“Analyzing the human rights law from an international

perspective

By

Mohammad Hussnain Ali

Roll No.: 19011624-027

LLB-(Hons) 5 years

Dr. Rao Qasim

(Supervisor)

UNIVERSITY OF GUJRAT

SCHOOL OF LAW
SESSION: 2019-24
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the name of Allah Almighty, who granted me enough strength to complete this search work, I
would like to acknowledge the efforts of my supervisor Dr. Rao Qasim who guided me in this
research. I would especially like to acknowledge the efforts of my family, my father, my mother,
my brother, and my friends who always supported me and boosted me throughout this journey.

Mohammad Hussnain Ali

i
 Dedication

Encouragement came from my parents, and my brothers and friends at all times. My father was
the one who supported me throughout my career.

Mohammad Hussnain Ali

ii
 Certificate

To certify that Mohammad Hussnain Ali has carried out experimental work in this dissertation
under my supervision in the School of Law, University of Gujrat, Pakistan. This work is
accepted in its present form by the School of the Law University of Gujrat as satisfying the
dissertation requirement for the degree of Bachelor of Laws L.L.B. (Hons) (5 Years).

Supervisor……………..

Dr. Rao Qasim

(Chairperson School of Law)

School of Law

University of Gujrat

iii
 Declaration

I, now declare that I have not submitted this research work titled “Analyzing the human rights
law from an international perspective” leading to the Bachelor of Law L.L.B.(HONS)(5
YEARS).

Mohammad Hussnain Ali

iv
 Institute School of Law, University of Gujrat, Punjab Pakistan

We, the supervisory committee, certify that the contents and form of the thesis submitted
Mohammad Hussnain Ali have been found satisfactory and recommend that it proceed for the
Bachelor of Laws L.L.B. (Hons) degree.

Supervisory Committee

Internal Examiner -----------------------------

External Examiner ----------------------------

Chairman ---------------------------------------

v
Analyzing the human rights law from an international perspective

ABSTRACT
Human rights law, as a fundamental aspect of international law, has a crucial function in
protecting the innate dignity and liberties of individuals on a worldwide scale. This abstract
explores the analysis of human rights law from a global standpoint, investigating its
development, concepts, difficulties, and methods of enforcement. The evolution of human rights
law may be traced back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which
established the basis for a comprehensive system of international instruments designed to
safeguard civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.

The fundamental tenets of human rights law, such as universality and non-discrimination,
underscore the equal claim of every individual to human rights, without any kind of
differentiation. Although significant advancements have been achieved in defining standards for
human rights, there are still obstacles to overcome in order to ensure that these norms are
effectively implemented and enforced at the domestic level. International mechanisms, such as
treaty bodies, special procedures, and regional human rights courts, have a vital function in
overseeing how states adhere to their obligations and dealing with instances of human rights
abuses.

This abstract highlights the significance of maintaining human rights norms, ensuring
accountability, and enhancing the safeguarding of vulnerable populations by examining
international human rights law. It emphasizes the continuous endeavors to enhance the
implementation of human rights legislation and attain the complete fulfillment of human rights
for all individuals globally.

vi
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgement 1
Dedication 1
Declaration 1
ABSTRACT 1
CHAPTER-01 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 2
1.2 Background of Human Rights Law 2
1.3 Historical Evolution of Human Rights Norms 2
1.4 Significance of Human Rights Law in International Relations 2
1.5 Research Objectives and Questions 2
1.6 Scope and Structure of the Study 2
Chapter-02: Theoretical Framework of Human Rights Law 4
2.1 Development of International Human Rights Instruments 5

Type chapter title (level 3) 6

vii
 CHAPTER NO. 1
1.1 Introduction
In an era marked by heightened global interdependence and the growing recognition of the
fragility of our planet, the intersection of international dispute settlement and environmental
issues has emerged as a critical focal point for both legal and societal discourse. The escalating
concern for environmental preservation, coupled with the inevitable transboundary nature of
ecological challenges, has propelled the need for effective mechanisms to resolve disputes
arising from environmental matters on the international stage. This thesis delves into the
multifaceted landscape of international dispute settlement as it pertains to environmental issues,
scrutinizing the mechanisms, challenges, and potential improvements that underlie the quest for
harmonizing environmental protection and international law.

The rapid acceleration of globalization and the resultant interconnectedness of nations have
culminated in environmental issues transcending national borders, often requiring collaborative
efforts to mitigate their adverse impacts. International environmental law has arisen as a vital
framework to govern the behaviors of states in a shared environment, relying on treaties,
conventions, and customary principles to facilitate cooperation. Yet, even within this framework,
disputes inevitably arise—whether they concern transboundary pollution, management of natural
resources, or the complex web of challenges posed by climate change.

