This article explores how international arbitration effectively addresses state-to-state disputes, highlighting its key advantages and limitations.
International arbitration has long been a pivotal mechanism for the peaceful resolution of disputes between states, offering a structured yet flexible alternative to traditional diplomatic negotiations or formal litigation. This article critically examines the evolving role of international arbitration in addressing multifaceted state-to-state conflicts, from territorial disagreements, to issues of state responsibility and treaty interpretation. It traces its historical trajectory from ancient practices to sophisticated institutionalized frameworks like the Permanent Court of Arbitration, exploring the underlying factors influencing states' choice for this method. The study, underpinned by theoretical frameworks such as consent-based dispute resolution and the principle of peaceful settlement, delves into arbitration's core principles: state consent, procedural flexibility, and the binding nature of arbitral awards. It analyzes its distinct advantages- significant party control, selection of specialized arbitrators, confidentiality, and crucial enforceability- and details the international arbitration procedures and rules of evidence, illustrated through prominent institutions and case studies. Concurrently, the article addresses integral limitations and persistent challenges, including reliance on voluntary compliance post-award, the absence of robust precedent, and potential political sensitivities that complicate enforcement. Through a doctrinal and comparative analytical methodology, examining primary and secondary legal sources and comparing arbitration with other dispute settlement mechanisms like the International Court of Justice, this paper provides a comprehensive understanding of arbitration's enduring efficacy. It identifies existing gaps in its application, particularly concerning enforcement and transparency, and proposes concrete recommendations for enhancing its usefulness and accessibility, contributing significantly to international peace and stability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koroma et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: