The Settlement of International Disputes.

Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

Historically, International Law has been regarded by the international community
as a means to ensure the establishment and preservation of world peace and
security. The maintenance of international peace and security has always been
the major purpose of the International Law.

It was the basic objective behind the creation of the League of Nations in
1919 and the United Nations in 1945.
Since the direct cause of war and violence is always a dispute between
States, it is therefore in the interest of peace and security that disputes
should be settled.
Methods and procedures for the peaceful (pacific) settlement of disputes have
been made available in the International Law.

States have concluded a great number of multilateral treaties aiming at the

peaceful settlement of their disputes and differences. The most important
treaties are
1. the 1899 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes which was revised by the Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907,
and the 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes which was
concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations.
2. Furthermore, there are regional agreements, such as the 1948 American
Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Bogot Pact),
3. the 1957 European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes,
4. and the 1964 Protocol of the Commission of Mediation and Arbitration of the
Organization of African Unity.
In addition to such general treaties on dispute settlement, there are many
bilateral and multilateral agreements which include specific clauses related to
dispute settlement.

The Charter of the United Nations devotes Chapter VI to the methods and
procedures for the pacific settlement of disputes.
Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Charter states the methods for the pacific
settlement of disputes as the following: negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and resort to regional agencies or
arrangements.
This paragraph obliges States parties to any dispute, the continuance of
which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and
security, to seek a solution by any of the listed methods or other peaceful
means of their own choice.
The methods of peaceful settlement of disputes fall into three
categories: diplomatic, adjudicative, and institutional methods. Diplomatic
methods involve attempts to settle disputes either by the parties themselves

or with the help of other entities. Adjudicative methods involve the

settlement of disputes by tribunals, either judicial or arbitral. Institutional
methods involve the resort to either the United Nations or regional
organizations for settlement of disputes.

1. Negotiation

Negotiation is the oldest, most common, and the simplest methods of

settling international disputes.

Negotiation ...is a diplomatic procedure whereby representatives of

states engage in discussing matters...between them...to clarify and
reconcile their divergent positions and resolve the dispute.
It is recognized by the great majority of treaties of pacific settlement as the
first step towards the settlement of international disputes.
Most of the treaties make a failure to settle a dispute by negotiation a
condition precedent to compulsory arbitration or judicial settlement.
It is, therefore, not surprising that negotiation comes first in the list of means
of pacific settlement of disputes stipulated in Article 33(1) of the Charter of
the United Nations.
Negotiation consists of discussions between the concerned parties with a
view to understand the opposing positions and opinions and reconcile the
differences.
It is very suited to the clarification and elucidation of the opposing
contentions.
It is the most satisfactory means to settle disputes since it is a voluntary
bilateral and self-help means; the parties are directly engaged in the process;
intervention by any third party in the process is not necessary.
Negotiations, however, do not always succeed in reaching solutions to
disputes or differences between the parties.
Thus, third parties interventions are needed to help the parties in reaching a
settlement to their disputes and differences; here comes the importance of
the other diplomatic methods of dispute settlement.

2. Mediation, Conciliation and Good Offices

Mediation, conciliation and good offices are three methods of
peaceful settlement of disputes by which third parties seek to
assist the parties to a dispute in reaching a settlement. All
involve the intervention of a supposedly disinterested
individual, State, commission, or organization to help the
parties. When the parties are unwilling to negotiate, or fail to
negotiate effectively, assistance by a third party through its
mediation, conciliation, or good offices may be necessary to

help in procuring a settlement. This assistance may be

requested by one or both of the parties, or it may be voluntarily
offered by a third party.
Although there is no distinction in the general features of
mediation, conciliation, and good offices, a theoretical and
practical distinction can be made among them according to the
degree of third party participation, and the extent to which the
disputants are obliged to accept the outcomes of the
procedures.
1.

Mediationisclearlyapoliticalmethodofsettlement.Inmediationa
thirdparty,acceptabletobothpartiestothedispute,effectscommunication
betweenthepartiesandparticipatesactivelyintheprocessofnegotiationby
offeringproposalsforsettlement.

Mediation is a process through which an outside party (third party) endeavors

to bring the disputants together and assists them in reaching a settlement.
The third party offers his assistance to the parties to a dispute. The consent of
the disputants is not necessarily required initially, but no mediation
proceedings can be commenced without their consent.
The mediator actively and directly participates in the settlement itself.
He does not content himself with making negotiations possible and
undisturbed. He is expected to offer concrete proposals for a solution and a
settlement of substantive issues related to a dispute. However, his proposals
represent nothing more than recommendations. They have no binding force
on either disputant. The parties to a dispute are free to accept or reject his
proposals.

2. SimilartomediationisGoodoffices,whichisnotmentionedintheUN
Charter.GoodofficesisrecognizedbytheHagueConventionforthePacific
SettlementofInternationalDisputesof1899(187CTS410).
Itislikemediationexceptthatthethirdpartydoesnotparticipateactivelyin
thenegotiations.S/hemerelyeffectscommunicationbetweentheparties
savingthemthedifficultiesofpersonalcontact.Andthepartieshaveno
priorcommitmenttotheresult.

 When the parties to a dispute reach the point of not being able to solve it by negotiation,
or the point where they have broken off diplomatic relations, but they are convinced that a
settlement is important to them, the utilization of the technique of good offices may be
helpful.

Good offices may be utilized only with the agreement or the consent of both disputants.
A third party attempts to bring the disputants together in order to make it possible for
them to find an appropriate settlement to their differences through their negotiations.

In this regard, the function of the third party is to act as a go-between, transmitting
messages and suggestions in an effort to create or restore a suitable atmosphere for the
parties to agree to negotiate or resume negotiation.

