Name: Lavvina Choudhary

Roll Number: 61
Class: V-II-B

Political Science Internal Assignment

1. a) Discuss Mediation as a Method of settlement of Disputes
b) What is the difference between Judicial Settlement and Arbitration?
Answer: a) Mediation as a Method of settlement of Disputes:

Mediation is the use of an independent, impartial, and respected third party (called the conciliator
or mediator) in settlement of a dispute, instead of opting for arbitration or litigation. Unlike an
arbitrator, a mediator has no legal power to force acceptance of his or her decision but relies on
persuasion to reach an agreement, also called conciliation.

Mediation, along with conciliation and good offices, is one of the three popular methods of
peaceful settlement of disputes by which third parties seek to assist the parties to a dispute in
reaching a settlement. All involve the intervention of a supposedly disinterested individual, State,
commission, or organization to help the parties.

Mediation is a dynamic, structured, interactive process where a neutral third party assists
disputing parties in resolving conflict through the use of specialized communication and
negotiation techniques. All participants in mediation are encouraged to actively participate in the
process. Mediation is a "party-centered" process, it is focused primarily upon the needs, rights,
and interests of the parties. Mediation, as used in law, is a form of (alternative dispute resolution)
(ADR), a way of resolving disputes between two or more with concrete effects. Typically, a third
party, the mediator assists the parties to a settlement. Disputants may mediate disputes in a
variety of domains, such as commercial, legal, diplomatic, workplace, community and family
matters. The term "mediation" broadly refers to any instance in which a third party helps others
reach agreement.

Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure - Alternate Dispute Resolution Rules, 2003 (ADR Rules) defines
mediation by stating that:
Settlement by ‘Mediation’ means the process by which a mediator appointed by parties or by the
Court, as the case may be, mediates the dispute between the parties to the suit by the application
of the provisions of the Mediation Rules, 2003 in Part II, and in particular, by facilitating
discussion between parties directly or by communicating with each other through the mediator,
by assisting parties in identifying issues, reducing misunderstandings, clarifying priorities,
exploring areas of compromise, generating options in an attempt to solve the dispute and
emphasizing that it is the parties own responsibility for making decisions which affect them.

Commercial mediation in India was given life in 1996 when the Indian parliament amended the
Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and introduced section 89, which empowered courts to direct
settlement of disputes by mediation amongst other means. This provision governs mediation in
the court system in India. The year 1996 also saw the introduction of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act (ACA). The provisions of the ACA govern private mediation (conciliation) in
India.

The principal characteristics of mediation are:

 Mediation is a non-binding procedure controlled by the parties.

A party to a mediation cannot be forced to accept an outcome that it does not like. Unlike an
arbitrator or a judge, the mediator is not a decision-maker. The mediator's role is, rather, to
assist the parties in reaching a settlement of the dispute. Indeed, even when the parties have
agreed to submit a dispute to mediation, they are free to abandon the process at any time after
the first meeting if they find that its continuation does not meet their interests. However,
parties usually participate actively in mediations once they begin. If they decide to proceed
with the mediation, the parties decide on how it should be conducted with the mediator.

 Mediation is a confidential procedure

In mediation, the parties cannot be compelled to disclose information that they prefer to keep
confidential. If, in order to promote resolution of the dispute, a party chooses to disclose
confidential information or make admissions, that information cannot, under the WIPO
Mediation Rules, be provided to anyone - including in subsequent court litigation or arbitration -
outside the context of the mediation.
Under the WIPO Mediation Rules, the existence and outcome of the mediation are also
confidential. Mediation's confidentiality allows the parties to negotiate more freely and
productively, without fear of publicity.

 Mediation is an interest-based procedure

In court litigation or arbitration, the outcome of a case is determined by the facts of the dispute
and the applicable law. In mediation, the parties can also be guided by their business interests.
As such, the parties are free to choose an outcome that is oriented as much to the future of their
business relationship as to their past conduct.

When the parties refer to their interests and engage in dialogue, mediation often results in a
settlement that creates more value than would have been created if the underlying dispute had
not occurred.