Navigating these disputes necessitates a delicate balance between protecting the environment and
respecting the sovereign rights of states. While the international community has forged various
mechanisms to address disputes, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation,
questions persist regarding their effectiveness, efficiency, and compatibility with the dynamic
nature of environmental issues. Furthermore, the involvement of non-state actors, the
complexities of jurisdiction, and the often divergent economic interests of states can complicate
the already intricate landscape of international dispute settlement.

1
This thesis endeavors to dissect the interaction between international dispute settlement
mechanisms and environmental concerns, offering an in-depth exploration of the dynamics at
play, the case studies that illuminate these dynamics, the challenges that beset effective dispute
resolution, and the avenues for reform to ensure the enduring harmony between human
endeavors and the planet's well-being. By shedding light on the interplay between international
law and environmental protection, this study aims to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on
achieving a sustainable and equitable balance between the exigencies of international relations
and the imperatives of safeguarding our shared ecosystem.

In the subsequent chapters, we will delve into the contours of international environmental law,
analyze pertinent case studies to glean insights from real-world scenarios, examine the
challenges that impede effective dispute resolution, and envision potential pathways for reform.
Through this comprehensive analysis, we hope to unearth a more nuanced understanding of the
intricate relationship between settling international disputes and addressing environmental issues.

1.2 Historical Context

The pursuit of peaceful settlement of international disputes finds its roots in a complex tapestry
of historical events and evolving societal norms. Throughout the annals of history, societies have
grappled with the consequences of conflict, leading to the emergence of mechanisms aimed at
preventing the devastation wrought by war. While diplomacy and negotiation have ancient
origins, the formalization of peaceful dispute resolution gained significant traction in the late
19th and early 20th centuries. The late 1800s witnessed the convening of the Hague Conferences,
marking a pivotal shift towards the codification of international law and the establishment of
mechanisms for arbitration and peaceful settlement. The First Hague Peace Conference of 1899
1
resulted in the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, providing a platform for nations
to resolve disputes through impartial arbitration rather than armed hostilities. This marked a
notable departure from historical norms, where conflicts were often resolved through the sheer
force of arms.

The aftermath of World War I served as a grim reminder of the dire consequences of unchecked
aggression and the pressing need for a more organized approach to international relations. The
League of Nations emerged as an ambitious attempt to promote collective security and peaceful
1
First Hague Peace Conference of 1899

2
dispute resolution. While the League faced challenges and eventually dissolved, it set a
precedent for the establishment of its successor, the United Nations (UN), 2in 1945. The UN's
Charter underscored the commitment to peaceful settlement and diplomacy as primary means of
addressing international conflicts. The Cold War period, marked by ideological tensions between
superpowers, underscored the imperative of avoiding direct military confrontation. As proxy
conflicts unfolded across the globe, the UN's role in mediating and resolving disputes became
increasingly significant. The UN's General Assembly and Security Council 3, along with its
various specialized agencies, worked to prevent conflicts and foster diplomatic solutions, serving
as a testament to the growing acceptance of peaceful resolution as a viable alternative to warfare.

1.3 Research Methodology

The research methodology adopted for the thesis on "Exploring the Effectiveness and Challenges
of International Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Addressing Environmental Issues" employs a
systematic and multifaceted approach to comprehensively explore the intricate landscape of
peaceful dispute resolution methods on the international stage. This methodology intertwines
qualitative and analytical techniques to offer a comprehensive understanding of the subject
matter, combining theoretical insights with practical applications.

To commence, an exhaustive literature review is conducted to synthesize existing scholarly

works, international treaties, legal documents, historical cases, and relevant conventions. This
review serves as the foundation for identifying key concepts, historical evolution, and
contemporary trends associated with peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms, encompassing
negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and other related approaches

1.4 Scope of study

The scope of this thesis encompasses a comparative analysis of international dispute settlement
mechanisms, namely negotiation, arbitration, and litigation, in addressing a specific subset of
transboundary environmental issues. The study will primarily focus on cases involving pollution
incidents across national borders and examine their resolution through the mentioned
mechanisms. The research will consider both historical and recent cases to provide a

2
United Nations
3
UN's General Assembly and Security Council

3
comprehensive understanding of the evolution and current state of international approaches to
such disputes.

1.5 Research question

How to settle international dispute in peaceful manner

"How do international dispute settlement mechanisms effectively address transboundary

environmental issues, considering their strengths, limitations, and potential for improvement?"

"Analyzing the Efficacy of International Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Addressing

Transboundary Environmental Issues: A Comparative Study of Negotiation, Arbitration, and
Litigation, and Prospects for Enhancements."

1.6 Definition of International Environmental Law:

International Environmental Law (IEL) refers to a body of legal principles, treaties, agreements,
and customary practices that aim to regulate the interaction between human activities and the
environment on a global scale. It encompasses rules and norms that guide states' behavior to
prevent, mitigate, and remedy environmental harm, while promoting the sustainable use of
natural resources and the preservation of the global ecosystem.

