International Relations

International Relations

Three forum responses 150-200 words each: APA format peer reviewed references: international relations. Listed below are the three posts that require a response. Please note on post 3 there is a question that must be answered:

Post 1:

International disputes between two or more state actors are often messy affairs whose landscape is marred with distrust and suspicion of ‘the other’. The resolution of such disputes is often a linear process with numerous steps leading to the overall solution each state is eager to achieve. As one could imagine disputing states may require assistance through this process. Both states are going to work hard to ensure that their agendas and desires are met and thus each of them will work against the other even if it’s under the guise of dispute settlement. As J.G. Merrills outlines in the book, International Dispute Settlement, nations have been relying on third party conflict resolution for some time:

“The Dogger Bank episode furnishes a striking example of the value of the international inquiry commission as an instrument of dispute settlement. Had the issue been investigated by two national inquiries it is almost certain that as in the Maine case, they would have exacerbated matters by coming to opposite conclusions.” (Merrills 2011, 43)

In the ‘Dogger Bank’ episode Britain and Russia utilized an international inquiry commission to settle the dispute that each had with the other. Given the same dispute without third-party intervention, it would be expected that those two would have been at conflict with one another far longer than necessary. In the case where an international inquiry of states is not necessary to the resolution of the conflict, some states chose to pursue third-party intervention by relying on the services of a body with not political authority. The decision to allow for dispute settlement by these means is referred to as ‘conciliation’. It’s defined as, “Intervention in the settlement of an international dispute by a body having no political authority on its own, but enjoying the confidence of the parties to the dispute and entrusted with the task of investigating every aspect of the dispute and of proposing a solution which is not binding on the parties,” (Reif 1990, 580). This process of conflict resolution allows for even more flexibility in the conflict resolution process, and potentially allows for the conflict resolution to result from mediation by a body which is considered by the states in question to be an expert in the area of conflict.

An example of where this ‘conciliation’ conflict resolution strategy would be most effective is within the war torn Central African Republic. The Central African Republic has seen non-stop civil war, in one way or another, for the past two decades. The issues between the numerous groups stem from disagreements that are fundamentally identity based. In the case of the Central African Republic there needs to be a third-party who is capable of being the catalyst for real change in the region. However, what must be considered is the reluctance by all of the different groups to recognize the state, and the powers throughout the region. ‘Conciliation’ comes into play in this scenario as it should be a non-state entity that moderates the discussions between the players and ensures that each is treated with the respect that they either deserve or believe is owed to them. A state, such as the French, would be unduly bias towards one group or another as they have a history in the region, and economic interests to keep intact. Given that religion plays a strong role in this conflict, allowing both conflicting sides to be represented and moderated by their respective religious leaders would provide for the peaceful environment one needs to accomplish lasting peace in the region.

‘Conciliation’ is not the correct approach for every international conflict, but it does provide options for some of the most difficult conflict situations one could imagine. The ‘conciliation’ approach is one that should remain in the forefront of the conflict resolution toolbox as it can decrease the amount of time conflict is affecting individuals in the affected region, and has the potential to lend further credibility to some of the worlds most respected non-governmental organizations.

References:

Merrills, J. G. 2011. International Dispute Settlement. 5th. Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press.

Reif, Linda C. 1990. “Conciliation As A Mechanism For The Resolution Of International Economic and Business Disputes.” Fordham Int’l L.J. 14: 578-638.

Post 2:

Present a current international dispute in which you think conciliation might be useful. How could principles of conciliation be applied? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this method (comparing it with mediation, for example)?

Conciliation is a method of dispute resolution where a Commission is set up by the parties involved, and can be either on a permanent or ad hoc basis if no permanent Commission is already in place at the time of the dispute (1). The main goals of a Commission are to, first off, clarify the actual dispute, then to collect all useful information by means of inquiry or otherwise, to try to bring the parties to an agreement, to determine a deadline by which they are supposed to reach their decision, and at the end of its proceedings it should also draw up a report that states the outcome of the Commission. This includes what arrangements were made, if any, or the case that an agreement was not able to be reached (1). An example of a current international dispute where conciliation might be useful is the territorial disputes over the islands and waters of the South China Sea. Several countries, China, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Malaysia all claim overlapping parts of this territory. This situation would be a good candidate for a Conciliation Commission because it is longstanding and hotly contested issue that numerous other attempts have not been able to successfully resolve. This is also a situation where it would be difficult for the parties to negotiate directly because there are so many claims and they have all held their ground for so long. It would be advantageous for a Commission to first gather all of the information, including historical evidence of claims on all sides, various economic and strategic advantages to be had, and also where new lines could be drawn. Historical claims of the islands, especially, are very heated discussions among the parties. An outside party that could sit back from the dispute and attempt to draw new territorial lines that would somewhat suit everyones needs would at least give the parties a chance to see what a good compromise might entail. Then they could take the next steps of actually hashing out the new lines and begin the give and take that would be needed to reach an agreement.

1. Merrills, J. G. International Dispute Settlement. 5th ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Post 3:

Thank you for your following thoughts on the potential for conciliation in Sabah: “The use of conciliation is advantageous due to some aspects. One advantage of conciliation is that the conciliator will usually be a legal expert and therefore will understand the legal implications and perspective of both parties. Furthermore, the conciliation setting is an informal setting and therefore both sides will not be compelled to make a decision but will make one out of comfort (Mitchell, 1988).).The conciliation process is also flexible, and it will be up to both parties to set the time, place and any other technicalities needed in the operations.The process of conciliation is also cheaper than that of following legal procedures in court.”

In addition to being a legal expert, should the conciliator also be well versed in the history and cultures of the region?

Answer Preview

I concur that State disputes is the hardest misunderstanding among the nations that has been proved to be hard to handle and be resolved. This is because both fighting states will be fighting for what they want and will settle at nothing less. The third party reconciliation is a good move to resolving any inter-state conflict for the conciliator will be experienced and trained individuals…

(591 Words)