Because mediation is non-binding and confidential, it involves minimal risk for the parties and
generates significant benefits. Indeed, one could say that, even when a settlement is not achieved,
mediation never fails, as it causes the parties to define the facts and issues of the dispute, thus in
any event preparing the ground for subsequent arbitration or court proceedings.

The benefits of mediation include:

1. Cost: While a mediator may charge a fee comparable to that of an attorney, the mediation
process generally takes much less time than moving a case through standard legal channels.
While a case in the hands of a lawyer or a court may take months or years to resolve, mediation
usually achieves a resolution in a matter of hours. Taking less time means expending less money
on hourly fees and costs.

2. Confidentiality: While court hearings are public, mediation remains strictly confidential. No
one but the parties to the dispute and the mediator or mediators knows what happened.
Confidentiality in mediation has such importance that in most cases the legal system cannot force
a mediator to testify in court as to the content or progress of mediation. Many mediators destroy
their notes taken during a mediation once that mediation has finished. The only exceptions to
such strict confidentiality usually involve child abuse or actual or threatened criminal acts.
3. Control: Mediation increases the control the parties have over the resolution. In a court case,
the parties obtain a resolution, but control resides with the judge or jury. Often, a judge or jury
cannot legally provide solutions that emerge in mediation. Thus, mediation is more likely to
produce a result that is mutually agreeable for the parties.

4. Compliance: Because the result is attained by the parties working together and is mutually
agreeable, compliance with the mediated agreement is usually high. This further reduces costs,
because the parties do not have to employ an attorney to force compliance with the agreement.
The mediated agreement is, however, fully enforceable in a court of law.

5. Mutuality: Parties to mediation are typically ready to work mutually toward a resolution. In
most circumstances the mere fact that parties are willing to mediate means that they are ready to
"move" their position. The parties thus are more amenable to understanding the other party's side
and work on underlying issues to the dispute. This has the added benefit of often preserving the
relationship the parties had before the dispute.

6. Support: Mediators are trained in working with difficult situations. The mediator acts as a
neutral facilitator and guides the parties through the process. The mediator helps the parties think
"outside of the box" for possible solutions to the dispute, broadening the range of possible
solutions

b) The difference between Judicial Settlement and Arbitration

Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code states that:

Settlement of disputes outside the Court.--(1) Where it appears to the Court that there exist
elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the
terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the
observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and
refer the same for:--

(a) arbitration;

(b) conciliation;
(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat:

(d) mediation.

Section 89 (2) Where a dispute has been referred-

(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were
referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act;

(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person
and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of
the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were
referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;

Alternate Dispute Resolution Rules framed by Allahabad High Court define judicial settlement
under Rule 2(g) as follows: “Judicial Settlement means a final settlement by way of comprise
entered into before a suitable institution or person to which the Court has referred to the dispute
and which institution or person are deemed to be the Lok Adalats under the provisions of the
Legal Service Authority act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and where after such reference, the provisions of
the said Act apply as if the dispute was referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that
Act.”

In International Law, Judicial settlement is a settlement of dispute between States by an

international tribunal in accordance with the rules of International Law.

Arbitration is the dispute settlement process between two agreeable parties to appoint an
arbitrator to give a binding solution on the dispute. It is a way to settle disputes outside the courts
thereby saving time and resources at the same time.

Arbitration is a legal mechanism encouraging settlement of disputes between two or more parties
mutually by the appointment of a third party whose decision is binding on the parties referring
the said dispute.

The Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code now provides for reference of a dispute in a sub
judice matter to Arbitration but only after the mutual consent of the parties. Even though section
89 CPC mandates courts to refer pending suits to any of the several Alternative Dispute
Redressal processes mentioned therein, there cannot be a reference to arbitration even under
section 89 CPC, unless there is a mutual consent of all parties, for such reference. Section 89
CPC also provides for reference of a dispute in a sub judice matter to conciliation.

Difference between Judicial settlement and Arbitration

Arbitration and Judicial settlement are similar and yet differ. In both the decision is reached by
the application of the law to the facts determined after giving the parties an impartial hearing. In
arbitration, the third party decision maker is chosen on ad hoc basis by the parties by mutual
consent.