When the negotiations start, the functions of the good offices come to an end. The
procedure of good offices, in contrast to mediation, has a limited function which is simply
bringing the disputants together.

In mediation, the mediator takes an active part in the negotiations between the disputants
and may even suggest terms of settlement to the disputants.

Method of good offices consists of various kinds of action aiming to encourage

negotiations between the parties to a dispute.

Also, in contrast to the case of mediation or conciliation, the profferer of good offices
does not meet with the disputants jointly but separately with each of them. Seldom, if
ever, the profferer attends joint meetings between the parties to a dispute.

Normally, the role of the profferer of good offices terminates when the parties agree to
negotiate, or to resume negotiation. However, the profferer may be invited by the parties
to be present during the negotiations. As in case of mediation, an offer of good offices
may be rejected by either or both parties to a dispute.

3. Conciliation differs from arbitration in one very important respect: the result of the
former is not legally binding and thus has no influence on any further litigation of the dispute.
Boczek1...a diplomatic method of third-party peaceful settlement..., whereby a dispute is
referred by the parties, with their consent, to a permanent or ad hoc commission, ...whose
task is impartially to examine the dispute and to prepare a report with the suggestion of a
concrete proposal.

 Conciliation is a process of settling a dispute by referring it to a specially constituted

organ whose task is to elucidate the facts and suggest proposals for a settlement to the
parties concerned.

However, the proposals of conciliation, like the proposals of mediators, have no binding
force on the parties who are free to accept or reject them.

As in the case of mediation, conciliators may meet with the parties either jointly or
separately.

The procedures of conciliation are generally instituted by the parties who agree to refer
their dispute to an already established organ, commission or a single conciliator, which is
set up on a permanent basis or ad hoc basis; third parties cannot take the initiative on their
own.

The conciliators are appointed by the parties to a dispute. They can be appointed on the
basis of their official functions or as individuals in their personal capacity.

Conciliation is described by some as a combination of enquiry and mediation. The

conciliator investigates the facts of the dispute and suggests the terms of the
settlement. But conciliation differs from enquiry in that the main objective of the latter is
the elucidation of the facts in order to enable the parties through their own accord to settle
their dispute; whereas the main objective of conciliation is to propose a solution to a
dispute and to win the acceptance of the parties to such solution. Also, conciliation
differs from mediation in that it is more formal and less flexible than mediation; if a
mediators proposal is not accepted, he can present new proposals, whereas a conciliator
usually present a single report.

Enquiry
Alsocalledasinquiryorfactfinding,whichisagood
descriptionofwhatitis.Itmaybeusedasanindependent
procedureorasapreliminarypartofothermethodsof
peacefuldisputesettlement.Itcanand,inafewcases,ithas
ledtosettlementsbyexposingthetruthofasituationtothe
partiesinvolved.

One of the common obstacles preventing the successful settlement of a

dispute by negotiation is the difficulty of ascertaining the facts which have
given rise to the differences between the disputants. Most international
disputes involve an inability or unwillingness of the parties to agree on points
of facts. Herein lays the significance of the procedure of inquiry as a means
of pacific settlement of disputes.
Many bilateral agreements have been concluded under which fact-finding
commissions have been set up for the task of reporting to the parties
concerned on the disputed facts. In addition, the procedure of inquiry has
found expression in treaties for the pacific settlement of disputes.
The two Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 established commissions of
inquiry as formal institutions for the pacific settlement of international
disputes.[9] They provided a permanent panel of names from which the
parties could select the commissioners. The task of a commission of inquiry
was to facilitate the solution of disputes by elucidating the facts by means of
an impartial and conscientious investigation. The report of a commission was
to be limited to fact-finding and was not expected to include any proposal for
the settlement of the dispute in question.
With the establishment of the League of Nations, the means of inquiry took on
a new significance. Inquiry and conciliation were viewed as integral parts of a
single process for bringing about a pacific settlement to a dispute.[10] It is in
the light of this background that the Charter of the United Nations specifically
lists enquiry as one of the methods of pacific settlement of international
disputes.
Enquiry as a separate method of dispute settlement has fallen out of favor. It
has been used as part of other methods of dispute settlement. Its purpose is
to produce an impartial finding of disputed facts and thus to prepare the way
for settlement of dispute by other peaceful methods. The parties are not
obliged to accept the findings of the enquiry; however, they always do accept
them.
The utilization of enquiry has been evident in the practice of international
organizations, such as the United Nations and its specialized
agencies. Enquiry has been used as part of other methods of dispute
settlement in the context of general fact-finding.

Section 2: Adjudicative Methods of Dispute Settlement [12]

The major disadvantage of the diplomatic methods of
dispute settlement is that the parties to them are under no
legal obligation to accept the proposals of settlement
suggested to them.

 Thus, the adjudicative methods of dispute settlement are

preferable because they provide the issuance of binding
decisions, rather than mere recommendations as in cases of
diplomatic methods. It is this binding force of the decisions
rendered at the end of the adjudicative methods that
distinguishes these methods from other methods of dispute
settlement.
Adjudicative methods of dispute settlement consist of two
types of procedures, arbitration and judicial settlement.
Arbitration and judicial settlement are two methods involve
the determination of differences between States through
legal decisions of tribunals. Whereas in case of judicial
settlement the decision is made by an established court,
permanent (such as the International Court of Justice) or ad
hoc, in case of arbitration it is made by a single arbitrator or
arbitral tribunal. The major characteristic of these two
methods is that a judicial decision or an award is binding on
the parties and must be carried out in good faith.
It is not until the establishment of the League of Nations that
the terms arbitration and judicial settlement became
distinguished. Under the Covenant of the League judicial
settlement meant settlement by the Permanent Court of
Justice (PCIJ), whereas arbitration meant settlement by
other tribunals. This same distinction is carried over by the
Charter of the United Nations, but with the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) substituting for the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ).
Arbitration was defined in the 1899 Hague Convention for
the Pacific Settlement of Disputes as the settlement of
differences between states by judges of their choice and on
the basis of respect for law;[13] this same definition was
repeated in the 1907 Hague Convention.[14] The procedures
of arbitration grew to some extent out of the processes of
diplomatic settlement and represented an advance towards a
developed international legal order.
Arbitration is considered the most effective and equitable
means of dispute settlement. It combines elements of both