A landmark case demonstrating the significance of international environmental law in addressing

transboundary issues is the Trail Smelter Arbitration. The case revolved around transboundary
air pollution caused by a smelter in British Columbia, Canada, which was affecting the
environment and livelihoods in the state of Washington, United States. The arbitration, which
took place in 1938, highlighted the principle that states have an obligation not to cause harm to
other states through their activities.

The Trail Smelter Arbitration emphasized the need for cooperation and the resolution of disputes
between states over environmental matters. It underscored the principle of preventing harm to
other states and the environment through the application of international law. This case played a
crucial role in shaping the foundations of international environmental law by establishing the
principle of transboundary harm and the responsibility of states to ensure that their actions do not
negatively impact neighboring states or the global environment.

4
 CHAPTER NO. 2

Modes for settlement of international dispute

2.1 Negotiation
Negotiations are a process in which individuals, groups, or countries engage in discussions to
reach an agreement or settle a dispute. It involves communicating, bargaining, and finding
common ground to resolve differences and achieve mutual goals. Negotiations can occur in
various contexts, from business deals and international relations to personal matters. The goal of
negotiations is to find a solution that satisfies the interests and concerns of all parties involved.
It's not just about one side winning and the other losing; it's about finding a middle ground where
everyone can benefit. Negotiators often need to be skilled communicators, active listeners, and
creative problem-solvers. There are different approaches to negotiations, ranging from
competitive (trying to get the best deal for oneself) to cooperative (working together to find a
win-win solution). Successful negotiations require compromise, flexibility, and a willingness to
understand the other party's perspective.

Negotiations can be formal, involving legal agreements and contracts, or informal, such as
discussions between friends deciding on where to go for dinner. They can also be facilitated by
third parties like mediators or diplomats, who help bridge gaps and guide the process toward
resolution. In the realm of international relations, negotiations play a vital role in preventing
conflicts and resolving disputes without resorting to violence. Diplomatic negotiations between
countries can help address complex issues such as territorial disputes, trade agreements, and
environmental concerns.

Overall, negotiations are a fundamental tool for problem-solving and conflict resolution,
enabling parties to find common ground and achieve outcomes that are fair and beneficial for all
involved. Negotiations encompass the process where parties embroiled in a dispute establish
direct communication in order to find a resolution for their conflict. This approach is regarded as
the foundational and most essential method of settling disputes. For negotiations to yield positive
outcomes, they must involve both parties actively engaging in the process and responding to
each other's perspectives. Typically, successful negotiations require the parties to interact face-
to-face, promoting direct dialogue and understanding.

5
What makes negotiations successful is the direct involvement of the disputing parties
themselves. Both sides come together to discuss their concerns, interests, and viewpoints,
seeking a compromise or agreement that addresses the core issues causing the conflict. It's a way
for them to work things out directly and take ownership of the solution. In negotiations, there is
no role for a third party or mediator. The process hinges on the willingness of the disputing
parties to communicate, listen, and find common ground without external influence. This
distinguishes negotiations from other methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation or
arbitration, where a neutral third party assists in the process.

Negotiations often serve as the starting point for resolving disputes. When both parties are
willing to engage in open and honest discussions, they can pave the way for finding solutions
that are acceptable to both sides. If negotiations don't lead to an agreement, the parties may
consider other methods, such as involving a mediator or resorting to more formal legal
procedures. In essence, negotiations are a direct way for conflicting parties to come together,
communicate, and strive to find a common solution that satisfies both sides. It's about finding a
middle ground and working towards an agreement that respects each party's concerns.

In the North Sea Continental Shelf Case4, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated that the
parties involved are not required to engage in negotiations with the sole aim of reaching an
agreement. Instead, they are obligated to undergo a formal negotiation process as a preliminary
step. However, the more important obligation is for both parties to conduct themselves in a way
that makes the negotiations meaningful and productive. This means that either party should not
be rigidly attached to its own position without considering any changes or modifications.

In simpler terms, the ICJ is saying that while the parties don't have to agree during negotiations,
they do need to genuinely participate in the process. They shouldn't just go through the motions
of negotiating, but should actively listen to each other's viewpoints and be open to adjusting their
positions if it helps in finding a solution. The court emphasizes that negotiations should be
approached with a willingness to find common ground and make compromises rather than
sticking stubbornly to one side's demands. This approach encourages a spirit of cooperation and
understanding during negotiations, promoting the idea that meaningful discussions are key to
peacefully resolving disputes. It underscores the importance of the negotiation process itself,

4
North Sea Continental Shelf Case

6
even if an immediate agreement isn't reached, as long as both parties engage constructively and
show a genuine commitment to finding a solution that considers the interests of all involved.

In the Pulp Mills Case 5(Argentina v. Uruguay), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) believed
that both Argentina and Uruguay should put in their best efforts to come to an agreement through
negotiations.

In this case, Argentina and Uruguay had a disagreement about the environmental impact of a
paper pulp plant being built on a river shared by both countries. Argentina claimed that the plant
would harm the environment and their people's well-being, while Uruguay argued that they had
taken steps to ensure the plant's safety.

