Hello, welcome back.

Today, we will speak about

the history of international dispute settlement in The Hague. And we will
particularly explore
the foundations of institutions such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration
and the International Court of Justice. The leading question is. Why did people
start thinking about
creating international courts? And what global value did
they mean to protect? Why do we need international courts? And what do you think
was
the first global value? The roots of The Hague's role as <br>the international
judicial capital of the world lie in 1899. When the Russian Tsar Nicholas II and
his minister of foreign affairs Count Mouravieff decided at <br>the international
peace conference, that they wanted to organize
would take place in the Hague. The first Hague Peace Conference <br>was convened in
1899 and the second one in 1907. Together, these Hague Peace Conferences
set the stage for international diplomacy and for international relations between
states, on
world affairs as we still see them today. More importantly, the Hague Peace
Conferences were foundational for the system of international dispute
<br>settlement, that we currently have. Yet, we must also realize that this system
was designed by a very select group of
only 26 predominately, European states. The Russians had pursued a rather
exclusive invitation policy. Most Latin American states were absent and also the
young South African
nation was not invited. The political motivations behind
the idea to convene a peace conference, were to halt the process
of competitive armament and to alleviate the financial burdens
that came along with this process. Hence, the central themes of <br>the two Peace
Conferences were, one disarmament, and two, peace. So peace can be called
the first global value. Was this what you expected? Do you believe, peace is still
the most
central and important global value today? And do you think the word "peace", today,
<br>means the same as it did one century ago? Maybe you pause for
a moment to ponder on these questions. In the 18th century, great ideas
about peace have been developed by the philosophers Jeremy Bentham and <br>Immanuel
Kant. Subsequently, in the 19th century, some NGO-like peace societies have
<br>blown life into these ideals. The Hague Conferences aim to translate <br>such
ideals into political realities. And in this spirit, one of the key
questions that was discussed at both conferences was how conflict
between states could be prevented and resolved through peaceful
means of dispute settlement. So the traditional idea of peace related
to the absence of war between states. During the conferences, the diplomats and
lawyers present discussed traditional <br>methods of dispute settlement. Such as
negotiation,
mediation, and good offices. But the central and most
groundbreaking diplomatic conversation concerned the idea of arbitration. And even
the establishment of <br>an international arbitral tribunal. In the 19th century,
American states, and, in particularly, Latin American states, had <br>already
taken the lead on this matter with the conclusion of several
arbitration treaties. Following in those footsteps, the Hague
Conferences constituted the moment and place at which the method of
arbitration was taken to another, more universal, level. The 1899 and 1907 Hague
Conventions established <br>the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which, as you will
learn in module three <br>of this MOOC, is actually not a court. In module three,
you will learn what arbitration is, and what the Permanent Court
of Arbitration does. We'll also explain to you how arbitration
is different from judicial settlements, and how the Permanent Court of Arbitration
differs from <br>the International Court of Justice. But for now, let's return
to<br>the Hague Peace Conferences and the start of the 20th century. The lofty
ideals of
the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, were of course, soon smothered <br>by
the fog of the First World War. The ideal of peace and the understanding
that international cooperation was needed to achieve such peace, survived the war.
Or perhaps the horrors <br>of the First World War, ultimately provided a great
incentive. To effectuate an idea that
had been on the agenda for the Third Peace Conference,
scheduled to take place in 1915. And this idea, concerned the establishment of a
Permanent Court of International Justice. Indeed, in 1919 associated with
the newly created League of Nations, such a court was effectively instituted. On 15
February 1922, the first
session of this court took place, under the presidency of Dutchman Loder. The
founders of the League of Nations,
most notably the U.S. President Wilson had Utopian aspirations for a new <br>world
order after the First World War. And a new court, as they soon called,
The World Court. After the Second World War,<br>the League of Nations ceased to
exist and was replaced by the United Nations, an international organization
that is still in existence today. Similarly, after the Second World War, <br>the
Permanent Court of Justice was replaced by the International Court
of Justice, a new court but largely patterned upon its predecessor. In the United
Nations system,
the International Court of Justice or the ICJ as we also call it in short, is given
a lead role as the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations. Moreover, in the UN system, all states are
under an obligation
to settle their disputes peacefully. This obligation is laid down in article
two, paragraph three of the UN charter. In order to comply with the obligation
to settle disputes peacefully, states can turn the ICJ, just like individuals
can turn to their national courts. However, there are major differences
between the ICJ and national courts which reflect inherent differences
between national legal orders and the international legal system. The most
prominent differences are these. Since we do not have
an international police force, decisions of the ICJ
are difficult to enforce. Moreover, the ICJ has no
compulsory jurisdiction. Which means, it can only adjudicate those
disputes that states have referred to it. And whereas states have
explicitly consented to the ICJ have jurisdiction
to settle the case. State consent is crucial. And as you know, this is one of
the main themes of the entire MOOC. And we will discuss this with
you further in module two. We hope to see you there.