MODULE 10 – INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

TOPIC 1 - MEANS OF SETTLEMENT:

Negotiation, Arbitration, Mediation, Good Offices, Conciliation, Enquiry

I. INTRODUCTION

A dispute may be defined as a specific disagreement concerning a matter of fact, law, or

policy in which a claim or assertion of one party is met with refusal, counterclaim, or denial
by another. In the broadest sense, an international dispute can be said to exist whenever such
a disagreement involves governments, institutions, juristic persons (corporations), or private
individuals in different parts of the World.

An international dispute is a conflict between states involving differences in legal opinions,

factual points, or conflicting interests. International dispute settlement is concerned with the
techniques and institutions which are used to solve international disputes between States
and/or international organizations. International disputes can be solved either by use of force
(coercion) or by peaceful settlement.

Peaceful settlement of international disputes is an essential principle of international law that

was developed in the United Nations Charter under Article 2, paragraph 3 on the Principles of
International Law relating to cooperation and friendly relations among Nations. It has always
been the objective of International Law to formulate the methods and means by which the
conflicts among the States may be settled by peaceful means and based on Justice. In this
regard, the rules of international law are partly in the form of law-making treaties and
customs. In an international dispute, the dispute must be between nations in case of wrong
has occurred by one state, however, it does not become an international dispute till it is taken
up by the government of the nation of the injured national. Thereafter, the dispute must lead
to some action by the aggrieved nation.

The main objective of international law is to maintain world peace and security. The disputes
can be settled by way of peaceful means or coercive means. Peaceful means of settlement can
be classified into two categories, namely, adjudication and diplomatic procedure.
Adjudication refers to determination of disputes by a neutral third party who enforces law,
either through arbitration or decision of judicial organs. Diplomatic procedure refers to
resolution of differences by the parties themselves through discussions.

Article 2(3) of the United Nations Charter states that “all members shall settle their
international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security and just are not endangered”.

Article 33 (1) of the United Nations Charter states that “the parties to any dispute, the
continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and
security, shall first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation,
arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful
means of their own choice”.

According to Article 2(3) of the UN Charter, parties involved in such disputes must seek
peaceful resolutions. The UN Security Council is responsible for determining whether a
threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression has occurred. It is entrusted with taking
necessary measures to restore and maintain international peace and security. The peaceful
means of settling disputes, as Chapter 6 of the UN Charter outlines. It includes negotiation,
good offices, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, involvement of
regional agencies/authorities, and other peaceful methods.

International disputes can be resolved through two methods: Pacific means are peaceful
methods of resolving disputes, such as negotiation, good offices, inquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and regional agencies/authorities. Compulsive
means are forceful methods of resolving disputes, such as complaints, reprisal, hostile
embargo, blockade, intervention, and war. The United Nations Charter (UN Charter) outlines
these two dispute-resolution methods in Chapters VI and VII. Chapter VI of the UN Charter
lists the pacific means of dispute resolution, while Chapter VII lists the compulsive means of
dispute resolution.

The pacific means of dispute resolution are generally preferred over the compulsive means of
dispute resolution. Because they are more likely to lead to a peaceful and lasting resolution.
However, the compulsive means of dispute resolution may be necessary in some cases, such
as when a party to a dispute is unwilling to resolve the dispute peacefully.

Page 2 of 2
The peaceful resolution of international conflicts is an essential and binding principle within
international law. This principle, which holds significant importance, is explicitly stated in
Article 2.3 of the United Nations Charter and further expanded upon in United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), which outlines the Principles of International
Law related to Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States.

II. METHODS OF PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT

1. NEGOTIATION

This is the simplest and most utilised form of dispute settlement. It refers to diplomatic
discussions between the interested parties with a view to reconciling divergent opinions and
understanding the different viewpoints. Negotiation focuses on the disagreements and helps
to make the dispute more concrete, with a view to find amicable solution. The parties are at
the liberty to decide the most appropriate means to resolve the dispute. It is generally a
precursor to other settlement procedures. Bilateral or multilateral agreements such as Vienna
convention on Succession of States in respect of treaties, 19781, Vienna Convention on the
Representation of States in their Relations with International Organisations, 19752,
Convention of Law of Sea, 19823, etc. may require the states to negotiate prior to resorting to
third party dispute resolution mechanisms.

Features of negotiation:

i. It is a voluntary process.
ii. Only the parties involved in the dispute can participate in negotiation and there is no
interference of third parties. However, the negotiation process may involve two or more
parties.
iii. It is informal and flexible in nature as there are no formal rules or procedures to be
followed during negotiations.

1
Article 41, Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, 1978.
2
Article 84, Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International
Organisations, 1975.
3
Article 283, Convention of the Law of the Sea, 1982.

Page 3 of 2
iv. It is non-adjudicative process and it provides an opportunity to settle the disputes through
mutual consent.
v. It is confidential.

Advantages:

i. It has flexible and informal approach which provides opportunity for the parties to decide
the best recourse.
ii. The disputes can be settled through negotiation in a win-win manner as both the parties
are generally satisfied with the outcome and it is implemented voluntarily.
iii. It is confidential and less expensive compared to adjudication process.

Disadvantages:

i. It may not always succeed as both parties have conflicting views.

ii. The process must be conducted with a degree of mutual goodwill to achieve success.
iii. In the absence of neutral third party, the more powerful State may take advantage of the
other.
iv. Either of the parties may terminate negotiations at any stage, notwithstanding the time,
effort and money invested in it.
v. Negotiation may be used as a tactic to stall judicial proceedings.

Cases:

1. North Sea Continental Shelf case (1969)

The dispute was with respect to delimitation of continental shelf area in North sea between
Germany and Denmark and Germany and Netherlands. Denmark and Netherlands drew
boundary line based on equidistance principle. However, Germany contented that this
boundary was inequitable due to its concave coastline. The International Court of Justice held
that the parties are under an obligation to enter into negotiations with a view to arriving at an
agreement, and not merely to go through a formal process of negotiation as a sort of prior
condition… they are under an obligation so to conduct themselves that the negotiations are
meaningful, which will not be the case when either of then insists upon its own position
without contemplating any modification of it.

Page 4 of 2
2. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (1974)4
The proceedings were initiated by United Kingdom and Germany against Iceland over
extension of fisheries jurisdiction by Iceland from 12 nautical miles to 50 nautical miles. The
States were unsuccessful in negotiation. The International Court of Justice held that the most
appropriate method for the solution of the dispute (preferential fishing right) is clearly that of
negotiation.” In cases where customary international laws are the subject matter of disputes
and the rights of the States, the States are under the obligation to negotiate.

3. Cameroon v. Nigeria (2002)

Cameroon instituted proceedings against Nigeria with respect to the question of sovereignty
over the Bakassi Peninsula, and requested the Court to determine the course of the maritime
frontier between the two States in so far as that frontier had not been established in 1975. The
Court held that ‘like all similar obligations to negotiate in international law, the negotiations
have to be conducted in good faith’.

The International Court of Justice has stated that “the fact that negotiations are being actively
pursued during the present proceedings is not, legally any obstacle to the exercise by the
Court of its judicial function.”5 However, the Courts may choose to delay rendering the
judgment when disputes are being settled through negotiation or any other diplomatic means.

2. ARBITRATION

International arbitration is one of the most effective and equitable manner of dispute
settlement, in cases where diplomatic dialogues have failed. It is a combination of diplomatic
and judicial procedures. In case the States are parties to an agreement to arbitrate, there will
be a legal obligation to use arbitration as a means of settlement and the award will be final.

Modern arbitration began with the Jay Treaty of 1794 between United States and Great
Britain, which provided for adjudication of various legal issues by mixed commission. The
usage of arbitration as a method of settlement has increased after the successful arbitration in
Alabama claims in 1872.

4
Fisheries Jurisdiction case, 1974 I.C.J. 3.
5
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), 1978 I.C.J. 3.

Page 5 of 2
The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established under the Hague Convention for the
Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1899. The United Nations has adopted Model
Rules on Arbitral Procedure, 1958 which governs the arbitral proceedings.

Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding under the World Trade Organisation
recognises arbitration as one of the expeditious methods of resolution of disputes. It is based
on mutual agreement between the parties on the agreed procedure. The issues in the dispute
are required to be defined by the parties.

Hague Convention (1907) for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes states
“International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by
judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect of law. Recourse to arbitrators implies
an engagement to submit in good faith to the award.”

Features of arbitration:

i. Arbitration is a form of third party dispute resolution mechanism.

ii. The arbitral tribunal may consist of a single arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators who are
nominated by the parties to the dispute.
iii. The parties have the flexibility to agree on the rules of procedure and laws that are
applied for resolution of the dispute. However, general principles of law such as natural
justice, equity are required to be followed.
iv. The arbitration tribunal is competent to determine its jurisdiction.
v. The award of the arbitral tribunal is final and binding on the parties.
vi. The award may be challenged on the grounds of excess of power, corruption, violation of
fundamental rules of procedure which includes failure to provide reasoning.

Advantages

i. Arbitration can be used in cases where technical expertise is required as the arbitrators
are experts in the subject matter.
ii. The parties have the freedom to choose the arbitrators.
iii. Arbitration process is conducted in a time bound process and is generally faster that
judicial process.

Page 6 of 2
iv. It is cost effective as compared to traditional litigation process.
v. The proceedings are private and confidential as opposed to litigation, which is public.

Disadvantages

i. In certain cases where the Treaty mandates arbitration, the parties will not have the
liberty to voluntarily choose arbitration.
ii. The arbitrator may be biased as he is chosen by the parties.
iii. Since arbitration process is flexible, it may not follow the standard rules of procedure,
which may lead to inconsistency or unpredictable awards.
iv. It lacks transparency as it is held in private.

