The National Teachers College

Nepomuceno St., Quiapo, Manila

GRADUATE STUDIES

HULAR, JERVIS RENE C.

SN: 49900340 EDL 119 Theories and Laws of International Relations

1:00 PM – 4:00 PM Atty. Rolando A. Bernales, Ed. D.

Task Sheet for Week 9 (March 9-14)

1. Compare and contrast the amicable and hostile methods of settling international
disputes.

2. Choose which method you think will best settle our territorial dispute with China.
Justify your choice.

Legal disputes between the states can be settled through two means by Amicable Means
of Settlement and Coercive/hostile Means of Settlement. . The International Law provides
various amicable and coercive means and methods for settlement of these disputes. The UN
charter do not specifically prohibits war but has indirectly provided many provisions relating to
not using force for settlement so that the generations can be saved from the scourges of war
which our previous generations have suffered.
Amicable means, also known as peaceful means of settlement are recognized principles
of UN Charter as Article 2 of the charter provides that all members must settle their disputes
through peaceful means on the other hand, Coercive/hostile also known as compulsive means
involves force on the state to settle disputes.
In amicable means of settlement, International disputes can be settled through the
following:
Negotiation: When the parties to a dispute settle disputes by discussion or adjustment of
their differences by the Head of the States or their diplomatic representatives, the procedure is
called negotiation. The General Assembly have laid down certain guidelines in regard to
settlement through negotiation:
 It should be conducted in good faith.
 States must consider importance of negotiation.
  The purpose of negotiation shall be in accordance to International Law.
 States must follow framework agreed by parties mutually for negotiation.
 Maintaining constructive atmosphere during negotiation.
 Facilitation of conclusion of negotiation by being focused on the main objectives. States
must continue to work for solutions which can be accepted by both the parties.
Good Offices: The appointment of a third party to settle differences between the parties
is knows as settlement through good offices as the third party arranges a meeting between the
parties for them to settles their disputes. The third party appointed merely offers its good offices
to the disputant parties after which the third party does not have to perform any duties. For
Example, the Security Council has appointed McNaughton, Mr. Dixon, Graham and Jarring in
1949, 1950, 1951 and 1957 respectively for settlement of dispute between India and Pakistan.
Mediation: In Mediation, the disputant parties along with the third party discuss and
propose suggestions for resolution of disputes. Such third party is known as mediator and he
shall be impartial and neutral. The mediator also has power to sign a treaty which embodies such
settlement. Ex: In 1966, the President of Soviet Union, Kosygin, was the mediator in the dispute
between India and Pakistan which led to an agreement between the parties i.e. Tashkant
Agreement.
Conciliation: A group of persons are commissioned to investigate the basis of dispute
and propose suggestions for resolving the dispute between the parties. Settlement of disputes
through such process is known as Conciliation. The dispute is referred to the group of persons
for finding out the facts and suggesting terms for resolution of dispute. Conciliation is different
from Arbitration as the parties in conciliation can disregard the proposals of commission whereas
in arbitration, the award is binding upon the parties to the dispute.
International Commission of Enquiry: The purpose of commissioning an enquiry is to
investigate the matters between the parties and resort the dispute in accordance with the results
of enquiry. The enquiry is not an independent method and are applied with other methods. The
major purpose of holding an enquiry is to find the facts which will lead to the solutions of the
problem arisen between the parties. The Enquiry Commission is generally appointed for solving
border disputes between states.
In Coercive or hostile means of settlement, International disputes can be settled through
the following:
 Retorsion: Retorsion means retaliation. If a state behaves discourteously with other state,
the affected state has a right to settle dispute through retorsion. Provided such means shall be
approved under International Law. The principle applicable in this means is that of “tit for tat.”
But it shall not effect international peace and security.
Reprisals: In Reprisal, the affected state can forfeit the property and arrest the citizens of
the offended state. The basic purpose of reprisal is to force the offending state to stop the wrong
doing. The right to reprisal is used in the cases where state commits an International crime or
violates International Law rules. Therefore, reprisals are not legal unless they are based on an act
that is against International Law and it can be justified if the force is used because it is necessary.
Embargo: Embargo is also a compulsive means of settlement in which the affected state
becomes entitled to obstruct transportation of ships within its territory, of the states which has
violated International Law.
Pacific Blockade: Pacific Blockade involves cutting ingression and egression which
means the ships are not allowed to go out or come in. If any state is not ready to settle an
international dispute, then all the other states will blockade their ports and trade and commerce
would become impossible for such state. This method can be used by the states that have strong
naval forces.
Intervention: This method of resolving disputes is considered as a drastic means as it
involves compelling a state to settle the international dispute. Oppenheim has defined
Intervention as “a dictatorial interference by a state in the affair of another state for
maintaining or altering the actual condition of things.” The grounds for Intervention include
self-defense, treaty enforcement, balancing power, humanitarian issues, prevention of illegal
intervention, intervention in civil war, protection of person and property, collective intervention
and maintaining International Law.
War: War is said to be an ultimate means of settling international disputes. A war is the
last resort to settle disputes between states through which states impose their will on each other.
The war is said to be started as and when it is declared by any of the states to the dispute.
International Law doesn’t recognize war as an illegal means of settlement but prevents its
happening through various provisions covered under UN Charter. Therefore, it is implied by the
provisions of the UN Charter that resort to war for settlement of disputes is forbidden and
prohibition on use of force is now a part of International Law.
 The dispute on South China Sea can be solved with measures which have been used in
successful settlement of other disputes. For example, a legal solution will be quick and lasting.
By adopting a legal solution, all claimants will agree to submit the dispute for arbitration to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) who will judge the dispute according to the international laws
applicable. A political solution which is also called one track approach will be time consuming
but lasting. By adopting a political solution, all parties will discuss the dispute in formal
occasions, either at bilateral or multilateral levels. Other measures such as Confidence Building
Measures (CBM) can also be applied to avoid further conflict and promote understanding among
claimants. Confidence Building Measures can include two track approaches such as the
workshop approach or undergoing joint projects in the disputed areas, as well as cooperation in
energy exploration. Two track approach is supplements to one track approach. By holding
informal meetings and carrying out cooperative projects, claimants can accumulate confidence
and understanding.