diplomatic and judicial procedures. However, it is much

more flexible than judicial settlement. It gives the parties to
a dispute the choices to appoint the arbitrators, to designate
the seat of the tribunal, and to specify the procedures to be
followed
and
the
law
to
be
applied
by
the
tribunal. Moreover, the arbitration proceedings can be kept
confidential.
Arbitration cannot be initiated without the agreement of the
parties to a dispute. An agreement of arbitration may be
concluded for settling a particular dispute, or a series of
disputes that have arisen between the parties. It may be in
the form of a general treaty of arbitration.
The usual pattern in arbitration agreement as regards the
appointment of arbitrators is that each of the two parties has
to appoint one arbitrator or more, and the appointed
arbitrators have to appoint the arbitrator, who is known as
an umpire. Usually, the arbitral tribunal consists of three
arbitrators, who can decide by majority vote. The parties
may agree to refer their dispute to a single arbitrator, who
may be a foreign head of a State or government, or a
distinguished individual.
Judicial settlement is a settlement of dispute between States
by an international tribunal in accordance with the rules of
International Law. The international character of the tribunal
is in both its organization and its jurisdiction. International
tribunals include permanent tribunals, such as the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal
for the law of the Sea (ITLOS), the European Court of Justice,
the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American
Court of Human rights, and include ad hoc tribunals, such as
the United Nations Tribunal in Libya.
The ICJ is the most important international tribunal, because
of its both prestige and jurisdiction. It is the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations. All members of the United
Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the Court. The
judges of the ICJ are appointed by the United Nations, not by
the parties to a dispute. The ICJ has to apply the rules and

principles of International Law, which are enumerated in

Article 38 of the Statute of the Court; the parties have no
choice in specifying the rules to be applied by the Court. The
jurisdiction of the Court includes all disputes between States
concerning the interpretation of a treaty, any question of
International Law, the existence of any fact constituting
breach of international obligations, and the nature or extent
of the reparation to be made for the breach of an
international obligation.
The Charter of the United Nations refers to arbitration and
judicial settlement in Article 33(1) as two methods among
other methods of pacific settlement that States are
encouraged to utilize in seeking a solution to their
international disputes. It is also provides in Article 36(3) a
guidance to the Security Council requiring it to take into
consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be
referred by the parties to the International Court of
Justice. Despite this provision, the Charter does not impose
on members of the United Nations the obligation to submit
any dispute, even legal one, to the Court. Moreover, the
Charter provides that nothing in it shall prevent Members of
the United Nations from entrusting the solution of their
differences to other tribunals by virtue of agreements
already in existence or which may be concluded in the
future.[15]

Litigationandarbitration
Litigationandarbitrationarebothconsideredtobe
judicialasopposedtopoliticalmeansofsettlementbecause
theirresultsarebothlegallybinding.
Thetermsofarbitrationareagreedoninadvanceeither
throughanadhocagreementoratreaty.Theformeris

calledacompromisandthelatteracompromissoryclause.
Inbothcasesthepartiesagreetothejurisdictionofthe
arbitrators,themethodofselectingthearbitrators,a
definitionofthedispute,theproceduretobefollowed,and
sometimestheapplicablelaw.Litigationresultsinopinions
thatareusuallypublished;arbitrationresultsinawardsthat
aresometimespublished.

Arbitration is a legal method of dispute settlement which requires the prior

consent of each party to the dispute. This is usually done through a
special agreement between the parties called a compromise.514 Arbitration
is provided for in Article 33 of the UN Watercourses
Convention and complemented by the Annex to the Convention which sets
out the rules for the establishment and operation of an Arbitral Tribunal
(Article 33 (10)(b) and (Annex Articles 1-14) as included in the opposite
column.

It is important to note that parties are not bound to use the particular arbitral
formula of Article 33 and are instead able to utilise other procedures if the
parties to the dispute otherwise agree (Article 33(10)(b)). These other
options could include use of the procedures of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA), which is not a court but rather a special mechanism,
the primary purpose of which is to assist states in settling their international
controversies.515 The PCA was established in 1899 under the Hague
Convention No 1 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputesand is
able to provide its services to all arbitration cases submitted to it by
agreement of the parties to a dispute. It has recently updated its procedures to
respond to current international practice and a particularly relevant outcome
is the 2001 Optional Rules for Arbitrating Environmental Disputes which
provides more detailed provisions than the arbitration procedure in
the Convention.516 One significant distinguishing factor between the ICJ
and the PCA is that both international organisations and companies can be
parties to PC proceedings under the 2001 Optional whereas only states can
be parties to proceedings before the ICJ.517

There have been numerous international arbitrations of water disputes since

the late 19th Century, a select list of more recent cases include: the 1941
Trail Smelter Arbitration518 ; the 1947 Lac Lanoux Arbitration between
Spain and France 519; the 1968 Gut Dam case between the United States
and Canada520 ; the 1994 Landmark 62-Mount Fitz Roy case between
Argentina and Chile521; the 2004 arbitration between Netherlands and
France pursuant to a nearly 70 year dispute; and the 1976 Convention on the
Protection of the Rhine Against Pollution by Chlorides and the
Additional Protocol of 1991522. Most recently, in 2011, the PCA delivered
an Order on Interim Measures regarding the Indus Waters Kishenganga
Arbitration(Pakistan v. India), which is examined in the opposiet column
with a specific focus on the process of dispute resolution.523

Institutional Methods of Dispute Settlement

Institutional methods of dispute settlement involve the resort
to international organizations for settlement of international
disputes. These methods have come into existence with the
creation of the international organizations. The most eminent
organizations, which provide mechanisms for settling dispute
between their member States, are the United Nations and the
regional organizations, such as the European Union, the
Organization of American States, the Arab league and the
African Union.