Cases

1. Alabama claims (1972)

The United States made a series of claims against the Great Britain seeking compensation for
the damage caused by CSS Alabama. Alabama was a warship build in Great Britain that
attacked almost 60 merchant ships of United States, before it was sunk by United States
Warships, during the Civil War. United States demanded compensation from Great Britain for
aiding construction of warships. After years of unsuccessful diplomatic initiatives, a Joint
high Commission was arrived at in the Treaty of Washington, which established an arbitration
commission. The Arbitration Commission gave its award in 1972, which ordered Great
Britain to pay compensation of $15.5 million, but rejected the claim of indirect damages
made by United States.

2. Trial Smelter case (1941)

The dispute arose between United States of America and Canada on the issue of
environmental law. It was claimed that the operation of a smelter in Trial, British Columbia
caused damage to the farmlands of Canada and United States. The attempts to negotiate were
not successful and the countries agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator
held that it was held that State has right to use resources how it wants, but has to stop when it
starts infringing on rights of other states to use the environment.

Page 7 of 2
3. Baglihar Project Arbitration
The dispute was between India and Pakistan regarding Baglihar hydroelectric project, which
was constructed on the Chenab river. After partition, temporary accord was signed between
the two Countries in 1948 to regulate the usage of the Indus System. The countries made an
effort to negotiate the matter in order to ensure a durable settlement. Subsequently, Indus
Water Treaty was signed in 1960. In 1992, India gave notice of its intention to undertake the
project, which commenced in 1999. Pakistan was sceptical since it may lead to withholding
of water during shortage and release during excess leading to flood.

Discussion between the countries started in 2000 in the Permanent Indus Commission.
Pakistan urged for appointment for an expert. India requested for bilateral discussions, which
did not yield results till 2005. Subsequently, Prof. Raymond Lafitte, faculty of Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology was appointed as an expert. In 2007, the overall design of the
Baglihar dam being built by India on the Chenab as a run-of-river plant had been upheld.

3. MEDIATION

Mediation is a voluntary, binding process in which an impartial and neutral mediator

facilitates disputing parties in reaching a settlement. A mediator does not impose a solution
but creates a conducive environment in which disputing parties can resolve all their disputes.
It is a settlement process whereby disputing parties arrive at mutually acceptable agreements.
It is also a structured process where a neutral person uses specialized communication and
negotiation techniques.

WHAT IS THE PROCESS ?

A. Introduction :- Mediator introduces himself to the parties, explains the mediation
process and establishes his neutrality. He explains the ground rules and initiates the
confidential process of dispute resolution.
B. Joint Session :- Mediator gathers information about the factual background and
interests of the parties, establishes interaction between them and creates a suitable
environment for an amicable settlement.
C. Individual (Separate) Sessions:- When it becomes necessary, a mediator allows the
disputing parties to further explain their grievances, continues to gather information,

Page 8 of 2
 persuades individual parties to share confidential information and helps them to create
options for an amicable settlement.
D. Agreement:- Mediator confirms and clarifies the terms of settlement and reduces the
settlement into a clear, complete, concise and binding agreement.

WHO IS A MEDIATOR ?
Mediator is impartial and neutral.
● Manages interaction between the parties.
● Facilitates communication between the parties.
● Identifies barriers to an agreement.
● Identifies interests of the parties.
● Develops terms of agreement.
In India, any person/Advocate who has completed 15 years of practice in law and who
undergone the required 40 Hours Training as stipulated by the Mediation and Conciliation
Project Committee (MCPC) of the Supreme Court can be a Mediator. He also needs to have
at least 10 actual mediations before he can be accepted as a qualified Mediator. Mediation
Act, 2023 was passed.

BENEFITS OF MEDIATION
● Quick and responsive.
● Economical.
● There is no extra cost.
● Harmonious settlement.
● Creating solutions and remedies.
● Confidential and informal.
● Parties controlling the proceedings.

4. GOOD OFFICES
The term ‘Good offices’ is often mixed and interchanged with mediation but both the
processes are different facets of ADR mechanism. The expression ‘Good Offices’ is referred
to a procedure whereby a neutral third party or a state on its own initiative or through request
seeks through diplomatic means, bring the parties to the dispute together on the same
platform either to start a direct negotiation among the parties or to find other methods for
resolving the dispute.

Page 9 of 2
Good Offices can be international organizations, any one country or group of countries,
which are not hostile and offer any two countries having a dispute to settle the dispute
peacefully. Good Offices may be very extensive in the services and facilities rendered but are
slightly short of active participation in the process. The work of Good Offices ends or
completes when the mediation among the parties initiates. The Good Offices do not actively
participate in the mediation, it only brings the unwilling parties together for negotiation.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDIATION AND GOOD OFFICES WITH CASES

There is a very thin line distinction between good offices and mediation. Both the terms are
often used interchangeably and mixed. ‘Good Offices’ is a procedure whereby a third party
brings the conflicting parties together without participating in the negotiation whereas in
‘mediation’ the conflicting parties submit their disputes to a third party who facilitates the
negotiation process and actively participates in the negotiation to form the terms of
settlement. The mediator also adds his suggestions in resolving the disputes. In ‘Good
Offices’ the third party only brings the disputing parties together for negotiation whereas in
‘mediation’ the third party conducts the negotiation. For instance, the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom, Mr. Wilson provided Good Offices to India and Pakistan which resulted in
the parties to reach an agreement to refer the Kutch issue to the Arbitral Tribunal. On the
other hand, Soviet Union President, Kosygin mediated in the dispute between India and
Pakistan which resulted in the conclusion of Tashkent agreement in 1966

5. INQUIRY

One of the most common obstacles that prevent the successful settlement of disputes in
International Law is the ascertainment of the facts, as it has been observed for the years that
different views are put forward by the disputant parties. A majority of International disputes
get stuck because of the unwillingness and inability of the parties to agree to the facts.

The dictionary meaning of the term ‘inquiry’ suggests that it is an act of asking for
information. Similarly, for the settlement of disputes in International Law, a Commission is to
be appointed, consisting of honest and impartial investigators, so that they can verify the facts
of the issue. The sole function of the Commission is known to be the ascertainment of issues.
This procedure for the settlement of international disputes was born at the Hague Conference

Page 10 of 2
1899. It was said that the States who were not willing to end their disputes by agreement
might use the process of inquiry.

It consisted of a ‘special agreement’ between the parties in dispute. The ‘special agreement’
has a wide range of powers, ranging from examination of the facts, mode of investigation and
examination, the time frame for the formation of a Commission, the place where the
Commission will sit, the language that is to be used. And the extent of the powers of the
Commission. Article 11 states that Hague was chosen to be the place where the Commission
would sit if the ‘special agreement’ chose to remain silent on the place of the meeting.

Inquiry was most successfully used in the Dogger Bank incident of 1904 where Russian naval
ships fired on British fishing boats in the belief that they were hostile Japanese torpedo craft.
The Hague provisions were put into effect and the report of the international inquiry
commission contributed to a peaceful settlement of the issue." This encouraged an
elaboration of the technique by the 1907 Hague conference, and a wave of support for the
procedure.

However, the use of commissions of inquiry in accordance with the Hague Convention of
1907 proved in practice to be extremely rare. The Red Crusader inquiry of 1962 followed an
interval of some forty years since the previous inquiry. This concerned an incident between a
British fishing boat and a Danish fisheries protection vessel, which subsequently involved a
British warship. Although instituted as a fact-finding exercise, it did incorporate judicial
aspects. A majority of the Commission were lawyers and the procedures followed a judicial
pattern.

Institutional frameworks have increasingly recognized the value of inquiry, as evidenced by

its growing use within the United Nations and specialized agencies. A notable illustration is
the
UN Secretary-General's 1988 mission to Iran and Iraq, responding to their specific request to
investigate the conditions of prisoners of war. This exemplifies the acknowledgment of
inquiry as an essential tool for addressing urgent issues and fostering transparency in
international relations. Additionally, within specialized agencies, the International Civil
Aviation Organisation conducted an inquiry in 1983 into the shooting down of a Korean
airliner Collier and Lowe. The instances of inquiry, whether initiated by the United Nations

Page 11 of 2
or specialized agencies, highlight the crucial role that systematic investigation plays in
addressing complex situations and advancing principles of justice and accountability globally.
But inquiry as a separate mechanism in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1907 has
fallen out of favour. In many disputes, of course, the determination of the relevant
circumstances would simply not aid a settlement, whilst its nature as a third-party
involvement in a situation would discourage some states

6. CONCILIATION

The process of conciliation involves a third-party investigation on the basis of the dispute and
the submission of a report embodying suggestions for a settlement. As such it involves
elements of both inquiry and mediation, and in fact the process of conciliation emerged from
treaties providing for permanent inquiry commissions.

Here an effort is made for a peaceful compromise, to sign an agreement but important to note
that the proposals made by the commission are never binding on the parties to the dispute.
Here, proposals are made for the settlement after finding facts about the dispute but in
mediation, the third party is part of the meetings with the parties in dispute. Also, it is not for
the mediator to ascertain facts about the case, like in conciliation.

Conciliation processes are extremely flexible and by clarifying the facts and discussing
proposals may stimulate negotiations between the parties. The rules dealing with conciliation
were elaborated in the 1928 General Act on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
(revised in 1949). The function of the commissions was defined to include inquiries and
mediation techniques. Such commissions were to be composed of five persons, one appointed
by each opposing side and the other three to be appointed by agreement from amongst the
citizens of third states. The proceedings were to be concluded within six months and were not
to be held in public. The conciliation procedure was intended to deal with mixed legal-factual
situations and to operate quickly, and informal.