The law which the arbitrators apply is the general law, but the parties may ask the arbitral
tribunal to decide in accordance with the law as both of them have understood or have agreed to.
In judicial settlement, the parties go to an established Court, and they have no choice regarding
the composition of the Court that adjudicates, or the law to be applied. The Court applies the law
that is authorized by its constitution, which is generally international law.

In case of arbitration, the parties enter into an agreement to submit to arbitration, usually called
compromise. In case of judicial settlement, the jurisdiction of the Court arises from the consent
given by the parties with respect to the particular dispute, or a general consent given earlier with
respect to a specified category of cases.

Arbitration is a process only available at the consent of the parties. Arbitration or conciliation
can only be on account of the consent of parties to a dispute and it is not within the powers of the
court to refer disputes for arbitration in absence of consent of parties. However, this is not the
case for Judicial settlements. In cases of Arbitration, once the cases are moved out of the court,
the courts won’t be able to exercise the same amount of control or jurisdiction resorting to
conciliation, judicial settlement or mediation over such matters as the settlement agreement in
conciliation or the Lok Adalat award will have to be placed before the court recording it and
disposal in its terms. Here, the consent of the parties is not essential to refer the matter. The
Court may on a satisfaction arrived at, on its own discretion even ex-parte refer the matter to
these ADR processes.
In case of judicial settlement, the parties to the dispute are not in control of the process or
decision of court or tribunal like arbitration so that the outcome is in uncertainty. It is a public
process; that is why, everything is expressly declared, it is not confidential like arbitration. The
judicial settlement is regulated by the statutes. Sometimes it has a limited remedy which depends
on evidentiary documents. In Judicial process, the parties to the dispute are not authorized to
keep any role for the appointment of members or judges of the court or tribunal like arbitration.
So, the disputing parties in most cases are unable to compromise their dispute promptly. Judicial
settlement process is an expensive undertaking of maritime dispute settlement than that of
arbitration. As a result, most of the developing countries have not preferred judicial process as
the first means of settlement rather they have treated it as secondary priority.

2. Discuss the Western system of Present International Economic Order.

Evaluate the role of Secretary General of the UN in today’s world.

Answer: The Western system of Present International Economic Order:

The term international economic order refers to the set of proscribed rules, norms, and
procedures that regulate the cross-border exchange of goods, services, and capital.

The global economic landscape has undergone profound changes since the end of the Cold War.
After the global financial crisis, the world economy entered a “new normal,” and there are
mounting challenges that need to be managed. Unfortunately, the global governance system has
not kept pace with the scale and complexity of these challenges.

The idea of a new international economic order emerged from the experiences of decolonization
after the Second World War. Newly decolonized countries gained political sovereignty but felt
that their de jure political colonization ended only to be replaced by a de facto economic
colonizations. This mission to achieve a more equitable international system was motivated also
by increasing inequality in the share of global national income between developed and
underdeveloped countries, which more than doubled between 1938 and 1966.
The postwar architecture of world economy was to a large extent fashioned by the United States,
with the hope of reconstructing a liberal international economic system. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
laid the foundation for the postwar global economic order, and international trade and capital
flows gradually started to resume. To solidify its supremacy in the shadow of Cold War, the
United States supported the economic development of its allies through aid, such as the Marshall
Plan aimed at Western Europe and enormous funding directed to Japan during the Korean War.
In the 1970s, however, U.S. hegemony began to wane, as a host of developing countries arising
from the postwar National Liberation Movement flocked to the United Nations, pressing for a
so-called New International Economic Order that would be more in favor in Third World
countries. Moreover, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973 meant that the United
States had to rely more on macroeconomic policy coordination mechanisms with other
developed countries to maintain the international monetary order.

During and after World War II (1939–1945), the United States was bound and determined to
foster an international economic order that would prevent the high tariff barriers and beggarthy-
neighbor policies of the 1930s. This included a global trading system to ensure that all
participating members received nondiscriminatory treatment in traded goods. To aid in trade
expansion, the United States also pressed for currencies to be fixed in value relative to the dollar,
which in turn could be exchanged for gold. Great Britain was reluctant to accede to this kind of
regime, because it undermined the British system of imperial preferences, threatened currency
runs on the war-torn European economies, and potentially constrained the autonomy of domestic
policymakers. In the 1970s, however, U.S. hegemony began to wane, as a host of developing
countries arising from the postwar National Liberation Movement flocked to the United Nations,
pressing for a so-called New International Economic Order that would be more in favor in Third
World countries. The collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971, the rise of the third world in the form
of the Group of Seventy-Seven (G-77), and the oil shocks of the 1970s led to a bifurcated,
contested international economic order.

To ensure the stability of the system, the United States endorsed and funded the creation of
international financial institutions (IFIs) to monitor and enforce the international economic order.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was designed to prevent a balance-of-payments crisis
among the participating countries. The World Bank was intended to help the European
economies recover from the war. In contrast to the one-country/one-vote principle of other
international organizations, decision-making power in the IFIs was weighted by economic size.
The debt crisis of the 1980s ensured that many developing countries needed the imprimatur of
the IFIs in order to secure external financing.

In the 1970s, however, U.S. hegemony began to wane, as a host of developing countries arising
from the postwar National Liberation Movement flocked to the United Nations, pressing for a
so-called New International Economic Order that would be more in favor in Third World
countries. The collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971, the rise of the third world in the form of the
Group of Seventy-Seven (G-77), and the oil shocks of the 1970s led to a bifurcated, contested
international economic order. The debt crisis of the 1980s ensured that many developing
countries needed the imprimatur of the IFIs in order to secure external financing.

The GATT was considered to be a weaker institution compared to the IFIs. Despite this gap in
institutional strength, however, the trade regime yielded significant results. Between 1950 and
1970, merchandise trade levels grew at twice the rate of the global economy. In contrast, Bretton
Woods was short-lived; western European countries did not make their currencies convertible
until 1958, and the United States unilaterally ended the fixed exchange rate portion of the
Bretton Woods agreement in 1971. At crisis junctures, the United States acted outside the IFIs to
promote its stated interests, deploying greater resources in the process. In the late 1940s, for
example, the resources committed to the Marshall Plan dwarfed those of the World Bank. In the
mid-1990s, the United States provided its own financing to bail Mexico out of its financial crisis.

The eruption of the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis sparked extensive suspicion of the manner
of governance adopted by the IMF and the “Washington Consensus” behind it, and accelerated a
rising awareness of regional cooperation across Asia. The outbreak of the 2007 subprime
mortgage crisis in the United States, as well as the 2010 sovereign debt crisis in Europe, changed
the long-established belief that developed economies are immunized from financial crises.

At the same time, the newly sovereign nations of the third world began to contest the market-
friendly rules that underpinned embedded liberalism. A slow decline in commodity prices caused
worsening terms of trade in the developing world in the 1970s, and led governments to be
suspicious of the vicissitudes of market forces. Inspired by the success of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel in increasing the price of oil, these countries
proposed a “new international economic order” (NIEO; Cox 1979) in the 1974 United
Nations General Assembly. The NIEO included several initiatives, including orderly market
arrangements to stabilize commodity prices, institutionalized forms of technology transfer, and
changes in trade rules to allow the third world greater access to Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) markets while protecting their home markets from
foreign competition and the presence of multinational corporations. All of these requests were
resisted by the advanced industrialized states, and the structure of IFI voting guaranteed a veto
by the G-7 countries in those venues (Krasner 1985). With the debt crisis of the early 1980s,
third world solidarity on the NIEO collapsed, with little achieved beyond a modest increase in
UN development funds.

The end of the cold war and the rise of economic globalization expanded the assigned tasks of
the IFIs to include everything from advising transition economies, to establishing common
financial codes and standards, to promoting democracy, to combating corruption.

The GATT morphed into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. Although the WTO has
stronger enforcement mechanisms, the rising influence of developing countries like China, India,
and Brazil has threatened to paralyze its ability to expand trade further. A partial response to the
gridlock within the WTO has been a proliferation of regional and bilateral trade agreements
outside the WTO’s purview.

At the start of the twenty-first century, the international economic order remains relatively open
for trade and finance, though there are no clear rules for migration. Increasingly, the focus of
international economic negotiations has shifted to questions about business and social regulation
(Braithwaite and Drahos 1999; Slaughter 2004). As China begins to challenge the United States
as the economic hegemon, the stability of the current system will soon be open to question.