Settlement of international disputes by

the United Nations

The United Nations was founded in October 24, 1945, and had 192 Member
States, the Articles of Association is mainly the "UN Charter", which is to maintain
international peace and in security, the development of friendly relations
between countries, promote international cooperation and coordination of
national actions. It has a total of five major organs: the United Nations General
Assembly, Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, International Court

of Justice and the Secretariat, all agencies are to perform their functions under
the provisions of the Charter.

Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter deals with peaceful settlement of disputes. It
requires countries with disputes that could lead to war to first of all try to seek solutions
through peaceful methods such as "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,
judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of
their own choice."

If these methods ofalternative dispute resolution fail, then they must refer it to the UN
Security Council. Under Article 35, any country is allowed to bring a dispute to the attention of
the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. This chapter authorizes the Security
Council to issue recommendations but does not give it power to make binding resolutions;
those provisions are contained Chapter VII.[1][2][3]
Chapter VI is analogous to Articles 13-15 of theCovenant of the League of Nations which
provide for arbitration and for submission of matters to the Council that are not submitted to
arbitration. United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and United Nations Security
Council Resolution 242 are two examples of Chapter VI resolutions which remain
unimplemented.

The Settlement of international disputes is one of the most important roles of

the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations stipulates that it is the
task of the United Nations to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or
settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a
breach of the peace.[17]

To this end, the Charter provides a system for the pacific settlement or
adjustment of international disputes or situations under which the wide
competence of the United Nations in this matter is established, and the
corresponding obligations of the members of the United Nations are
imposed. This system is delineated mainly in Chapter VI of the Charter.

Chapter VI of the Charter contains the United Nations mechanism for the
pacific settlement of disputes. Article 33 obliges the parties to a dispute, the
continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international
peace and security, to settle such a dispute by any of the enumerated
peaceful means therein, or by any peaceful means of their choice.

When the parties fail to observe their obligations or their efforts are not
successful, the United Nations will intervene to consider the dispute and give
its recommendations on the matters. The Security Council is given the
primary responsibility in this regard.[18] It is entitled to intervene either on
its own initiative, upon invitation of any member of the United Nations, upon
invitation by the General Assembly, or upon a complaint of a party to a
dispute.[19]

The Security Council may follow three courses of action. First, it may call
upon the parties to a dispute to settle their dispute by any of the peaceful

means listed in Article 33(1).[20] Second, it may recommend to the parties

appropriate procedures or method of settlement.[21] Third, it may
recommend terms of settlement, as it may consider appropriate.[22]

Although under the Charter the Security Council is given the primary role for
maintaining international peace and security, the General assembly is not
excluded from doing so.

Under Articles 11, 12 and 14, the General Assembly may discuss and make
recommendations for procedures or methods of adjustment, or for terms of
settlement, with regard to any dispute or situation brought before it. The
disputes or situations may be brought before the General Assembly by the
Security Council, any member of the United Nations, or any State party to
such dispute.[23]

CHAPTER VI: PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Article 33
1.

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.
2.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their
dispute by such means.

Article 34
The Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international
friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or
situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 35
1.

Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute, or any situation of the nature
referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly.
2.
A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the
Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in
advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the
present Charter.
3.
The proceedings of the General Assembly in respect of matters brought to its attention
under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 11 and 12.

Article 36
1.

The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or
of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
2.
The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of
the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.
3.
In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into
consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the
International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

Article 37

1.

Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the
means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.
2.
If the Security Council deems that the continuance of the dispute is in fact likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, it shall decide whether to take
action under Article 36 or to recommend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.

Article 38
Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 33 to 37, the Security Council may, if all the parties to
any dispute so request, make recommendations to the parties with a view to a pacific settlement of
the dispute.

United Nations In Resolving

International Disputes
1. It has always been a controversial topic that whether the United Nations plays an
important role in international affairs, this essay agrees that the United Nations is
indeed an effective institution, it plays an irreplaceable role in dealing with many
international disputes and settlement of international affairs. However, the United
Nations also has its limitations and shortcomings, which are mainly reflected in
the poor settlement of regional disputes and the inability to stop the war. This
essay will firstly introduce the principal organs of the United Nations in terms of
the settlement of disputes. Following this, it will discuss the limitations and
shortcomings of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and
security. Finally, it will look at how the limitations and shortcomings reflected in
the settlement of Iraq War.
2. First, the General Assembly and the Secretary-General. The United Nations General Assembly is
composed by all Member States, which is the deliberative organ of the United Nations, and holding a
regular session each year. There must be two-thirds of the UN General Assembly adopted on
"important issues"; for the "general problems", more than half would be permitted. Generally
speaking, resolutions adopted by the Assembly are not legally binding, and they are more of a political
and moral strength. The role of Secretary-General of the United Nations is reflected more of a thirdparty intervention in the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
3. Second, the Security Council. Within the United Nations, Security Council plays an important political
position; it is the only organization which has right to take action for the maintenance of international
peace and security under the Chapter VII of "UN Charter", and all the United Nations Member States
must comply with any resolution made by the Council in its terms of reference.
To take the Iraq war for example, after the 1991 Gulf War the United Nations Security
Council passed a total of over 60 resolution, mainly around the Gulf War cease-fire,
liability and compensation for war, destruction of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, against terrorism and the request of Iraq on full cooperation with the United
Nations issues. (Bennett, 2008) In the international level, these resolutions made by
the Council is the legal basis for international community to deal with the Iraq issue,
which provides the rights and obligations of Iraq and other members of the United
Nations on the issue, but also decides the position of the United Nations in Iraq's
post-war reconstruction. But overall, the U.S. and British military action against Iraq
is the challenge that defies the United Nations security system, which just exposes
the limitations and shortcomings of the United Nations Security Council in

maintaining international peace and security.