A number of multilateral treaties do, however, provide for conciliation as a means of

resolving disputes. The 1948 American Treaty of Pacific Settlement(The American Treaty on
Pacific Settlement (also known as the Pact of Bogotá) was signed by the independent
republics of America gathered at the Ninth International conference of American states in

Page 12 of 2
Bogota, Colombia, on 30 April 1948.); 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 Organisation of African Unity; the 1969 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties; the Treaty Establishing the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States,
1981; the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea(It lays down a comprehensive regime of
law and order in the world's oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the
oceans and their resources) and the 1985 Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone
Layer(It is a framework convention that mainly aims to promote international cooperation
through exchange of information on the impact of human activity on the ozone layer), for
example, all contain provisions concerning conciliation.

The conciliation procedure was used in the Iceland-Norway dispute over the continental shelf
delimitation between Iceland and Jan mayen island. The portion of the continental shelf in
proximity to the coastal boundary of the country is considered to be the extension of land and
the country has jurisdiction over that area. But the adjacent States usually rays objections
regarding overlapping boundaries over the continental shelf. Similar was the dispute between
Iceland and Norway. To resolve this dispute a commission was established.

After analyzing the situation, the commission proposed to resolve this problem by forming a
joint development zone. This shows the neutral, negotiating, and flexible nature of the
conciliation method for resolving an international dispute.

III. CONCLUSION

The peaceful settlement of disputes is a crucial component of international relations and plays
a significant role in maintaining global harmony. Under international law, states must resolve
disputes peacefully rather than resort to armed conflict. The principle of peaceful settlement
of disputes is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which promotes the peaceful
resolution of conflicts among member states. As the magnitude of a dispute between the
states is multiple times larger than that of the dispute between individuals, the result of its
resolution is also multiple times larger than that of the resolution of a dispute between
individuals. Hence, individual states must resolve to solve all the disputes, by using amicable
means. This is inevitable for the peace of the world, when several complexities, both legal
and factual, increase the number of disputes too.

Page 13 of 2
International law aims at resolution of disputes through peaceful means in order to maintain
cooperation between the States and stability in the international market. There are no
hierarchy in the methods of peaceful settlement and the States may choose the method that
maybe best suited for each kind of dispute. The States may opt to continue resolution of
disputes through other means of settlement in case of failure of one method. The advent of
technology has enabled quicker and cost effective mechanism of resolution of international
disputes.

IV. REFERENCES

1. JAMES CRAWFORD, BROWNLIE’S PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 692-694 (Oxford

University Press, 2012).
2. MALCOLM N SHAW QC, INTERNATIONAL LAW 914-958 (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
3. Mauro Rubino Sammartano, International Public Law Arbitration 1459-1482 (Juris
2014).
4. PETER VAN DEN BOSSCHE, THE LAW AND POLICY OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 173-300

(Cambridge University Press, 2005).

5. Martin A Rogoff, The Obligation to Negotiate in International Law and Realities, 16 (1)
Mich. J. Int. Law 141-185 (1994).
6. Robert Barnidge, The International Law as a means of negotiation settlement, 36 (3)
FORDHAM INT. LAW J. 545-574 (2013).
7. Dispute Resolution Reference Guide, www.justice.gc.ca.
8. WTO Analytical Index – DSU Article 25,
www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/ai17_e/dsu_art25_jur.pdf.
9. https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Diplomatic-means-of-Dispute-Settlement-
in-Public-International-Law
10. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000262177
11. https://opil.ouplaw.com/abstract/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-
e20
12. https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/mediation/Brochure%20-%20MCPC.pdf
13. https://nyayadegula.kar.nic.in/faq.html
14. https://viamediationcentre.org/readnews/MzI2/Good-Offices-as-a-peaceful-means-of-
settling-

Page 14 of 2
 disputes#:~:text='Good%20Offices'%20is%20a%20procedure,negotiation%20to%20for
m%20the%20terms
15. https://youtu.be/K_2NrlhwTfQ?si=0bzYOpqPi3lF7wz2

TOPIC 2 - Settlement of International Disputes under the United Nations;

International Court of Justice and other adjudicatory bodies

1. UNITED NATIONS

INTRODUCTION
The United Nations was established following the conclusion of the Second World War and
in the light of Allied planning and intentions expressed during that conflict. The purposes of
the UN are set out in article 1 of the Charter as follows:

 to maintain international peace and security;

 to develop friendly relations among nations;
 to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human
rights;
 and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
The Charter of the United Nations is not only the multilateral treaty which created the
organisation and outlined the rights and obligations of those states signing it, it is also the
constitution of the UN, laying down its functions and prescribing its limitations. Foremost
amongst these is the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the member states.
Under Article 2(7) of the Charter, the UN may not intervene in matters essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state (unless enforcement measures under Chapter VII are to be
applied). This provision has inspired many debates in the UN, and it came to be accepted that
colonial issues were not to be regarded as falling within the Article 2(7) restriction. Other
changes have also occurred, demonstrating that the concept of domestic jurisdiction is not
immutable but a principle of international law delineating international and domestic spheres
of operations. As a principle of international law it is susceptible of change through
international law and is not dependent upon the unilateral determination of individual states.

Page 15 of 2
The UN has six principal organs, these being the Security Council, General Assembly,
Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, Secretariat and International Court of
Justice.

The League of Nations

The provisions set out in the UN Charter are to a large degree based upon the terms of the
Covenant of the League of Nations as amended in the light of experience. Article 12 of the
Covenant declared that any dispute likely to lead to a conflict between members was to be
dealt with in one of three ways: by arbitration, by judicial settlement or by inquiry by the
Council of the League. Article 15 noted that the Council was to try to effect a settlement of
the dispute in question, but if that failed, it was to publish a report containing the facts of the
case and 'the recommendations which are deemed just and proper in regard thereto'. This
report was not, however, binding upon the parties, but if it was a unanimous one the League
members were not to go to war 'with any party to the dispute which complies with the
recommendations of the report'. Where a member resorted to war in disregard of the
Covenant, then the various sanctions prescribed in article 16 might apply, although whether
the circumstances in which sanctions might be enforced had actually arisen was a point to be
decided by the individual members and not by the League itself. Sanctions were in fact used
against Italy in 1935-6

The United Nations system

The UN system is founded in constitutional terms upon a relatively clear theoretical

distinction between the functions of the principal organs of the organisation. However, due to
political conditions in the international order, the system failed to operate as outlined in the
Charter and adjustments had to be made as opportunities presented themselves. The Security
Council was intended to function as the executive of the UN, with the General Assembly as
the parliamentary forum. Both organs could contribute to the peaceful settlement of disputes
through relatively traditional mechanisms of discussion, good offices and mediation. Only the
Security Council could adopt binding decisions and those through the means of Chapter VII,
while acting to restore international peace and security. But the pattern of development has
proved rather less conducive to clear categorisation. An influential attempt to detail the

Page 16 of 2
methods and mechanisms available to the UN in seeking to resolve disputes was made by the
UN Secretary-General in the immediate aftermath of the demise of the Soviet Union and the
unmistakable ending of the Cold War.

In An Agenda for Peace, the Secretary-General, while emphasising that respect for the
fundamental sovereignty and integrity of states constitute the foundation-stone of the
organisation, noted the rapid changes affecting both states individually and the international
community as a whole and emphasised the role of the UN in securing peace. The Report
sought to categorise the types of actions that the organisation was undertaking or could
undertake. Preventive diplomacy was action to prevent disputes from arising between states,
to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter
when they occur. This included efforts such as fact-finding, good offices and goodwill
missions. Peacemaking involves action to bring the hostile parties to the agreement, utilising
the peaceful means elaborated in Chapter VI of the Peacekeeping, which is the deployment of
a UN presence in the field. Peace-building is action to identify and support structures that will
assist peace. Peace Enforcement is peacekeeping not involving the consent of the parties,
which would rest upon the enforcement provisions of Chapter VII of the charter

However, the attack on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 'dramatised the global
threat of terrorism', while focusing attention upon 'reconstructing weak or collapsed states:"
The Secretary-General has also emphasised the need to replace the culture of reaction by one
of prevention and by developing inter alia a thirty to ninety-day deployment capability.

The Security Council

The Security Council, the United Nations’ principal crisis-management body, is empowered
to impose binding obligations on the 193 UN member states to maintain peace. The Security
Council’s five permanent and ten elected members meet regularly to assess threats to
international security, including civil wars, natural disasters, arms proliferation, and
terrorism.

Structurally, the Security Council remains largely unchanged since its founding in 1946,
stirring debate among members about the need for reforms. In recent years, members’
competing interests have often stymied the Security Council’s ability to respond to major
conflicts and crises, including Syria’s civil war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Russia’s
annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of Ukraine.

Page 17 of 2
The Security Council has five permanent members—the United States, China, France,
Russia, and the United Kingdom—collectively known as the P5. Any one of them can veto a
resolution. The Security Council’s ten elected members, which serve two-year, non-
consecutive terms, are not afforded veto power. The P5’s privileged status has its roots in the
United Nations’ founding in the aftermath of World War II.

The Security Council aims to peacefully resolve international disputes in accordance with
Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which authorizes the Security Council to call on parties to
seek solutions via negotiation, arbitration, or other peaceful means. Failing that, Chapter VII
empowers the Security Council to take more assertive actions, such as imposing sanctions or
authorizing the use of force “to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Peacekeeping missions are the most visible face of the United Nations’ conflict-management
work; as of now, the Security Council oversees 11 operations across three continents,
involving a total of nearly eighty-eight thousand uniformed personnel.