The role of Secretary General of the UN in today’s world:

The Secretary-general is the principal administrative officer of the United Nations and is elected
for a five-year renewable term by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and by the
recommendation of the Security Council and the approval of its permanent members.

The Secretary-General is a symbol of United Nations ideals and a spokesperson for the interests
of the world's peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them. Both the chief
spokesperson for the UN and the UN’s most visible and authoritative figure in world affairs, the
secretary-general often serve as a high-level negotiator. Attesting to the importance of the post,
two secretaries-general have been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace: Dag Hammarskjöld in
1961 and Kofi Annan, co-recipient with the UN, in 2001.

The current Secretary-General, and the ninth occupant of the post, is Mr.António Guterres of
Portugal, who took office on 1 January 2017.The role of the secretary-general is laid out by
Chapter XV (Articles 97to 101) of the United Nations Charter, and have been established by
custom.

The Charter describes the Secretary-General as "chief administrative officer" of the

Organization, who shall act in that capacity and perform "such other functions as are entrusted"
to them by the Security Council, General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and other
United Nations organs. The Charter also empowers the Secretary-General to bring to the
attention of the Security Council any matter which in their opinion may threaten the maintenance
of international peace and security. These guidelines both define the powers of the office and
grant it considerable scope for action.

The day-to-day work of the Secretary-General includes attendance at sessions of United Nations
bodies; consultations with world leaders, government officials, and others; and worldwide travel
intended to keep the Secretary-General in touch with the peoples of the Organization's Member
States and informed about the vast array of issues of international concern that are on the
Organization's agenda. Each year, the Secretary-General issues a report on the work of the
United Nations that appraises its activities and outlines future priorities. The Secretary-General is
also Chair of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), which
brings together the Executive Heads of all UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies twice
a year in order to further coordination and cooperation in the entire range of substantive and
management issues facing the United Nations System.

One of the most vital roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of their "good offices"
which are steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon their independence, impartiality and
integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading. Each Secretary-
General also defines their role within the context of their particular time in office.

The team of the Secretary General consists of:

 The Secretary General- (Mr Antonio Guterres)
 The Deputy Secretary General ( Ms Amina J Mohammed)
 Senior Management Group- The Senior Management Group (SMG) is a high-level body,
chaired by the Secretary-General, which brings together leaders of United Nations
departments, offices, funds and programmes. It is a forum for policy related matters,
planning and information sharing with respect to emerging challenges and cross-cutting
issues. It includes Volker Tuk, Atul Khare, Mark Lowcock, Pramila Patten.

The functions of the Secretary General of the UN are as follows

 Administrative and Service Functions –

The secretary General is responsible for the organization and direction of the activities of
the organization. The staffs of the UN organs excluding International Court of Justice fall
under his purview. It is his responsibility to ensure that the various organs of the UN and
their committees and conference work properly, for this purpose he draws provisional
agenda, notifies about the meetings to various members, provides staff and facilities for
the holding of meetings, examines the credentials of representatives and submits report to
the concerned organs. He also assists in the drafting of documents, resolutions and
reports and provides legal and technical advice.
 Financial Functions –
The Secretary General has been entrusted with important financial functions. Subject to
the authority of the General Assembly he prepares the budget of the UN. He allocates
funds, controls expenditure, collects the contributions from the members and acts as
custodian of all the funds.
  Representational Functions –
As the Chief Representative of the UN, he represents the UN in negotiations with other
agencies and government. He also occupies a central position in the working of various
organs of the UN because the staff of these organizations and agencies is not only
recruited but also controlled by the Secretary General. He also represents UN before the
ICJ.
 Political Functions –
The Secretary General has also been assigned important political functions. Through
these political functions he exercises profound influence on the formulation of the policy.
It may be observed that this power of the Secretary-General permits him to submit for the
consideration of Security Council any dispute, situation or other matter which is not
raised by a member of the Council.

Thus, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall in particular provide strategic leadership
for the Institute, report on the overall implementation of the Institute’s activities and represent
the Institute externally and develop strong relations with Member States and other
constituencies. Most importantly the Secretary-General should advocate peace amongst the
member nations.