The Limitations And Shortcomings Of

UN Reflected In The Iraq Issue
It is not only used to encourage the participating countries of the Hague Peace Conference in 1899 to take
peaceful settlement of international disputes in order to prevent the outbreak of war, but also the "Hague
spirit which affects the future development of international law in the field of peaceful settlement of
international disputes. Article 1 of the UN Chapter clearly states: To maintain international peace and
security and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and
international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a
breach of the peace. Thus, "safeguarding world peace and security" is in the first place of the four
purposes of United Nations organizations.
However, the United States and Britain launched the war on Iraq by passing the Security Council, which is
an act of unilateralism of "the United Nations Charter" and "international law", and it has become an
indisputable fact of disregard of the law. (Pfaff, 2003) It violates the basic principles of the Charter,
including the sovereign equality of Member States; in good faith to fulfill international obligations;
peaceful settlement of international disputes; not to use force or threat of force against any Member State
on the territorial integrity or political independence; collective assistance; ensure that non- Member States
to comply with the Charter principles and non-interference in internal affairs. It can not cover up the
hegemonic and non-humanitarian reflected in their actions with any excuse. (Sellersed, 1996)
However, the problem is that there is no independent and effective mechanism above the nations which has
the power to conduct certain punishment and coercive measures, even the United Nations can not do
anything. (Michael, 2003) In other words, although the Charter and international law clearly prohibit such
behavior, but they did not provide the legal consequences for the violation of prohibition; or even if
provided, the enforceability of the resolution is still a very difficult problem. (Thomas, 2001)
Thus, there has been a constant friction and conflict between the major powers unilateralism and
multilateralism established by the United Nations, (Boutros, 2003) the United States so-called
"preemptive" self-defense theory, "human rights overriding sovereignty" principle began to follow. All
these have given a heavy blow to the United Nations security mechanisms, which is built up painstakingly
by all countries in the world. The United Nations powerless on this issue has become an embarrassing
situation.

Conclusion
In summary, the important role of United Nations in resolving international disputes is self-evident, but its
limitations and weaknesses exposed are also cause for concern. The reflection of international community
on the result of the war in Iraq is that the role and authority of the United Nations should be strengthened
rather than be weakened. The United Nations role in Iraq's reconstruction can not be replaced by any
country or institution. The world today is facing problems such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction, which are all global issues. To find a legal and effective way to address these problems
requires global cooperation. Therefore, it is imperative to reform the United Nations, by realizing its
shortcomings in conflict, the UN would find the direction and thus to make better self-development.

(2) Peaceful Settlement of Dispute by Regional Organizations: [24]

Article 33(1) of the Charter of the United Nations requires the

parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to
endanger the maintenance of international peace and security,
to seek, first of all, a solution by any of the peaceful methods
enumerated therein. Among these enumerated methods is the
resort to regional arrangements or agencies.
Article 52 of the Charter recognizes the right of the
members of the United Nations to establish regional
arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters
related to the maintenance of international peace and
security. Paragraph 2 of this Article requires the member
States that are members of regional arrangements or agencies
to make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local
disputes through such regional arrangements or by such
regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.
It seems that the obligation imposed upon the member
States by Article 52(2) is consistent with their obligation under
Article 33(1). However, paragraph 1 of Article 52 imposes two
explicit limitations with regard to the utilization of regional
arrangements and agencies. First, it requires that the matters
dealt with must be appropriate for regional action. Second, it
requires that the arrangements or agencies and their activities
are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United
Nations. Moreover, a third explicit limitation is imposed by
Article 54 which requires that the Security Council should at all
times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in
contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional
agencies for the maintenance of international peace and

security. No similar explicit limitations are imposed with

regard to the utilization of other procedures for pacific
settlement.
Article 52 is not only confined to legitimizing regional
arrangements or agencies and imposing an obligation upon the
member States, but goes beyond such legitimization and
obligation by pacing a duty on the Security Council
itself. Paragraph 3 of this Article requires the Security Council
to encourage the development of pacific settlement of local
disputes through such regional arrangements or by such
regional agencies either on the initiative of the states
concerned or by reference from the Security Council.
This provision is in harmony with the general approach of the
Charter related to the pacific settlement of disputes which
requires the parties themselves to seek a solution to their
dispute by any peaceful means of their own choice, and that
the Council should give every opportunity to the parties to do
so. If the parties have referred their local dispute to the
Security Council before making any effort to achieve a
settlement through the regional arrangements or agencies,
then the Council is under a duty to remind them of their
obligation, or to refer such dispute at its own initiative to such
arrangements or agencies.