Constrained by U.S.-Soviet rivalry, the Security Council acted infrequently in the four and a
half decades between its founding and the close of the Cold War. During that time,
it authorized seventeen peacekeeping operations. Since Russia’s invasion and annexation of
Crimea in 2014, tensions have flared between Russia and the Western members of the P5,
leading to concerns that the body is less able to defuse crises. Only two peacekeeping
missions, in the Central African Republic and Haiti, have been authorized since 2014. The
Syrian conflict has proven to be particularly difficult to manage, given that
Russia—sometimes joined by China—has used its veto power nearly twenty times to block
resolutions aimed at holding the Assad regime accountable for atrocities documented by UN
sources. Relations worsened further after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and
Russia has used its veto power to prevent several Security Council resolutions condemning
the conflict.

The Security Council has authorized fifty-nine peacekeeping operations in the years since the
dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, many responding to failing states, civil wars, or
complex humanitarian emergencies and deploying to conflict zones in the absence of cease-
fires or parties’ consent. Under more muscular mandates, they have combined military
operations—including less restrictive rules of engagement that allow for civilian and refugee
protection—with civilian tasks such as policing, electoral assistance, and legal
administration. Developing nations provide the major share of personnel.

Page 18 of 2
Regional organizations have played an increasingly important role in peacekeeping and
conflict resolution, in some cases prodding the Security Council to action and in others acting
as subcontractors on its behalf. For instance the increased will and capacity of the African
Union, which has partnered with the United Nations in carrying out missions in Somalia and
the Darfur region of Sudan.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the Security Council passed Resolution 2532, which
called for a ninety-day “humanitarian pause” in armed conflicts worldwide, with an exception
for conflicts against designated terrorist groups. However, Resolution 2532’s effect was
minimal.

Sanctions measures available to the Security Council

The sanctions provisions in Article 41 of the UN Charter, dormant during much of the Cold
War, have become one of the Security Council’s most frequently employed tools. The body
had imposed sanctions just twice prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall: in 1966, a trade embargo
was enacted against Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), and in 1977, an arms embargo was
enacted against apartheid-era South Africa. The Security Council began to make regular use
of sanctions in the early 1990s, starting with Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Haiti. As of
2023, fourteen Security Council sanctions regime, listing more than six hundred individuals
and nearly three hundred entities, are in place. Security Council sanctions have taken a
number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from
comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms
embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has
applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain
terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.

General Assembly

Despite the fact that the Assembly has not been empowered to settle the disputes using any
specific means, it holds a wide range of powers to discuss the same under Article 11 para 2
and may make recommendations under Article 14 to the parties in dispute which may help
them to arrive at peaceful and friendly conclusions. Thus, in simpler words, it can be said that
the Assembly holds the ‘general’ power for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

Page 19 of 2
There have been various instances where the Assembly has suggested for the peaceful
settlement of disputes. In 1974, the Assembly called upon the Member States to make full use
and seek improved implementation provided for in the Charter of the United Nations for the
exclusively peaceful settlement of any dispute or any situation.

 Manila Declaration
In 1982, the Committee successfully drafted a declaration that was to be adopted by the
assembly. The same declaration was known as the Manila Declaration. The declaration
mentioned that the States shall seek any peaceful way of settlement of a dispute in good faith
and a spirit of cooperation. It also mentioned that the States had absolute liberty to make full
use of the United Nations.

 Declaration on Prevention and Removal of dispute

This declaration was drafted by the special committee, which was said to threaten
International Peace and Security. This declaration is said to have been approved by the
Assembly in the same year. Some of the important provisions of the declaration are as
follows:

 Foreign minister-level meetings are to be held sometimes by the Security Council.

 The appointment of a Secretary-General as a rapporteur in a specific dispute must be
considered by the Council.
 Fact-finding or good offices should happen at an early stage.
 In order to prevent a dispute, the Secretary-General must consider approaching the States
concerned.
This declaration is said to be the first instrument that deals with the prevention of
international disputes and promotes international peace, harmony, and security.

 Fact-finding Activities
In 1990 the Special Committee was asked to give priority to the impending questions on
maintaining international peace and security. For this purpose, the fact-finding activities were
to be primarily considered. In 1991, a declaration on the fact-finding committee was adopted
by the General Assembly. It had a major role in strengthening the role of the United Nations
in the maintenance of international peace and security and also to promote the settlement of
disputes through peaceful means. The fact-finding mission was either taken by the Security
Council, the Assembly, and the Secretary-General. Secretary-general was expected to use the

Page 20 of 2
find finding activities at an early stage for an easier and more peaceful contribution in matters
of dispute.

He was required to prepare a list of the experts in various fields who could carry out the fact-
finding activities.

 Hand-book on the peaceful settlement of disputes

Again with the help of Special Committee’s recommendations to the Secretary-General to
prepare a hand-book on peaceful settlement of disputes and also to provide special powers,
functions, and duties to the Assembly, the Council, and the Secretary. An elaborate draft
handbook is said to have been drafted by 1992.

Secretary-general
The United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) is an individual who is deemed to be
symbolic of the benignant archetype of equivalence and carries an involvement in achieving
peace among states. At this time, the Secretary-General visits United Nations conferences and
talks with global administrators for remaining significant national and international ties. In
times of any dispute, the United Nations Secretary-General ought to bring its opinions in
front of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and take assistance for the activity.
This function imposes the supreme obligation to protect international peace and security if
any disputes are arising between or within boundaries that goes against the international
security or principles of human rights then UNSG would be cognizant and prepared to
reconcile for contribution. On the other hand, Article 99 of the United Nations Charter gives
that the UNSG could take to the scrutiny of the Security Council any issue which in his
opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. Therefore, the
provisions of Article 99 would determine significance and may be enforced properly.

Conclusion

The functioning of the United Nations system for the preservation and restoration of world
peace has not been a tremendous success in the broadest strategic sense. It constitutes merely
one additional factor in international disputes management and one often particularly subject
to political pressures. The United Nations has played a minimal part in some of the major
conflicts and disputes since its inception, whether it be the Cuban missiles crisis of 1962 or
the Vietnam war, the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan or the Nigerian
and Angolan civil wars

Page 21 of 2
2. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

2.1 INTRODUCTION

International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a principal judicial organ of the United Nations
established in 1945 by the San Francisco Conference. It is a permanent and autonomous
body. The seat of International Cout of Justice is at the Hague. It is a part of the institutional
structure of the United Nations it is established under Article 7 of the UN Charter and Article
1 of the Statue of the International Court of Justice (“Statute”) as one of the six principal
organs of United Nations. The functions of the Court are defined in Chapter XIV of UN
Charter.

2.2 HISTORY

The creation of the Court represented the culmination of a long process of developing
methods for the pacific settlement of international disputes, the origins of which can be traced
to the Hague Conferences in 1897 and 1907. The establishment of Permanent Court of
Arbitration marked as an important step towards consolidation of international legal system.

The Permanent Court of International Justice was established in 1920 having its headquarters
in Hague, Netherlands. Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Council
of the League responsibility for formulating plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court
of International Justice (PCIJ). It was competent not only to hear and determine any dispute
of an international character submitted to it by the parties to the dispute, but also to give an
advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or Assembly of
the League of Nations.

Permanent Court of International Justice was a permanently constituted body governed by its
own Statute and Rules of Procedure, fixed beforehand and binding on parties having recourse
to the Court. During its existence from 1922 to 1946, the Permanent Court of International

Page 22 of 2
Justice dealt with numerous cases and contributed significantly in the development of
international law.

After the end of World War II, the League of Nations was dissolved and United Nations was
established in 1945. The International Court of Justice was established as the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations by the UN Charter, which was signed in San Francisco in
1945 and came into force in 1946.

2.3 ORGANISATION OF THE COURT

Chapter I, Article 2 to 33 of the Statue deals with the organisation of the Court. The
International Court of Justice is composed of fifteen (15) independent judges regardless of
their nationality. No two Judges may be of the same nationality.

The procedure of appointment of the Judges is both legal and political. The members of the
Court are elected by the General Assembly and Security Council from a list of qualified
persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The
candidate who obtains an absolute majority of votes shall be considered as elected.

The elections are conducted once in three years with respect to five members each time. The
members shall be elected for nine years and maybe re-elected. The Court shall have members
elected as President, Vice President and Registrar for three years. The members shall enjoy
diplomatic privileges and immunities.

The members cannot act as agent or counsel in any case. The members cannot participate as a
Judge in any case in which he had previously taken part as an advocate. The members are not
permitted to exercise any political or administrative function or engage in any other
occupation of professional nature.

The Court may from time to time form one or more chambers, composed of three to more
Judges to determine certain classes of cases. This was used for the first time in Gulf of Maine
Case (1982). The question of the composition of the Chamber is decided by the Court after
the parties have been consulted. Article 29 provides for procedure for speedy disposal of
matters in a summary manner.

Page 23 of 2
2.4 COMPETENCE OF THE COURT

Chapter II, Article 34 to 38 of the Statute deals with Competence of the Court. The Article 34
provides that only States maybe parties in cases before the Court. The Court shall decide
disputes in accordance with international law. The Court can take aid of public international
organisations for submission of relevant information.

2.4.1 Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of the International Court can be divided into two main
categories. i.e. adjudicatory and advisory.
The adjudicatory jurisdiction refers to the capacity to decide disputes between states.
Advisory jurisdiction refers to the capacity to give advisory opinions when requested so to do
by particular qualified entities.

2.4.1.1 Adjudicatory Jurisdiction:

The International Court of Justice settles disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by
States in accordance with international law in the exercise of its jurisdiction in contentious
cases. Article 35 of the Statute defines the conditions under which States may access the
Court. It can be either compulsory or contentious.

i. Contentious jurisdiction:
The Court has jurisdiction under Article 36(1) of its Statute in all cases referred to it by
parties, and regarding all matters specially provided for in the UN Charter or in treaties or
conventions in force. Parties may refer a particular dispute to the
ICJ by means of a special agreement or compromise, which will specify the terms of the
dispute and the framework within which the Court is to operate. Courts may also be granted
jurisdiction over disputes arising from international treaties where the treaties contain a
‘compromissory clause’. For instance, Hague Convention on Hijacking, 1970, Convention of
Investment Disputes, 1965.