In the case of the South China Sea dispute, since most of the claimants are reluctant to
resolve the sovereignty issue through any of the approaches, a permanent peace is unlikely to
achieve for the time being. However, temporary peace is possible. Peace can be obtained when
claimants’ interests are attended to. Comparing to the interest of sovereignty, the other two
interests are comparatively easier to accomplish, namely security of sea lanes and exploration of
natural resources. First, stability and security of the South China Sea are necessary for the
economic development of all claimants. Second, previous efforts of all claimants have laid
foundation to further carry on negotiations cooperation on issues except territorial claims. In this
regard, China’s proposal of setting aside dispute will be a wise choice for all claimants.

Due to the complexity of the dispute, no single approach can achieve the permanent
peace. A combination of the available approaches is necessary for obtaining peace. In this
regard, the approaches which have been adopted by the claimants are in the right direction. First,
the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed in 2002 shows the signs
of all claimants’ will to demilitarize the dispute. This effort ensures that the dispute develop into
a political issue which can be solved by political approach in the future. Second, the two track
approaches, including the ASEAN Regional Forum and other informal meetings will be playing
more important role in providing ideas and suggestions to solve dispute and exchanging
information to avoid further conflict due to misunderstanding and lack of communications. Other
two track approaches, like the economic integration and energy co-exploration can further closer
the ties between claimants. Third, the one track approaches, including the 10+1 Summit between
ASEAN and Chinese leaders and other regular ministerial-level meeting mechanisms can review
and co-ordinate each country’s behaviour to enhance understanding and cooperation. The ideal
goal of the combined approaches is that even though it cannot ensure permanent peace, when the
loss of economic interests and political risk outweigh the military gain, according to realist
theory, state will act rationally to avoid conflict. Peace is thus sustained.