International COURT OF JUSTICE

The creation of the Court represented the culmination of a long
development of methods for the pacific settlement of international
disputes, the origins of which can be traced back to classical times.
Article 33 of the United Nations Charter lists the following methods for
the pacific settlement of disputes between States: negotiation,
enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and
resort to regional agencies or arrangements; good offices should also
be added to this list. Among these methods, certain involve appealing

to third parties. For example, mediation places the parties to a dispute

in a position in which they can themselves resolve their dispute
thanks to the intervention of a third party. Arbitration goes further, in
the sense that the dispute is submitted to the decision or award of an
impartial third party, so that a binding settlement can be achieved.
The same is true of judicial settlement (the method applied by the
International Court of Justice), except that a court is subject to stricter
rules than an arbitral tribunal, particularly in procedural matters.
Mediation and arbitration preceded judicial settlement in history. The
former was known in ancient India and in the Islamic world, whilst
numerous examples of the latter are to be found in ancient Greece, in
China, among the Arabian tribes, in maritime customary law in
medieval Europe and in Papal practice.
The origins
The modern history of international arbitration is, however, generally
recognized as dating from the so-called Jay Treaty of 1794 between
the United States of America and Great Britain.
This Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation provided for the
creation of three mixed commissions, composed of American and
British nationals in equal numbers, whose task it would be to settle a
number of outstanding questions between the two countries which it
had not been possible to resolve by negotiation. Whilst it is true that
these mixed commissions were not strictly speaking organs of thirdparty adjudication, they were intended to function to some extent as
tribunals. They reawakened interest in the process of arbitration.
Throughout the nineteenth century, the United States and the United
Kingdom had recourse to them, as did other States in Europe and the
Americas.
The Alabama Claims arbitration in 1872 between the United Kingdom
and the United States marked the start of a second, and still more
decisive, phase. Under the Treaty of Washington of 1871, the United
States and the United Kingdom agreed to submit to arbitration claims
by the former for alleged breaches of neutrality by the latter during the
American Civil War. The two countries stated certain rules governing
the duties of neutral governments that were to be applied by the
tribunal, which they agreed should consist of five members, to be
appointed respectively by the Heads of State of the United States, the
United Kingdom, Brazil, Italy and Switzerland, the last three States
not being parties to the case. The arbitral tribunals award ordered the
United Kingdom to pay compensation and it was duly complied with.
The proceedings served as a demonstration of the effectiveness of

arbitration in the settlement of a major dispute and it led during the

latter years of the nineteenth century to developments in various
directions, namely:

sharp growth in the practice of inserting in treaties clauses

providing for recourse to arbitration in the event of a dispute between
the parties;

the conclusion of general treaties of arbitration for the settlement of

specified classes of inter-State disputes;

efforts to construct a general law of arbitration, so that countries

wishing to have recourse to this means of settling disputes would not be
obliged to agree each time on the procedure to be adopted, the
composition of the tribunal, the rules to be followed and the factors to be
taken into consideration in making the award;

proposals for the creation of a permanent international arbitral

tribunal in order to obviate the need to set up a special ad hoc tribunal
to decide each arbitrable dispute.
The Hague Peace Conferences and the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA)
The Hague Peace Conference of 1899, convened at the initiative of the
Russian Czar Nicholas II, marked the beginning of a third phase in the
modern history of international arbitration. The chief object of the
Conference, in which a remarkable innovation for the time the
smaller States of Europe, some Asian States and Mexico also
participated, was to discuss peace and disarmament. It ended by
adopting a Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes, which dealt not only with arbitration but also with other
methods of pacific settlement, such as good offices and mediation.
With respect to arbitration, the 1899 Convention made provision for the
creation of permanent machinery which would enable arbitral tribunals to
be set up as desired and would facilitate their work. This institution,
known as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, consisted in essence of a
panel of jurists designated by each country acceding to the
Convention each such country being entitled to designate up to
four from among whom the members of each arbitral tribunal might be
chosen. The Convention further created a permanent Bureau, located at
The Hague, with functions corresponding to those of a court registry or a
secretariat, and it laid down a set of rules of procedure to govern the

conduct of arbitrations. It will be seen that the name Permanent Court of

Arbitration is not a wholly accurate description of the machinery set up
by the Convention, which represented only a method or device for
facilitating the creation of arbitral tribunals as and when necessary.
Nevertheless, the system so established was permanent and the
Convention as it were institutionalized the law and practice of
arbitration, placing it on a more definite and more generally accepted
footing. The Permanent Court of Arbitration was established in 1900 and
began operating in 1902.
A few years later, in 1907, a second Hague Peace Conference, to which
the States of Central and South America were also invited, revised the
Convention and improved the rules governing arbitral proceedings.
Some participants would have preferred the Conference not to confine
itself to improving the machinery created in 1899. The United States
Secretary of State, Elihu Root, had instructed the United States
delegation to work towards the creation of a permanent tribunal
composed of judges who were judicial officers and nothing else, who
had no other occupation, and who would devote their entire time to the
trial and decision of international cases by judicial methods. These
judges, wrote Secretary Root, should be so selected from the different
countries that the different systems of law and procedure and the
principal languages shall be fairly represented. The United States, the
United Kingdom and Germany submitted a joint proposal for a
permanent court, but the Conference was unable to reach agreement
upon it. It became apparent in the course of the discussions that one of
the major difficulties was that of finding an acceptable way of choosing
the judges, none of the proposals made having managed to command
general support. The Conference confined itself to recommending that
States should adopt a draft convention for the creation of a court of
arbitral justice as soon as agreement was reached respecting the
selection of the judges and the constitution of the court. Although this
court was never in fact to see the light of day, the draft convention that
was to have given birth to it enshrined certain fundamental ideas that
some years later were to serve as a source of inspiration for the drafting
of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ).
Notwithstanding the fate of these proposals, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration, which in 1913 took up residence in the Peace Palace that
had been built for it thanks to a gift from Andrew Carnegie, has made a
positive contribution to the development of international law. Among the
classic cases that have been decided through recourse to its machinery,
mention may be made of the Carthage and Manouba cases (1913)
concerning the seizure of vessels, and of the Timor Frontiers (1914)