Instead of making a decision right away, the ICJ suggested that the two countries try to solve the
issue by talking to each other and finding a compromise. This approach is based on the idea that
peaceful negotiations are a better way to resolve conflicts than going to court or using force.

The ICJ's viewpoint in the Pulp Mills Case highlights the importance of communication,
understanding, and cooperation between countries to find solutions that work for both sides. It
encourages both parties to work together to reach an agreement that respects their interests and
concerns while avoiding the escalation of the conflict. This approach aligns with the broader
principle of resolving disputes through peaceful means, as championed by international
organizations like the ICJ.

2.2 Fact-finding or inquiry

Fact-finding or inquiry is a crucial aspect of the peaceful settlement of disputes, involving an
impartial investigation to gather accurate information and evidence about the conflict. This
process helps parties involved, as well as potential mediators or arbitrators, to better understand
the situation, identify key issues, and make informed decisions. During fact-finding, a neutral
third party or a committee is often appointed to investigate the dispute. Their goal is to collect
facts, testimonies, documents, and any relevant information from all sides. This can involve
interviews, site visits, and document reviews to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the
situation. The collected information is then presented in a report, which serves as a basis for

5
Pulp Mills Case

7
discussions and negotiations. Parties can use the report to clarify misunderstandings, identify
areas of agreement, and pinpoint contentious points that need resolution.

Fact-finding serves multiple purposes. It helps prevent misinformation and biased perspectives
from escalating the conflict. It provides a foundation for rational discussions, helping parties
move beyond emotions and towards a solution grounded in facts. Additionally, it assists in
maintaining the credibility of the dispute resolution process, as the parties can see that decisions
are based on objective and verified information. Overall, fact-finding acts as a bridge between
parties, offering an objective assessment of the situation and facilitating productive negotiations.
It promotes transparency, understanding, and the fair assessment of claims, ultimately
contributing to the pursuit of peaceful resolutions in disputes of various kinds.

The updated edition of The Hague Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International
Disputes in 1899 introduced a notable provision. This new version mandated the involved parties
to establish what is known as a "commission of inquiry," often referred to as fact-finding. The
primary purpose of this commission was to meticulously elucidate the facts of the case in
question. This was particularly important because disputes often arise due to differing
interpretations of facts. By producing a comprehensive report, the commission aimed to provide
an objective and well-rounded account of the situation.6

Disputes centered around facts frequently serve as the crux of disagreements. In such scenarios,
parties often hold contrasting viewpoints based on their understanding of the facts. This can
hinder productive discussions and negotiations. Here, the commission of inquiry plays a pivotal
role. It engages in a thorough investigation, gathering evidence, testimonies, and relevant data to
present an unbiased and accurate representation of the situation. This process not only aids in
dispelling misunderstandings but also assists in framing the dispute in a rational and factual
manner.

The report generated by the commission of inquiry holds significant value. It serves as a valuable
resource that parties can utilize to identify areas of agreement and divergence. By basing
discussions on a shared understanding of the facts, the parties can engage in more meaningful
negotiations. The factual report acts as a common ground, facilitating the identification of
common interests and potential solutions that align with the verified information.
6
Hague Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes in 1899

8
The Dogger Bank incident of 1904 serves as an example of a situation where an inquiry was
effectively utilized to address a particular issue. This incident involved an accidental firing
incident by Russian naval ships on British fishing boats.7

In response to this incident, an inquiry was initiated to thoroughly investigate the circumstances
and determine what had transpired. The inquiry aimed to establish the facts, gather evidence, and
understand the sequence of events that led to the accidental firing on the British fishing boats by
the Russian naval ships.

This inquiry was significant as it provided a structured and impartial process to uncover the truth
behind the incident. By examining the facts and evidence, the inquiry helped prevent
misunderstandings and the escalation of tensions between the involved parties. It provided a
platform for both sides to present their perspectives and for the truth to be revealed.

The Red Crusader inquiry of 1962 pertained to an incident involving a British trawler and a
Danish fisheries protection vessel. This inquiry marked a significant event as it occurred after a
gap of approximately forty years since the previous similar incident.The incident involving the
British trawler and the Danish fisheries protection vessel was subject to investigation through the
Red Crusader inquiry in 1962. This event held significance not only due to the nature of the
incident itself but also because it marked the resumption of such inquiries after a considerable
period of about four decades since the last incident of a similar kind.8

2.3 Mediation
Mediation is a process used to resolve disputes or conflicts with the help of a neutral third party,
called a mediator. The mediator's role is to facilitate communication, guide discussions, and
assist the involved parties in finding a mutually agreeable solution.

During mediation, the mediator doesn't make decisions or impose solutions. Instead, they create
a safe and structured environment for the parties to express their concerns, interests, and
viewpoints. The mediator helps parties identify common ground, understand each other's
perspectives, and explore potential solutions. Mediation can be used in various contexts, from
personal conflicts to international disputes. It's often chosen when parties want to maintain a

7
Dogger Bank 1904
8
Red Crusader inquiry of 1962

9
relationship, preserve confidentiality, or have more control over the outcome. Mediation is less
formal than a legal process, and the parties actively participate in shaping the resolution.