Page 24 of 2
The jurisdiction of the Court is founded upon the consent of the parties. The Court can only
deal with a dispute when the States concerned have recognized its jurisdiction. No State can
be a party to proceedings before the Court unless it has in some manner or other consented
thereto. There is no prescribed form of consent and it can be inferred from the conduct of the
parties as well. In the Corfu Channel case (1948), the Court inferred consent from the letters
from the other party. The idea whereby the consent of a state to the Court's jurisdiction may
be established by means of acts subsequent to the initiation of proceedings is referred to as
the doctrine of forum prorogatum. Further, the Court will not entertain actions between
states that implead a third state without its consent as held in Monetary Gold case (1954).

ii. Compulsory jurisdiction:

Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the
right to bring any one or more other States, which have accepted the same obligation, before
the Court, by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court. Conversely, it
undertakes to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or
more other such States.

Article 36(2) of the Statute provides that States who are party to the Statute may declare that
they recognise as compulsory ipso facto, without any special agreement, the jurisdiction of
the Court. As on 2023, 74 States have submitted such declaration. The nature of such
declarations was discussed in Cameroon v. Nigeria case (1998), ‘the States which have
submitted the declaration, can make a standing offer to the other States which have not
deposited the declaration. Acceptance of the offer creates a consensual bond.’ The
declarations may also contain reservations or conditions. The States are also free to withdraw
their declarations. India submitted its declaration on 27th September, 2019.

Further, the matter brought before the Court must be a legal dispute. It was held in Nuclear
tests case (1974), that the existence of a dispute is the primary condition for the Court to
exercise its judicial function.

2.4.1.2 Advisory jurisdiction:

Page 25 of 2
Chapter IV, Article 65 to 68 of the Statue deals with Advisory Opinions. Upon receipt of a
written request, the Court may give advisory opinion on any legal question. The Court may
notify the State to appear to aid in furnishing information. It shall deliver its advisory
opinions in open court.

Further, Article 96 (1) and (2) of the UN Charter provides that the General Assembly,
Security Council, other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies may request
the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question. Examples
of specialised agencies are the International Labour Organisation, World Health Organisation,
International Monetary Fund, World Intellectual Property Organisation etc.

The general rule established by the Eastern Carelia case (1923) is that the Court would not
exercise its advisory jurisdiction in respect of a central issue in a dispute between the parties
where one of these parties refused to take part in the proceedings. In Reservations to the
Genocide convention Case (1951), the Court held that the object of advisory opinion was to
guide the United Nations in respect of its own action.

2.4.2 Source of law: Article 38(1) states that Court shall decide the dispute on the basis of
international law such as international conventions, international custom, general principles
of law and judicial decisions and teachings of qualified publicists of various nature. The
Court can also decide based on ex aequo et bono, i.e. on the basis of justice and equity
untrammelled by technical legal rules as per Article 38 (2).

2.4.3 Evidence: The International Court is flexible with regard to the introduction of
evidence. Strict rules of admissibility of evidence are not followed. The Court may also make
on-site visits. On site visit was conducted in Diversion of the River Meuse case. The Court
may appoint an individual or commission for carrying out enquiry or giving expert opinion.
The Court has sought to evaluate claims primarily upon an assessment of the documentary
evidence provided, utilising also legal techniques such as inferences and admissions against
interest.

2.4.4 Provisional measures: As per article 41 of the Statute, the Court has the power to
indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any provisional (or interim) measures
which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party in case of urgency.

Page 26 of 2
The purpose of exercising the power is to protect 'rights which are the subject of dispute in
judicial proceedings. Interim measures were awarded in Fisheries Jurisdiction case (1972),
Nuclear Test case (1973) etc.

2.4.5 Judgement: After hearing the matter in public, the Judges will deliberate in private.
The questions shall be decided by a majority. In case of equality of votes, the President shall
have a casting vote. The judgement should contain reasoning and read in the open court. The
decision is only binding on the parties of the respective case. Application for revision of a
judgement can be made when a fact which is decisive in nature is discovered. The application
for revision must be made within six (6) months from the date of discovery of the new fact.
Application cannot be made after lapse of ten (10) years from the date of judgment.

2.4.6 Third party intervention: There is no general right of intervention in cases by third
parties. However, Article 62 of the Statute provides that any state which considers that it has
an interest of legal nature, which may be affected by the Court’s decision, may submit a
request to be permitted to intervene. The threshold for permitted intervention is high. This
was permitted for the first time in the case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier
Dispute (El Salvador) (1992).

2.4.7 Enforcement: Under article 94 of the UN Charter, each member state undertakes to
comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which it is a party and if this does not
occur, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council which may make
recommendations or take binding decisions.

2.5 CONCLUSION

The International Court of Justice stands as a cornerstone institution for fostering a peaceful
and lawful international order. By providing a platform for settling disputes between nations
and offering legal guidance on complex issues, it helps prevent conflict and strengthens the
framework of international law. It has been influential in the development of international law
as a whole and by issuing advisory opinions on interpretation of the UN Charter and
international law. It plays a vital role in maintaining peace and stability in the world order by
promoting rule of law in international relations.

Page 27 of 2
3. OTHER ADJUDICATORY BODIES IN INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE
SETTLEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
International disputes are often resolved by two basic techniques of conflict management:
diplomatic procedures and adjudication. In the complex landscape of international
relations, numerous adjudicatory bodies play pivotal roles in resolving disputes between
nations. Beyond the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), these
institutions offer diverse mechanisms for conflict resolution. Exploring their functions and
significance broadens our understanding of international dispute settlement and its impact on
global stability.

II. WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY

Resolving trade disputes is one of the core activities of the WTO. A dispute arises when a
member government believes another member government is violating an agreement or a
commitment that it has made in the WTO. The WTO has one of the most active international
dispute settlement mechanisms in the world. Since 1995, 622 disputes have been brought to
the WTO and over 350 rulings have been issued.

The General Council convenes as the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to deal with disputes
between WTO members. Such disputes may arise with respect to any agreement contained in
the Final Act of the Uruguay Round that is subject to the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).

Stages in settlement of trade disputes:

1. Consultations (Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding - DSU): When a
WTO member believes another member is violating WTO agreements or obligations, it can
request consultations with the aim of resolving the dispute amicably. The complaining party
must provide sufficient information about the alleged violation and its impact on its trade
interests. Consultations are conducted in good faith, and the parties have 60 days to try to
reach a mutually satisfactory solution.
2. Panel Establishment (Article 6 DSU): If consultations fail to resolve the dispute, the
complaining party can request the establishment of a panel as per Article 4.7 of DSU. Panels
are composed of three neutral experts chosen from a roster maintained by the WTO

Page 28 of 2
Secretariat (Article 8 of DSU). The panel examines the matter and issues a report to the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).
3. Panel Proceedings (Article 12 DSU): The panel conducts its proceedings according
to a timetable agreed upon by the parties. Both parties submit written arguments and
evidence, and the panel holds hearings where the parties present oral arguments and respond
to questions. The panel's report includes findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations
for resolving the dispute.
4. Adoption or Appeal (Articles 16 and 17 DSU): The panel's report is submitted to the
DSB for adoption. If either party disagrees with the panel's findings, it can appeal to the
Appellate Body, which consists of seven members appointed by the Dispute Settlement Body.
The Appellate Body reviews legal issues and issues a report within 60 days.
5. Implementation (Articles 21 and 22 DSU): The losing party is required to bring its
measures into compliance with WTO agreements within a reasonable period, typically
determined through consultations with the winning party. If the losing party fails to comply,
the winning party can request authorization from the DSB to impose retaliatory measures.
6. Monitoring and Surveillance (Article 23 DSU): The Dispute Settlement Body
oversees the implementation of rulings and recommendations and may establish panels to
examine compliance issues if necessary. The goal is to ensure that WTO members abide by
their obligations and that disputes are effectively resolved. Overall, the WTO dispute
settlement process is designed to provide a fair and transparent mechanism for resolving trade
disputes among members, thereby promoting stability and predictability in the international
trading system.

In domestic judicial systems, the out-of-court solution of disputes is often referred to as an

“alternative” form of dispute resolution. One could also talk about an “alternative” to panels
and the Appellate Body in the WTO dispute settlement system, when parties settle their
dispute with a mutually agreed solution, or through arbitration. However, these forms of
dispute settlement are provided for in the DSU and are therefore formally part of, and not an
alternative to, the WTO dispute settlement system.

The "Shrimp-Turtle case" formally known as the "United States - Import Prohibition of
Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products" refers to a dispute brought by India, Malaysia, Pakistan
and Thailand before the World Trade Organization (WTO) regarding measures taken by the
United States to protect sea turtles. The United States implemented the Turtle Excluder

Page 29 of 2
Device (TED) requirement and other measures to address the incidental capture of sea turtles
in shrimp fishing operations. The measures included import restrictions on shrimp from
countries that did not have adequate turtle protection measures in place, based on the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other domestic laws.

The issues were whether the US measures, including the import restrictions, were consistent
with WTO agreements, particularly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), also whether the US measures violated
the national treatment principle under GATT by treating imported products less favorably
than domestic products.