and Sovereignty over the Island of Palmas (1928) cases. Whilst

demonstrating that arbitral tribunals set up by recourse to standing
machinery could decide disputes between States on a basis of law and
justice and command respect for their impartiality, these cases threw into
bold relief the shortcomings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
Tribunals of differing composition could hardly be expected to develop a
consistent approach to international law to the same extent as a
permanently constituted tribunal. Besides, there was the entirely
voluntary character of the machinery. The fact that States were parties to
the 1899 and 1907 Conventions did not oblige them to submit their
disputes to arbitration nor, even if they were minded so to do, were they
duty-bound to have recourse to the Permanent Court of Arbitration nor to
follow the rules of procedure laid down in the Conventions.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration has recently sought to diversify the
services that it can offer, alongside those contemplated by the
Conventions. The International Bureau of the Permanent Court has inter
alia acted as Registry in some important international arbitrations,
including that between Eritrea and Yemen on questions of territorial
sovereignty and maritime delimitation (1998 and 1999), that concerning
the delimitation of the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia (2002),
and that between Ireland and the United Kingdom under the
1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
North-East Atlantic (OSPAR). Moreover, in 1993, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration adopted new Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes between
Two Parties of Which Only One Is a State and, in 2001, Optional Rules
for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the
Environment.
For more information on the Permanent Court of Arbitration, please visit
their website: www.pca-cpa.org.
The work of the two Hague Peace Conferences and the ideas they
inspired in statesmen and jurists had some influence on the creation of
the Central American Court of Justice, which operated from 1908 to
1918, as well as on the various plans and proposals submitted between
1911 and 1919 both by national and international bodies and by
governments for the establishment of an international judicial tribunal,
which culminated in the creation of the PCIJ within the framework of the
new international system set up after the end of the First World War.
The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)
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), such a court to be

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 by the Assembly. It remained for the League Council to take
the necessary action to give effect to Article 14. At its second session
early in 1920, the Council appointed an Advisory Committee of Jurists to
submit a report on the establishment of the PCIJ. The committee sat in
The Hague, under the chairmanship of Baron Descamps ( Belgium). In
August 1920, a report containing a draft scheme was submitted to the
Council, which, after examining it and making certain amendments, laid
it before the First Assembly of the League of Nations, which opened at
Geneva in November of that year. The Assembly instructed its Third
Committee to examine the question of the Courts constitution. In
December 1920, after an exhaustive study by a subcommittee, the
Committee submitted a revised draft to the Assembly, which
unanimously adopted it. This was the Statute of the PCIJ.
The Assembly took the view that a vote alone would not be sufficient to
establish the PCIJ and that each State represented in the Assembly
would formally have to ratify the Statute. In a resolution of
13 December 1920, it called upon the Council to submit to the Members
of the League of Nations a protocol adopting the Statute and decided
that the Statute should come into force as soon as the protocol had been
ratified by a majority of Member States. The protocol was opened for
signature on 16 December. By the time of the next meeting of the
Assembly, in September 1921, a majority of the Members of the League
had signed and ratified the protocol. The Statute thus entered into force.
It was to be revised only once, in 1929, the revised version coming into
force in 1936. Among other things, the new Statute resolved the
previously insurmountable problem of the election of the members of a
permanent international tribunal by providing that the judges were to be
elected concurrently but independently by the Council and the Assembly
of the League, and that it should be borne in mind that those elected
should represent the main forms of civilization and the principal legal
systems of the world. Simple as this solution may now seem, in 1920 it
was a considerable achievement to have devised it. The first elections
were held on 14 September 1921. Following approaches by the
Netherlands Government in the spring of 1919, it was decided that the
PCIJ should have its permanent seat in the Peace Palace in The Hague,
which it would share with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It was
accordingly in the Peace Palace that on 30 January 1922 the Courts
preliminary session devoted to the elaboration of the Courts Rules
opened, and it was there too that its inaugural sitting was held on

15 February 1922, with the Dutch jurist Bernard C. J.

President.

Loder as

The PCIJ was thus a working reality. The great advance it represented in
the history of international legal proceedings can be appreciated by
considering the following:

unlike arbitral tribunals, the PCIJ 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;

it had a permanent Registry which, inter alia, served as a channel

of communication with governments and international bodies;

its proceedings were largely public and provision was made for the
publication in due course of the pleadings, of verbatim records of the
sittings and of all documentary evidence submitted to it;

the permanent tribunal thus established was now able to set about
gradually developing a constant practice and maintaining a certain
continuity in its decisions, thereby enabling it to make a greater
contribution to the development of international law;

in principle the PCIJ was accessible to all States for the judicial
settlement of their international disputes and they were able to declare
beforehand that for certain classes of legal disputes they recognized the
Courts jurisdiction as compulsory in relation to other States accepting
the same obligation. This system of optional acceptance of the
jurisdiction of the Court was the most that it was then possible to obtain;

the PCIJ was empowered to give advisory opinions upon any

dispute or question referred to it by the League of Nations Council or
Assembly;

the Courts Statute specifically listed the sources of law it was to

apply in deciding contentious cases and giving advisory opinions,
without prejudice to the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et
bono if the parties so agreed;

it was more representative of the international community and of

the major legal systems of the world than any other international tribunal
had ever been before it.