The mediator's skills include active listening, empathy, and the ability to manage emotions. They
encourage open communication, prevent misunderstandings, and ensure that all parties are heard.
The mediator may suggest options, facilitate brainstorming, and help parties consider the
consequences of different solutions. If an agreement is reached, it's usually put in writing and
signed by the parties, making it a binding contract. However, if an agreement isn't reached,
parties might still have other options, such as pursuing legal action or seeking other forms of
dispute resolution. Mediation promotes understanding, collaboration, and creative problem-
solving. It's a way for parties to work together to find solutions that address their needs and
interests, ultimately leading to a more satisfactory and peaceful resolution.

Mediation finds its roots in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which included provisions
for this approach to resolving disputes. Mediation is closely intertwined with negotiation, with
the primary distinction being the involvement of a neutral mediator in the settlement process.
This mediator participates in the negotiations between the conflicting parties, and their role
includes presenting their own suggestions aimed at reaching a compromise solution that both
parties can agree on. The mediator's involvement adds a distinct dimension to negotiations. They
foster discussions, encourage productive communication, and help parties see beyond their
differences. The mediator doesn't just facilitate dialogue; they actively contribute potential
solutions that can lead to a resolution acceptable to all parties involved.9

The United Nations Secretary-General has often been called upon to serve as a mediator or
appoint one to help settle disputes. This demonstrates the organization's role in facilitating
peaceful resolutions on the global stage. For instance, in the Cyprus Conflict, the UN Security
Council (UNSC) Resolution 186 (4 March 1964) requested the Secretary-General to appoint a
mediator. Similarly, UNSC Resolution 242 (22 November 1967) made a comparable request for
the situation in the Middle East. These instances highlight the significance of mediation as a
valuable tool in international diplomacy. It emphasizes the vital role of neutral third parties in
guiding discussions, proposing potential solutions, and ultimately aiding in the achievement of
compromises that contribute to peace and stability in areas of conflict.

9
Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907

10
2.4 Conciliation
Conciliation is a method used to resolve disputes or conflicts with the assistance of a neutral
third party, known as a conciliator. This process involves the conciliator working closely with
the parties involved to facilitate communication, identify common interests, and guide them
towards a mutually acceptable solution.

Conciliation is a dispute resolution approach that amalgamates elements from both inquiry and
mediation. In the realm of conciliation, a designated entity is typically tasked with investigating
the facts surrounding a dispute and then proposing potential solutions to the conflicting parties.
It's important to note that these proposals are not legally binding on the parties. A conciliation
mechanism can take the form of a standing institution or can be set up specifically for an
individual case. Numerous multilateral treaties integrate conciliation as a dispute resolution
method. Some examples include the 1948 American Treaty of Pacific Settlement, the 1957
European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, the 1964 Protocol on the
Commission of Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration to the Charter of the Law of Treaties, the
1981 Treaty Establishing the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, and the 1985 Vienna
Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer. All these agreements contain provisions that
incorporate conciliation as a mechanism for settling disputes.

Conciliation stands as a versatile approach that combines impartial fact-finding with the
guidance and facilitation characteristic of mediation. The conciliator, through investigations and
proposals, assists the parties in moving towards a resolution. While the recommendations aren't
obligatory, they serve as a framework for discussion. This method offers a platform for exploring
solutions in a structured manner while maintaining the flexibility that comes with non-binding
proposals. Moreover, conciliation's presence in various multilateral treaties underscores its
recognition and acceptance as a viable and valuable tool in the peaceful settlement of disputes on
the international stage.

Conciliation is a dispute resolution approach that amalgamates elements from both inquiry and
mediation. In the realm of conciliation, a designated entity is typically tasked with investigating
the facts surrounding a dispute and then proposing potential solutions to the conflicting parties.
It's important to note that these proposals are not legally binding on the parties. A conciliation
mechanism can take the form of a standing institution or can be set up specifically for an

11
individual case. Numerous multilateral treaties integrate conciliation as a dispute resolution
method. Some examples include the 1948 American Treaty of Pacific Settlement, the 1957
European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes 10, the 1964 Protocol on the
Commission of Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration to the Charter of the Law of Treaties, the
1981 Treaty Establishing the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, and the 1985 Vienna
Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer. All these agreements contain provisions that
incorporate conciliation as a mechanism for settling disputes.

Conciliation stands as a versatile approach that combines impartial fact-finding with the
guidance and facilitation characteristic of mediation. The conciliator, through investigations and
proposals, assists the parties in moving towards a resolution. While the recommendations aren't
obligatory, they serve as a framework for discussion. This method offers a platform for exploring
solutions in a structured manner while maintaining the flexibility that comes with non-binding
proposals. Moreover, conciliation's presence in various multilateral treaties underscores its
recognition and acceptance as a viable and valuable tool in the peaceful settlement of disputes on
the international stage.