The WTO panel ruled that the US measures were inconsistent with WTO agreements. The
panel found that the US import restrictions violated the national treatment principle under
GATT because they treated imported shrimp less favorably than domestic shrimp.
Additionally, the panel found that the US measures were not justified under the exceptions
provided in the WTO agreements, such as the exceptions for measures necessary to protect
human, animal, or plant life or health. The US lost the case, not because it sought to protect
the environment but because it discriminated between WTO members as it provided financial
assistance and longer transition period to countries in western hemisphere. This advantage
was not given to the complainant countries.

The “tuna-dolphin case” dispute involved the measures taken by the United States to protect
dolphins in the harvesting of tuna. Yellow fin Tuna fishing often involves setting nets around
schools of tuna, but this method can also result in the accidental capture of dolphins. The
United States implemented regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to address concerns about dolphin mortality in tuna
fishing operations. Mexico is the complainant part and its export of tuna to US was banned.

Key questions are (a) Can one country tell another what its environmental regulations should
be? (b) Do trade rules permit action to be taken against the method used to produce goods
rather than the quality of the goods themselves?

The WTO Panel ruled that the U.S. measures were inconsistent with its obligations under the
GATT and the TBT Agreement because they unfairly discriminated against foreign tuna

Page 30 of 2
products. However, the Panel also recognized the legitimacy of the U.S. goal of protecting
dolphins and acknowledged that the measures were implemented with environmental
objectives in mind. The panel was asked to judge the US policy of requiring tuna products to
be labelled “dolphin safe” (leaving to the consumers the choice of whether to buy the
product). It concluded that this doesn’t violate GATT rules as it was designed to prevent
deceptive advertising practices. Mexico and US held their own bilateral consultations aimed
at reaching agreement outside GATT.

III. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is an independent judicial body
established by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It entered into
force on 16 November 1994. Hamburg was chosen to be the seat of the Tribunal by the
representatives of the States participating in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law
of the Sea by secret ballot on 21 August 1981. The choice of Hamburg, a well-known port
city reputed for its long tradition in international shipping and maritime trade. The two
official languages of the Tribunal are English and French. Other languages may be used by
parties during proceedings, in which case the party concerned is requested to make the
necessary arrangements for interpretation and/or translation into one of the official languages.

There are currently 169 States Parties to the Convention. This includes 168 States and one
international organization (European Community). It has jurisdiction over any dispute
concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, and over all matters
specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was established as a specialized tribunal to deal with disputes arising out of
the interpretation and application of the Convention.

The Tribunal is an independent judicial body that maintains close links with the United
Nations. The Tribunal and the United Nations have entered into agreement concerning
cooperation and relationship. The United Nations has granted the Tribunal observer status in
the General Assembly. In addition the staff of the Tribunal are remunerated in accordance
with the United Nations common system of salaries, allowances and benefits, as
administered by the International Civil Service Commission.

Page 31 of 2
The Registry is the administrative organ of the Tribunal. Headed by the Registrar, it
consists of a number of different departments: Legal, Administration and Finance, Electronic
Data Processing, Press, Conference and Linguistic Services and Library. The Registrar is
responsible for all legal and administrative work, for the assessment and collection of
contributions, and for the administration of the accounts and finances of the Tribunal. The
Tribunal applies the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and other rules
of international law not incompatible with the Convention.

Disputes before the Tribunal are instituted either by written application or by notification of
a special agreement. The procedure to be followed for the institution of proceedings before
the Tribunal is defined in the Statute and the Rules of the Tribunal as well as in the
Guidelines concerning the Preparation and Presentation of Cases before the Tribunal. The
proceedings consist of two stages: written and oral.

The Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has 5 Sections and 41
Articles in total. Section 3 (Article 24 to 34) deals with the Procedure.
● Disputes are submitted to the Tribunal via special agreement or written application,
indicating the subject and parties involved.
● The Registrar promptly notifies concerned parties about the submission.
● The Tribunal or its Seabed Disputes Chamber can prescribe provisional measures, even if
not in session, subject to later review by the Tribunal.
● Hearings are overseen by the President or Vice-President, with public access unless
otherwise decided or requested by parties.
● The Tribunal orders case conduct, sets argument deadlines, and manages evidence.
● If a party defaults, proceedings may continue, with the Tribunal ensuring jurisdiction and
merit.
● Decisions are made by majority vote, with the President having a casting vote if votes are
equal.
● Judgments must state reasons, may include separate opinions, and are signed by the
President and Registrar.
● States can request intervention, and decisions are binding on intervening parties.
● Interpretation or application cases involve notifying relevant parties, with the right to
intervene.

Page 32 of 2
● Tribunal decisions are final, binding only on involved parties, and subject to clarification
upon request.
● Each party generally bears its own costs unless otherwise decided by the Tribunal.

Disputes relating to the Convention may concern the delimitation of maritime zones,
navigation, conservation and management of the living resources of the sea, protection
and preservation of the marine environment and marine scientific research. In the cases
submitted to the Tribunal to date the following matters have figured prominently: prompt
release of vessels and crews under article 292 of the Convention, coastal State jurisdiction
in its maritime zones, freedom of navigation, hot pursuit, marine environment, flags of
convenience and conservation of fish stocks. The decisions of the Tribunal are final.
However, the Rules of the Tribunal make provision regarding requests for the interpretation
or revision of a judgment.

The Enrica Lexie case refers to an incident where two Italian marines, Salvatore Girone and
Massimiliano Latorre, aboard the Italian-flagged oil tanker MV Enrica Lexie, allegedly fired
on an on board a fishing vessel (the “St Antony”), resulting in the deaths of two Indian
fishermen off the coast of Kerala, India in the Arabian Sea on 15 February, 2012. The St
Antony was approximately 20.5 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala, India when the
incident occurred. The Italian ship continued sailing for almost three hours after the incident.
The Indian Coast Guard intercepted the Italian ship approximately 59 nautical miles and
ordered it to navigate to the nearby Indian port of Kochi.

The Italian government claimed that the marines mistook the fishermen for pirates and fired
in self-defense. The Indian government argued that the shooting was unjustified and occurred
without provocation. The Italian marines were arrested and charged with murder under
Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. The jurisdiction over the event is contested by Italy and
India with Italy seeking provisional orders from the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea compelling India to cease prosecutions and release the Italian marines held in custody
until such time as the UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal can determine which nation can exercise
jurisdiction.

The main issues involved in this case were (a) Jurisdiction: There was a dispute over which
country had jurisdiction to try the case since the incident occurred in international waters. (b)

Page 33 of 2
Self-defense: Whether the actions of the Italian marines constituted self-defense or not. In
2014, the case led to diplomatic tensions between Italy and India. However, in 2020, Italy
decided to return the marines to India to stand trial under Indian jurisdiction, leading to a
resolution of the case. As part of the resolution, Italy agreed to pay compensation to the
families of the victims. Overall, the Enrica Lexie case involved complex legal and diplomatic
considerations, and its resolution had significant implications for international relations and
maritime law.

IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the diverse array of adjudicatory bodies within the realm of international
relations offers multifaceted mechanisms for conflict resolution, beyond the well-known
United Nations and International Court of Justice. Understanding the functions and
significance of these institutions is crucial for comprehending the intricacies of international
dispute settlement and its profound impact on global stability. By acknowledging and
utilizing the various avenues available for resolving disputes, nations can strive towards
fostering a more harmonious and cooperative international community

REFERENCES

16. JAMES CRAWFORD, BROWNLIE’S PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 695-707 (Oxford
University Press, 2012).
17. MALCOLM N SHAW QC, INTERNATIONAL LAW 914-958 (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
18. Taslim O Elias, The International Court of Justice and some contemporary problems,
(Springer Science, 1983).
19. Statute of the International Court of Justice,
https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/sicj/icj_statute_e.pdf
20. International Court of Justice, https://www.icj-cij.org/
21. United Nations Audiovisual library of International law,
https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/courtsandtribunals.html
22. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm
23. https://www.itlos.org/en/main/resources/information-material/faq/

Page 34 of 2
 TOPIC 3 - Developing countries’ perspectives on international Dispute Settlement

1. NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION
The concept of a new international economic order represents a fundamental
restructuring of the global economic system to address emerging challenges and
inequities. As globalization continues to shape the world economy, the need for a more
inclusive, sustainable, and equitable framework becomes increasingly evident. The
main theme around which NIEO’s philosophy revolves is ‘‘economic independence’’ is
basic and a must for political sovereignty of LDCs. In other words, the political
independence of any state is reflected in the economic capability and strength of any
state. The New International Economic Order (NIEO) was proposed to post the second
world war. Its main objective was to bring reform in the governance of the world economy
and enable the integration of the recently decolonized nations. It was based on certain
essential principles of public international law. As a result, it significantly affected the
global monetary system and law. Developing nations proposed a new International
Economic Order after World War II to reform the international monetary system
and law.

II. NIEO - ORIGIN

The origin of the NIEO began at the end of World War II. The entire world economic
system had been disrupted due to the War, and the international monetary system had
broken down. Due to this, the gap between developed and developing countries
widened even more. The main forum responsible for the idea of the NIEO was the Non-
Aligned Movement. The Non-Aligned Movement was formed during the Cold War. It
is a group of 120 countries that are aligned neither with the Western Bloc (USA) nor
with the Eastern Bloc (USSR). The chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1973
requested the Secretary-General of the UN to convene a Special Session of the General
Assembly to study problems related to raw materials and economic development. Thus, in
September 1973, the UN General Assembly adopted the ‘Programme of Action on the
Establishment of a New International Economic Order.’ The UN General Assembly
later adopted the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States on 12 December
1974. Although there have been many meetings to bring the NIEO to fruition, it has not

Page 35 of 2
 been done yet. In 2018, the UN General Assembly adopted another resolution, ‘Towards a
New International Economic Order,’ which recognized the need to continue working
for the development of the NIEO.

