peaceful refer to how effectiveness of governance or good
governance, mediation, investigation, conciliation and other means..

Armenia claims that the right to self determination of NK should be the principle to be considered. And there are precedents encouraging this assumption: Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia (which by the way Armenia itself does not recognize), South Sudan...: self determination and breakaway regions... or the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia: self determination and state secession/dismembratio. Is there an ongoing new hierarchization of rights? Is an emerging customary law placing the right to self determination above the pillar of state territorial integrity?