2.5 Good Offices

The mechanism of "Good Offices" for dispute settlement doesn't find explicit mention in Article
33 (1) of the UN Charter 11. Despite similarities with mediation, Good Offices rely more on the
moral influence of the third party conducting the proceedings. This approach involves a situation
where an individual third party seeks to encourage opposing sides to engage in negotiations.
Unlike mediation, which often includes more direct involvement, Good Offices focus on
influencing parties from a distance. In the context of Good Offices, the third party aims to use
their influence and credibility to bring conflicting parties to the negotiating table. The absence of
a specific reference to Good Offices in the UN Charter has been regarded as a gap, limiting the
comprehensive development of laws and practices related to peaceful dispute resolution.

Interestingly, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 include numerous rules concerning Good
Offices and mediation. These conventions grant signatory countries the right to offer Good
Offices or mediation, even during times of hostility. The exercise of this right is not to be

10
the 1957 European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
11
Article 33 (1) of the UN Charter

12
considered an unfriendly act by either party involved. Similar to other diplomatic dispute
settlement methods, Good Offices are not binding on the parties. Instead, they rely on the
willingness of the parties to engage and negotiate voluntarily. In essence, while Good Offices
aren't explicitly outlined in the UN Charter, their significance as a tool for peaceful dispute
settlement is recognized in international conventions. The approach relies on the moral authority
and diplomatic skills of the third party, encouraging parties to come to the table and resolve their
differences through negotiation.

2.6 Arbitration
Arbitration serves as a notable method within the realm of peaceful settlement of international
disputes. In this approach, disputing parties submit their case to a neutral third party or a panel of
arbitrators for a binding decision. This process offers an alternative to traditional court litigation
and is commonly employed in various contexts, including commercial and international disputes.
One of the key advantages of arbitration lies in its neutrality and expertise. The arbitrators,
chosen by both parties, possess specialized knowledge relevant to the dispute, ensuring that the
decision-making process is well-informed. Additionally, arbitration proceedings are private and
confidential, safeguarding sensitive information and allowing parties to address issues discreetly.

Flexibility is another hallmark of arbitration. Parties have the freedom to shape the proceedings,
from selecting arbitrators to determining procedural rules and schedules. This adaptability can
lead to a more efficient and tailored resolution, often quicker than court litigation. Arbitration
decisions carry significant weight, as they are legally binding and enforceable in many countries
due to international agreements like the New York Convention. The finality of these decisions
reduces the potential for prolonged legal battles.

In contrast to diplomatic methods of resolving disputes, arbitration is a process that holds legal
binding power over the involved parties. However, it's crucial for both parties to give their prior
consent for an arbitral tribunal to be established, and their agreement is necessary for the
decisions made by the tribunal to be binding. Unlike diplomatic negotiations, which can
sometimes be informal, arbitration is a formal procedure. Arbitration provides parties with more
flexibility. They can jointly determine the composition of the arbitral body, including its

13
members, and they can also make choices about the applicable laws and procedures. Typically,
each party selects an equal number of arbitrators, and an impartial umpire is chosen either by the
arbitrators or by an impartial third party.

While arbitration offers benefits, there are also some drawbacks. One major challenge is the
financial cost associated with the process. Arbitration involves various expenses, such as hiring
legal experts and the costs associated with the proceedings, which can be substantial. Another
concern is the potential for inconsistent legal decisions to arise from different arbitration cases.
Unlike court judgments that create legal precedent, arbitration decisions are often limited to the
specific dispute at hand and may not set a universal legal precedent.

CHAPTER NO. 3

Environmental dispute settlement

Environmental dispute settlement involves the application of peaceful methods to address
conflicts and disagreements arising from environmental issues between different parties, which
can include states, organizations, communities, and individuals. These disputes often revolve
around matters such as resource allocation, pollution, land use, conservation, and the impacts of
development projects on the environment.

Instead of resorting to adversarial approaches, environmental dispute settlement focuses on

finding collaborative and mutually agreeable solutions. The methods employed range from
negotiation and mediation to arbitration and conciliation. In negotiation, parties engage in
discussions to reach a consensus, while mediation involves a neutral third party assisting in
facilitating communication and finding common ground. Arbitration offers a binding decision by
impartial arbitrators, and conciliation combines aspects of inquiry and mediation to suggest non-
binding solutions. The unique nature of environmental disputes requires consideration of
scientific, ecological, and socio-cultural factors. Scientific evidence and expert input often play a
crucial role in assessing the environmental impacts and potential solutions. Additionally, public
participation and engagement are vital for transparency, inclusiveness, and the legitimacy of the
settlement process. Precedents and decisions from international tribunals and arbitration bodies
have contributed to the development of a legal framework for environmental dispute resolution.

14
Balancing economic considerations, such as compensation for environmental damage, with
ecological concerns further complicates the process.