III.NIEO - FOUNDING PRINCIPLES

The New International Economic Order was established in accordance with the principles
of the United Nations Charter to promote economic and social progress for all. The new
international economic order should be based on the following principles:
1. All nations are sovereign and equal. The people in these nations have a right to self-
determination, and no country can interfere in the internal affairs of another nation.
2. There should be peaceful cooperation between all member countries.
3. Every country has the right to choose the economic and social system that it believes is
best for its own growth, without fear of discrimination.
4. Special steps will be implemented to assist developing countries damaged by economic
crises and natural disasters.
5. Each state has complete, perpetual control over all of its economic activity and natural
resources.
6. All governments, territories, and peoples subject to foreign occupation, alien and
colonization domination, or apartheid have the right to restoration and full reparation
for the exploitation and depletion of, and damage to, their natural resources and other
wealth.
7. The enhancement of reciprocal economic, trade, financial, and technological
cooperation among developing countries, primarily on a preferential basis, by individual
and collective initiatives.
8. The provision of active support to developing countries by the whole international
community, free of any political or military restrictions.
9. Access to modern science and technology will be provided to underdeveloped countries,
and technology transfer will be encouraged.
10. Assuring that one of the primary goals of the reformed international monetary system is to
promote the development of developing nations and ensure an appropriate flow of real
resources to them.

IV. NIEO AND MONETARY LAW

Page 36 of 2
 NIEO is based on the public international law principles of sovereign equality,
interdependence, and cooperation among all States, despite economic and social
differences among countries. The NIEO proposed a reform in the present international
monetary system and law through new international commodity agreements and
commodity price stabilization through a common international fund. In addition, it
aimed to reform global trade by improving trade terms for developing nations. It proposed
integrating developing countries into regional zones where free trade could further
reduce the taxes imposed by developed countries and other trade barriers. According to the
NIEO, the laws of international trade, especially those concerning raw materials, food,
commodity agreements, transportation, and insurance, needed to be reformed. This
included reform in the Bretton Woods system.

The Bretton Woods Agreement was signed in 1944. It led to a new international
monetary system that replaced the global currency from gold to the US dollar. Due to
this, the USA became an economic superpower. The Bretton Woods Agreement also led
to the creation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These
financial organizations are also controlled by the USA and Western Europe, while other
developing countries have very little say. Thus, the NIEO proposed giving control to
developing countries themselves and increasing the rate of economic development
and market share among developing countries. Instead of getting financial aid from the
developed countries and these financial institutions, the developing countries rallied under
the principle of ‘Trade not Aid.’ This led to developing countries participating in the
Tokyo Round of trade negotiations which was the birth stage of the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The formation of the WTO resulted in reduced tariffs and the
establishment of new regulations for controlling the proliferation of non-tariff barriers
(NTBs) and voluntary export restrictions.

V. CONCLUSION
NIEO emerged to change the existing international economic system which benefits
developing countries nothing. NIEO calls for correcting the unfair global political and
economic order so as to benefit all countries and their citizens equally and fairly. During
the colonial period, the then colonized countries, today known as the least developed
countries (LDCs) were immorally and irresponsibly exploited their resources and
manpower. After the end of colonial rules, developing countries are still under dominance

Page 37 of 2
 and exploitation of their former colonizers. In this regard, NIEO failed to meet its
objectives. Developing countries remain to be suppliers of raw materials to the west,
suffering from trade imbalances, unemployment and are still backward.

2. NEW INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN ORDER

Introduction

Developing and underdeveloped countries have long faced a myriad of human rights
challenges. Before the new international humanitarian order was passed by the UN General
Assembly, developing and underdeveloped countries faced numerous human rights
challenges. These ranged from extreme poverty and food insecurity to the politicization of
human rights and the repression of civil society. The establishment of the new Human Rights
Council aimed to address these issues by creating a body based on dialogue, cooperation, and
the highest standards of human rights promotion and protection. When World War II broke
out, the international order could be divided into two unequal parts: one privileged, the other
subjugated; one a system of sovereign states in the Western Hemisphere, the other a colonial
system in most of Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Problems faced by the developing and under developed countries in the realm of human
rights are:

 Extreme Poverty and Human Dignity

Extreme poverty has been a persistent violation of human dignity in developing and
underdeveloped countries. The failure to meet basic human needs undermines the very
essence of human rights, as it prevents individuals from living with the dignity that is their
due. The international community recognized the urgent need for national and international
action to eliminate extreme poverty, acknowledging that narrowing the wealth gap both
within and between countries is a critical goal.

 Selective Targeting and Political Use of Human Rights

There has been a concern about the biased and selective use of human rights resolutions,
which are sometimes perceived as tools for political ends rather than genuine efforts to
address human rights issues. This selective targeting often leads to condemnation of countries
that may be making progress in development and practicing openness and constructive

Page 38 of 2
dialogue. The principle of non-selectivity, impartiality, and objectivity in the promotion and
protection of human rights has been reaffirmed to counteract this issue.

 Inadequate International Cooperation

The lack of sufficient international cooperation in the field of human rights has been a
significant problem. Developing countries have called for an international order based on
inclusion, justice, equality, and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights.
Additionally, there has been an appeal for governments to develop more inclusive policy-
making and devise innovative strategies to achieve literacy and development goals.

 Food Insecurity
The promises made at the World Food Summit in 1996 to halve the number of
undernourished individuals by 2015 were not being fulfilled, highlighting the issue of food
insecurity in developing and underdeveloped countries. This failure reflects the broader
challenges these nations face in ensuring the right to food for all their citizens.

 Human Rights in Conflict Zones

Countries like Ethiopia and Ukraine have experienced severe human rights violations,
including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The presence of foreign troops and
militias in conflict zones like the Tigray region in Ethiopia has led to atrocities against
civilians, including rape and sexual violence against women and girls. Similarly, the
international community has expressed grave concern for the deteriorating human rights
situation and the perpetration of war crimes in Ukraine.

 Repression of Civil Society and Media

Weak institutions, executive interference, and corruption have led to the instrumentalization
of human rights violations in countries like Burundi. National human rights institutions have
been criticized for echoing official political points, while media and civil society actors face
threats and harassment. In Eritrea, the civic space remains completely closed, with no
avenues for citizens to participate in decision-making.

 Human Rights in Supply Chains

For more than two decades, human rights abuses have been documented in the context of
global supply chains. Workers in developing countries often endure abuses such as poor
working conditions, child labour, sexual harassment, and exposure to toxic substances. Child
labour remains a serious problem, with millions of children engaged in hazardous work.

Page 39 of 2
Additionally, communities have suffered human rights abuses when companies acquire land
for large-scale commercial enterprises linked to global supply chains.

Recommendations by Secretary General in his report for New International

Humanitarian Order

Strengthening Humanitarian Action: The report highlights the need to reinforce and adjust
humanitarian action in response to man-made and natural disasters. This includes enhancing
the effectiveness of relief efforts and ensuring the needs of vulnerable populations are met.
The specialized agencies and subsidiary organs of the UN have been dealing with these
issues, but further strengthening of the system is required.

Role of Armed Forces in Socio-economic Development: The report suggests undertaking

research on the role of armed forces in socio-economic development. This research would
explore the potential contributions of armed forces, considering their significant allocation of
national budgets. Understanding the impact and potential benefits of armed forces in
development efforts can inform future policies and resource allocation.

Transition from Relief to Development: This emphasizes the importance of analyzing and
facilitating the transition from relief to development. Efforts during emergencies should lead
to concrete actions for long-term and sustainable development. By examining successful
transitions, lessons can be learned and applied to ensure that relief efforts contribute to
durable development outcomes.

Identifying and Addressing Emerging Humanitarian Problems: The report highlights the need
to identify and analyze emerging humanitarian problems that require international action.
Examples include the growing number of internally displaced persons, the increase in
beggars and street children, and the impact of terrorism and internal conflicts. By analyzing
these issues, solutions can be sought and international support can be mobilized.

Promoting a New International Humanitarian Order: It emphasized the importance of

promoting a new international humanitarian order. This subject has been on the agenda of the
General Assembly for several years, indicating the need for a comprehensive and updated
approach to address humanitarian challenges. A new order would aim to enhance
coordination, reduce poverty, and address the specific problems faced by countries in the
Third World.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on New international humanitarian order

Page 40 of 2
The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the new international humanitarian order,
which is Resolution 63/147, on 18 December 2008. This resolution recognizes the need for
the further strengthening of national, regional, and international efforts to address
humanitarian emergencies. It also emphasizes the importance of continued international
cooperation in support of affected States in dealing with natural disasters and complex
emergencies. The resolution urges governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil
society to extend cooperation and support to the efforts of the Secretary-General in the
humanitarian field. It encourages intergovernmental organizations and civil society, including
non-governmental organizations, as well as the private sector, where appropriate, to assist and
support national and international efforts to respond to humanitarian emergencies. The
resolution requests the Secretary-General to report on these issues to the General Assembly at
its sixty-fifth session in his annual report on the strengthening of the coordination of
emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations.

Developing countries perspective on new international humanitarian order

Developing countries have a unique perspective on the new international humanitarian order.
They are often the most affected by humanitarian crises, whether they are caused by natural
disasters or human-made conflicts. Therefore, their perspective is shaped by their experiences
and the challenges they face in responding to these crises.

From a developing country's perspective, a good development plan should include disaster
preparedness to develop health services capacity, reduce risk, and establish emergency
preparedness locally. This allows communities to better deal with disasters, ideally without
external assistance. However, disaster preparedness has not traditionally been a priority, and
many countries do not have well-developed disaster preparedness plans.

