Nobody denies that the civil wars and bloody conflicts between individuals in any country lead to breaking the important institutions of a state. In such cases it requires the urgent intervention from the international community to bring everyone to the negotiating table and seek solutions to end the bloody conflicts that can sometimes lead to dangerous consequences. Today we see such a situation in Syria and the international community must take the necessary steps to stop the daily killing taking place there. There is an urgent need for international laws to be applied and the avoidance of double standards.
As we know, international law has always been considered as fundamental in maintaining peace. The international community primarily has the responsibility to ensure the preservation of world peace and security. The Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 (4) prohibits the threat or use of force, while Article 2 (3) of the Charter requires member states to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered. Also, arbitration has continued to be used as a method of dispute settlement in international law, and there have been a number of treaties and ad hoc agreements providing for arbitration tribunals. Although I do agree that International law has been criticised by some countries and organisations because it lacks the formal dispute settlement and enforcement mechanisms, and is not affective as it should be, events show that during the last five decades, international law bodies have been able to reach settlements for some world disputes and solved some major political, military and economic issues.
While some consider that power, rather than law, determines compliance and enforcement, I believe that the reason for many issues not being settled was due to the lack of enough pressure on different parties to implement international resolutions and disputes, especially the ones that concern the conflicts between two or more countries.
In this case most people believe that there is division in the discussion of many international dispute settlement issues due to the existence of power-based and rules-based diplomacy. In other words, a significant issue in international dispute settlement theory is: How much of strict, rigorous application of legal rules should be there, and how much, of “wiggle room” and political and diplomatic space should be allowed for governments to find ad hoc solutions tailored to individual disputes, as has been discussed by experts in international relations. Arguably, a lot of the debate about how to strengthen or further develop international dispute settlement mechanisms can somehow be traced to this basic problem — ie what are the political realities on the ground which make it difficult for an international dispute settlement mechanism to function as effectively and efficiently as a domestic one?
Another issue that is facing the international law is the huge cost to settle of international disputes, since such cases require the presence of international courts and arbitrators in order to bring complex evidences that are required for the presence of witnesses from different countries, because some of these disputes are very complex, and sometimes outdated, and require a considerable period for adjustment due to the competent committees required to prepare each and every case, follow-up evidence and legal evidence to consider the issues in preparation for a final decision.
These cases require the governments to prepare themselves very well to offer and pay the costs required for lawyers and legal consultant agencies and officers, and to reserve more amounts for compensation to the other party or parties concerned if the legal case is lost.
There is no doubt that the provision of the required funds are considered one of the major obstacles facing the developing countries at the present time in order to participate effectively in good international dispute settlement efforts. I believe that the efforts of arbitration and judicial settlement must be shared to access legal decisions in order to bind the disputing parties, and to also use diplomatic means and legal manoeuvring exploiting confusion in international law to obtain more evidence and legal opinions, especially if those issues relate to state sovereignty.