In conclusion, environmental dispute settlement aims to address conflicts arising from

environmental issues through peaceful means, taking into account scientific expertise, public
involvement, and legal frameworks. Its goal is to find sustainable solutions that protect the
environment, promote equitable resource use, and maintain social harmony.

3.1 Models of Environmental dispute settlement

Comprehensive dispute settlement models are established frameworks designed to address
complex disputes in various fields, ensuring parties adhere to international agreements and
regulations. Two notable examples are the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone
Layer, specifically Article 11, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), 12particularly Article 14.

Article 11 of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer outlines a structured
dispute resolution mechanism. It stipulates that if a dispute arises between parties concerning the
Convention's interpretation or application, the parties involved must attempt to resolve it through
negotiation or other peaceful means. If the dispute remains unresolved, the parties may submit it
to arbitration, as specified in Annexes II and III of the Convention. This comprehensive approach
encourages collaboration while offering a clear path for binding arbitration if needed. 13

Similarly, Article 14 of the UNFCCC outlines a comprehensive approach to dispute settlement

within the context of addressing climate change. Parties to the Convention are encouraged to
settle disputes through negotiation and consultation. If resolution cannot be achieved through
these means, the parties can resort to the Convention's mechanism on settlement of disputes. This
mechanism comprises two stages: a conciliation process and, if necessary, consideration by a
dispute settlement body. This two-tiered structure offers a systematic and stepwise approach to
resolving disputes related to climate change issues.

12
UNFCCC),
13
Article 11 of the Vienna Convention

15
3.2 Negotiation in environmental dispute
Negotiation and the subsequent recourse to arbitration and judicial settlement are integral
components of resolving complex disputes, particularly within environmental contexts. Notable
instances exemplifying this approach include the UNECE Convention on Access to Information,
Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, known
as the Aarhus Convention (Article 16), and the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (Article 20). The Aarhus
Convention emphasizes negotiation as a primary means of resolving environmental disputes. If
disputes persist, the convention allows for the submission of the matter to arbitration or judicial
settlement. A similar approach is observed in the Basel Convention, which encourages parties to
settle disputes through negotiation and consultation. If resolution remains elusive, parties can opt
for arbitration or judicial settlement.

The Convention on Biodiversity, 2002, offers a methodical approach to dispute resolution

through arbitration, as outlined in Annex II. This demonstrates the commitment to structured
mechanisms within environmental agreements. In the case of the Convention for the Protection
of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 1992 (OSPAR), arbitration serves as a
secondary mechanism. If disputes remain unresolved after conciliation efforts, disputing parties
can request arbitration. This reflects a staged approach where arbitration is invoked only when
other methods fail.

Historical cases, such as the Pacific Fur Seal arbitration (1893), the Trail Smelter case (1935/41),
and the Lac Lanoux arbitration (1957), underscore the historical significance of arbitration in
shaping the development of international environmental law. These cases highlight the enduring
role of arbitration in addressing environmental conflicts across time14.

Negotiation serves as a fundamental method for resolving complex issues, illustrated through
instances such as the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP).
Noteworthy examples include Article 13 of the CLRTAP and its associated four protocols: the
European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER) Protocol (Article 7), the first Sulphur Protocol
(Article 8), the Protocol concerning the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or their
Transboundary Fluxes (NOx Protocol) (Article 13), and the Protocol concerning the Control of
14
Pacific Fur Seal arbitration (1893)

16
Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds or their Transboundary Fluxes (VOC Protocol)
(Article 12). In the context of the CLRTAP, negotiation assumes a pivotal role in addressing
transboundary air pollution. Article 13 of the convention underscores the importance of
consultations and negotiations among parties to settle disputes and disagreements that arise in the
implementation of the convention's provisions. The protocols affiliated with the CLRTAP further
reinforce the significance of negotiation. The European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER)
Protocol (Article 7) emphasizes cooperation and consultation among parties to resolve matters
related to data collection and reporting. Similarly, the first Sulphur Protocol (Article 8), the NOx
Protocol (Article 13), and the VOC Protocol (Article 12) emphasize negotiation as an avenue for
addressing challenges tied to emissions control and transboundary fluxes of pollutants.

3.3 Mediation in environmental dispute

Mediation stands as an alternative approach for dispute settlement when negotiation efforts
falter, as observed in instances like Article 11(2) of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of
the Ozone Layer and the Biodiversity Convention. Moreover, in certain Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs), mediation can be enlisted as an initial recourse or an
alternative mechanism for dispute resolution.