The power of the United Nations to deal with matters of international humanitarian law is
undisputed, in theory as well as in practice. Various UN bodies have been called upon to
work for a strengthening of international humanitarian law, which includes reaffirming and
progressively codifying international humanitarian law, ensuring the prosecution and
punishment of persons who have committed serious violations of that law, and increasing
respect for parties' obligations under international humanitarian law.

Developing countries also face emerging humanitarian problems that need to be identified
and analyzed for constructive international action. These include the growing number of
internally displaced persons, the increase in beggars and street children, and the impact of

Page 41 of 2
terrorism and internal conflicts. There is a need to analyze and seek solutions to these
humanitarian problems, and efforts should be made at the international level to reduce
poverty and solve problems faced by countries in the Third World.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the United Nations' adoption of the resolution for a new international
humanitarian order in 2008 marked a significant step towards addressing global humanitarian
challenges. This resolution laid the groundwork for a more equitable and efficient response to
humanitarian crises, particularly in developing nations. It emphasized the need for
strengthened international cooperation and solidarity, and it called for a comprehensive
approach to address emerging humanitarian problems, such as the growing number of
internally displaced persons.

The resolution also underscored the importance of transitioning from relief to development,
ensuring that immediate responses to crises translate into long-term, sustainable development
efforts. It highlighted the crucial role of research, particularly in understanding the role of
armed forces in socio-economic development and the connection between human rights and
humanitarian issues.

The resolution's adoption was a clear acknowledgment by the international community of the
escalating humanitarian crises and the need for a more robust, coordinated, and inclusive
response. However, the successful implementation of this new international humanitarian
order requires the ongoing commitment and participation of all nations, particularly those in
the developed world, to support and enable the efforts of developing countries in addressing
these humanitarian challenges. The path forward, while challenging, is a testament to the
global community's shared commitment to humanitarian principles and to the belief that
access to relief and development is a fundamental human right.

3. NEW INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION ORDER

3.1 INTRODUCTION

“Human history becomes more and more a race between communication and catastrophe.
Full use of communication in all its varied strands is vital to assure that humanity has more
than a history… that our children are ensured a future.”

Page 42 of 2
 - by H G Wells

Communication is the heart of social intercourse. Effective communication brings

communities together and reduces the chances of tension or conflict between them. Prior to
the development of technology in the field of communication, it was limited to a particular
area or region. However, advancement in technology and network system has aided speedy
communication throughout the world.

The New World Information and Communication Order also known as New Information
Order was coined during a debate regarding media representations of the developing
countries in UNESCO in the late 1970s. The movement was part of an effort to tackle global
economic inequality.

3.2 HISTORY

The American media scholar, Wilbur Schramm pointed out in 1964 that flow of information
among nations is thin. Further he noted that either the important events are ignored or the
reality is distorted. In 1969, Herbert Schiller observed that developing countries did not
contribute significantly in decision making process which was dominated by the United
States regarding radio frequency allocations for satellites in the meeting held at Geneva.

It was felt by developing and underdeveloped countries that flow of information is inadequate
and imbalanced. Communication systems and technology was concentrated in few countries.
The developing and underdeveloped countries were passive recipient of information
disseminated by developed countries. This situation continued the colonial era of dependence
and dominance. Since the means of information were monopolised by a few powerful
countries, it deterred the freedom of speech and expression. It also denied rest of the
countries the right to inform and be informed objectively and accurately. The imperialist
forces dominated free world information structure and flow.

Political, economic and information independence are importance for a country to achieve
growth. In 1970s, debates on communication were confronted in many areas. Third world
protests against the dominant flow of news from industrialised counties were often construed
as attacks on free flow of information. Advocates of journalistic freedom were labelled as
intruders of national sovereignty.

Page 43 of 2
In the 16th Conference of UNESCO, the need for a New World Information and
Communication Order was raised for the first time. The expression New Information Order
was established to bring to light the disadvantages faced by developing countries in relation
to information and communication.

3.3 MACBRIDE COMMISSION

The International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems that was
established under the chairmanship of Sean MacBride by UNESCO, played an important role
in establishment of the New World Information and Communication Order. The Commission
was established in 1977 under the resolution passed in the 19th General Session of the
UNESCO held at Nairobi in 1976. The Commission comprising of fifteen (15) members
apart from the chairperson.

The main agenda of the Commission was to study the totality of communication problems in
modern societies. It also aimed at studying four aspects of global communication. They are:
i. Current state of world communication;
ii. The problems surrounding a free and balanced flow of information and how the needs
of the developing countries link with the flow;
iii. In the light of new international economic order, how New World Information and
Communication Order could be created;
iv. How the media could become the vehicle for educating public opinion about world
problems.

The commission submitted a report titled ‘Many Voices, One World: Towards a new more
just and more efficient world information and communication order’ popularly known as
MacBride Report in 1980. This Report was regarded as the first endeavour of this nature on
the issue of international communication. The Report set out the goals of New World
Information and Communication Order to be ‘more justice, more equity, more reciprocity in
information exchange, less dependence in communication flows, less downwards diffusion of
messages, more self reliance and cultural identity, more benefits for all mankind.’ The Report
extended freedom of speech and expression to freedom of press and the right to communicate
and receive information. The report made 82 recommendations pertaining to different areas

Page 44 of 2
of communication. It emphasised on the importance of development of communication
channels to improve literacy. It also dealt with the developed countries providing access to
technical and scientific information to other countries. It advocated for higher professional
and ethical standards to be practised by the journalists in international reporting.

The Report made a detailed analysis of the present situation and held that that communication
is a basic individual right. It provided recommendations to governments, international
organisation, policy makers and media professionals. Some of the key recommendations are:
i. Strengthening independence and self reliance: It was recommended that within the
framework of national policies, each country should make elementary education
available to all and aim to wipe out illiteracy. Further, the communication policies
should guide development and installation of adequate infrastructure to provide self
reliant communication capacity.

ii. Social Consequences and New Tasks: Communication policies must be integrated in
to development strategy of the countries. The countries must evaluate the positive and
negative social implication of introduction of new communication technologies.
Developing countries must promote autonomous research and development. Policies
must safeguard national cultural development while promoting knowledge of other
cultures. It recommends promotion of non-commercial forms of mass communication.
The developed countries should foster exchange of technical information and
developing countries should adopt national informatics policies as a matter of priority.
iii. Professional Integrity and standards: Journalists must be provided with educational
and professional training. Since they serve public directly, they must be held
accountable for their actions. Codes of professional ethics and conduct must be adopted
at national level. International report must be improved by providing full factual
disclosure of information. Journalists must be protected from the dangers of
harassment, threat, physical violence, imprisonment etc.

iv. Democratisation of communication: It was observed that freedom of speech, press

and information are vital for realisation of human rights. Therefore, media should
contribute in promoting human rights of the people, which includes all extended forms
of right to communication (i.e. right to inform and to be informed, right to participate,

Page 45 of 2
 right to privacy etc.). The countries must not exercise arbitrary control over information
and open the communication process.

v. Fostering international cooperation: International cooperation for the development of

communication is essential. Communication dimensions should be incorporated into
existing programmes and arrangements for economic cooperation between developing
countries. The United Nations should consider communication sector as an integral
element and not merely as an instrument of public information. The members of United
Nations should support the organisation in its efforts in developing communication
sector.

3.4 RESOLUTION

After the submission of the report of the MacBride Commission, at the 21st General
Conference Session of UNESCO held in Belgrade in 1980, a resolution for the attainment of
a NWICO was passed, thereby formally approving the demand. The resolution proposed are
as follows:
(i) elimination of the imbalance and inequalities which characterise the present situation;

(ii) elimination of the negative effects of certain monopolists, public or private, and excessive
concentrations;

(iii) removal of the internal and external obstacles to a free flow and wider and better
balanced dissemination of information and ideas;

(iv) plurality of sources and channels of information;

(v) freedom of the press and information;

(vi) the freedom of journalists and all professionals in the communication media, freedom
inseparable from responsibility;

(vii) the capacity of developing countries to achieve improvement of their own situations,
notably by providing their own equipment, by training their personnel, by improving their
infrastructures and by making their information and communication media suitable to their
needs and aspirations;

(viii) the sincere will of developed countries to help them attain these objectives;

Page 46 of 2
(ix) respect for each people’s cultural identity and for the rights of each nation to inform the
world public about its interests, its aspirations and its social and cultural values;

(x) respect for the right of all peoples to participate in international exchange of information
on the basis of equality, justice and mutual benefit;

(xi) respect for the right of the public, of ethnic and social groups and of individuals to have
access to information sources and to participate actively in the communication process.

3.5 CONCLUSION

The rapid development of information and communication technologies has significantly

impacted the landscape of public international law. There has been a rise of information in the
present age which pose new challenges to international law such as data privacy, cybercrimes
etc. However, it is important that information must be utilised in a positive manner to
promote peaceful and secure world.

REFERENCES:

1. MacBride Committee Report, Many Voices One World, UNESCO (1980).

2. KAARLE NORDENSTRENG, DEFINING THE NEW INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION ORDER, 28-36
(Longman Inc., 1984).
3. M Shamsuddin, The New World Information Order, 40 (1) Pakistan Horizon, 80-94
(1987).
4. Narinder K Aggarwala, New International Information and Communication Order: Setting
the Record Straight, 4(1) NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law, 9-22
(1982).
5. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-humanitarian-order/
6. https://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00eff33b.html

7. New International Economic Order (NIEO): Origin, Elements and Criticisms by Fesseha
Mulu Gebremariam http://ijmmu.com, ISSN 2364-5369, Volume 4 Issue 3, June, 2017,
Pages: 22-28
8. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/218450?ln=en&v=pdf Resolution No. 3201 (S-VI).
Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order
9. https://youtu.be/V4_Zs-YoAwA?si=hMKXO9ZD4nD6REOl

Page 47 of 2