In cases like the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Biodiversity
Convention, mediation emerges as a viable option when negotiation does not yield desired
outcomes. Article 11(2) of the Vienna Convention, for example, highlights mediation as a means
to address disputes that persist despite negotiation efforts. Similarly, the Biodiversity Convention
extends mediation as an avenue when negotiations prove inadequate to resolve disputes.15

Some MEAs incorporate mediation as a primary or alternative avenue for dispute resolution. The
Antarctic Convention on Marine Living Resources, for instance, designates mediation under
Article XXV as one of the foremost remedies for addressing conflicts. On the other hand, the
Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions embed mediation as an alternative mechanism to foster
resolution within their frameworks. Collectively, mediation emerges as a valuable tool to address
environmental disputes when negotiation falls short. Its inclusion in various MEAs underscores
its significance as an adaptable and constructive approach for achieving solutions in the realm of
international environmental conflicts.
15
Article 11(2) of the Vienna Convention

17
3.4 Conciliation in environmental dispute
Conciliation, facilitated by a Conciliation Commission, offers an alternative approach for
resolving disputes, as exemplified by the Vienna Convention for the Protection of Ozone Layer
(Article 11(5). This mechanism can be initiated at the request of a party to the dispute. The
Conciliation Commission is typically composed of an equal number of members appointed by
each party and aims to achieve resolution through recommendatory decisions, unless otherwise
agreed upon. Notably, this Commission possesses the authority to clarify facts and present
settlement proposals, boasting a distinctive "judicial element" within its framework.

The United Nations International Watercourses Convention (Article 33, 1997) underscores the
option of conciliation in the event of failed negotiations. Here, parties facing a deadlock in
negotiations can jointly approach a third-party facilitator for conciliation. This provision fosters
collaboration and seeks solutions when bilateral negotiations prove unfruitful. Similarly, the
1992 Biodiversity Convention and the 2001 Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources embrace
conciliation as a method of dispute resolution. These conventions recognize the importance of an
impartial third-party facilitator in reaching settlements and preserving harmonious relationships
among involved parties. Conciliation presents a structured avenue for dispute settlement that
encourages impartial assessment, the proposal of solutions, and the nurturing of harmonious
relationships among disputing parties. The mechanisms mentioned in various conventions
showcase the versatility and importance of conciliation in resolving international environmental
disputes.16

CONCLUSION
In an era where the interconnectedness of global environmental challenges has become increasingly
apparent, the nexus between international dispute settlement mechanisms and transboundary
environmental issues takes on a profound significance. This thesis has endeavored to shed light on the
intricate dynamics, successes, and limitations that define the interplay between negotiation, arbitration,
and litigation in the pursuit of equitable and effective solutions.

Through a comprehensive comparative analysis of transboundary pollution cases, it becomes evident

that each dispute settlement mechanism holds its own strengths and weaknesses. Negotiation, with its
flexibility and potential for collaborative problem-solving, has demonstrated its value in cases where
16
United Nations International Watercourses Convention

18
preserving relationships between states is paramount. Arbitration, offering an avenue for third-party
resolution and enforceable decisions, proves its worth in instances where a neutral adjudicatory body is
sought. Litigation, with its structured legal procedures and accountability mechanisms, emerges as a tool
for asserting rights and enforcing compliance when diplomatic solutions falter. However, the journey
through these cases also underscores the challenges that persist. The jurisdictional complexities, varying
levels of state commitment, and the lingering shadow of economic interests often hinder the realization
of optimal outcomes. Additionally, the evolving nature of state sovereignty in the face of global
environmental concerns poses new questions about the extent to which nations can retain autonomy in
the era of shared ecological responsibilities.

As we conclude this exploration, it is evident that international dispute settlement mechanisms serve as
vital tools in addressing transboundary environmental issues, but they are not panaceas. The efficacy of
these mechanisms hinges not only on their technical attributes but also on the underlying political will of
states to collaborate genuinely for the greater good. The quest for better environmental protection
necessitates not just a well-defined legal framework, but a willingness to transcend borders and forge a
harmonious path toward a sustainable future. As we move forward, the prospects for enhancing these
mechanisms are palpable. Specialized environmental courts, mechanisms that integrate mediation with
arbitration, and expanded roles for non-state actors offer promising avenues. Yet, such enhancements
must be underpinned by a collective understanding that the preservation of our planet transcends
political differences.

In closing, this thesis underscores the indelible connection between international law, diplomacy, and
environmental protection. By embracing a multidisciplinary approach that harmonizes legal principles
with ethical imperatives, the global community can foster an environment in which international dispute
settlement mechanisms truly become catalysts for safeguarding our shared planet. As we look to the
horizon, the challenges and opportunities are abundant, beckoning us to engage with determination,
creativity, and an unwavering commitment to the well-being of both our generation and those yet to
come.

19
 REFERENCES
UN Legal Affairs Office, Handbook, 9–24

Conventions for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 29 July 1899 (Articles 9–14)

Ury, W. L., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1988). Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the
Costs of Conflict. Jossey-Bass.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191.

Scheper-Hughes, N., & Bourgois, P. (Eds.). (2004). Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Wiley-
Blackwell.

Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research, 27(3), 291-305.

Kriesberg, L. (1998). Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. Rowman & Littlefield.

Coser, L. A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. Free Press

Moore, C. W. (2014). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Jossey-Bass.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191.

Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Sage
Publications.

20