Although the Permanent Court of International Justice was brought into

being through, and by, the League of Nations, it was nevertheless not a
part of the League. There was a close association between the two
bodies, which found expression inter alia in the fact that the League
Council and Assembly periodically elected the Members of the Court and
that both Council and Assembly were entitled to seek advisory opinions
from the Court, but the latter never formed an integral part of the
League, just as the Statute never formed part of the Covenant. In
particular, a Member State of the League of Nations was not by this fact
alone automatically a party to the Courts Statute.
Between 1922 and 1940 the PCIJ dealt with 29 contentious cases
between States and delivered 27 advisory opinions. At the same time
several hundred treaties, conventions and declarations conferred
jurisdiction upon it over specified classes of disputes. Any doubts that
might thus have existed as to whether a permanent international judicial
tribunal could function in a practical and effective manner were thus
dispelled. The Courts value to the international community was
demonstrated in a number of different ways, in the first place by the
development of a true judicial technique. This found expression in the
Rules of Court, which the PCIJ originally drew up in 1922 and
subsequently revised on three occasions, in 1926, 1931 and 1936.
There was also the PCIJs Resolution concerning the Judicial Practice of
the Court, adopted in 1931 and revised in 1936, which laid down the
internal procedure to be applied during the Courts deliberations on each
case. In addition, whilst helping to resolve some serious international
disputes, many of them consequences of the First World War, the
decisions of the PCIJ at the same time often clarified previously unclear
areas of international law or contributed to its development.
For more information on the Permanent Court of International Justice,
please see the "PCIJ" pages on our website.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ)
The outbreak of war in September 1939 inevitably had serious
consequences for the PCIJ, which had already for some years known a
period of diminished activity. After its last public sitting on
4 December 1939, the Permanent Court of International Justice did not
in fact deal with any judicial business and no further elections of judges
were held. In 1940 the Court removed to Geneva, a single judge
remaining at The Hague, together with a few Registry officials of Dutch
nationality. It was inevitable that even under the stress of the war some
thought should be given to the future of the Court, as well as to the
creation of a new international political order.

In 1942 the United States Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary
of the United Kingdom declared themselves in favour of the
establishment or re-establishment of an international court after the war,
and the Inter-American Juridical Committee recommended the extension
of the PCIJs jurisdiction. Early in 1943, the United Kingdom Government
took the initiative of inviting a number of experts to London to constitute
an informal Inter-Allied Committee to examine the matter. This
Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir William Malkin ( United
Kingdom), held 19 meetings, which were attended by jurists from
11 countries. In its report, which was published on 10 February 1944, it
recommended:

that the Statute of any new international court should be based on

that of the Permanent Court of International Justice;

that advisory jurisdiction should be retained in the case of the new

Court;

that acceptance of the jurisdiction of the new Court should not be

compulsory;

that the Court should have no jurisdiction to deal with essentially

political matters.
Meanwhile, on 30 October 1943, following a conference between China,
the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States, a joint declaration
was issued recognizing the necessity of establishing at the earliest
practicable date a general international organization, based on the
principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to
membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of
international peace and security.
This declaration led to exchanges between the Four Powers at
Dumbarton Oaks, resulting in the publication on 9 October 1944 of
proposals for the establishment of a general international organization,
to include an international court of justice. The next step was the
convening of a meeting in Washington, in April 1945, of a committee of
jurists representing 44 States. This Committee, under the chairmanship
of G. H. Hackworth ( United States), was entrusted with the preparation
of a draft Statute for the future international court of justice, for
submission to the San Francisco Conference, which during the months
of April to June 1945 was to draw up the United Nations Charter. The
draft Statute prepared by the Committee was based on the Statute of the
PCIJ and was thus not a completely fresh text. The Committee

nevertheless felt constrained to leave a number of questions open which

it felt should be decided by the Conference: should a new court be
created? In what form should the courts mission as the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations be stated? Should the courts jurisdiction be
compulsory, and, if so, to what extent? How should the judges be
elected? The final decisions on these points, and on the definitive form
of the Statute, were taken at the San Francisco Conference, in which
50 States participated. The Conference decided against compulsory
jurisdiction and in favour of the creation of an entirely new court, which
would be a principal organ of the United Nations, on the same footing as
the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social
Council, the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat, and with the
Statute annexed to and forming part of the Charter. The chief reasons
that led the Conference to decide to create a new court were the
following:

as the court was to be the principal judicial organ of the United

Nations, it was felt inappropriate for this role to be filled by the
Permanent Court of International Justice, which had up until then been
linked to the League of Nations, then on the point of dissolution;

the creation of a new court was more consistent with the provision
in the Charter that all Member States of the United Nations would ipso
facto be parties to the courts Statute;

several States that were parties to the Statute of the PCIJ were not
represented at the San Francisco Conference, and, conversely, several
States represented at the Conference were not parties to the Statute;

there was a feeling in some quarters that the PCIJ formed part of
an older order, in which European States had dominated the political
and legal affairs of the international community, and that the creation of
a new court would make it easier for States outside Europe to play a
more influential role. This has in fact happened as the membership of
the United Nations grew from 51 in 1945 to 192 in 2006.
The San Francisco Conference nevertheless showed some concern that
all continuity with the past should not be broken, particularly as the
Statute of the PCIJ had itself been drawn up on the basis of past
experience, and it was felt better not to change something that had
seemed to work well. The Charter therefore plainly stated that the
Statute of the International Court of Justice was based upon that of the
PCIJ. At the same time, the necessary steps were taken for a transfer of

the jurisdiction of the PCIJ so far as was possible to the International

Court of Justice. In any event, the decision to create a new court
necessarily involved the dissolution of its predecessor. The PCIJ met for
the last time in October 1945 when it was decided to take all appropriate
measures to ensure the transfer of its archives and effects to the new
International Court of Justice, which, like its predecessor, was to have its
seat in the Peace Palace. The judges of the PCIJ all resigned on
31 January 1946, and the election of the first Members of the
International Court of Justice took place on 6 February 1946, at the First
Session of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council.
In April 1946, the PCIJ was formally dissolved, and the International
Court of Justice, meeting for the first time, elected as its President Judge
Jos Gustavo Guerrero ( El Salvador), the last President of the PCIJ.
The Court appointed the members of its Registry (largely from among
former officials of the PCIJ) and held an inaugural public sitting, on the
18th of that month. The first case was submitted in May 1947. It
concerned incidents in the Corfu Channel and was brought by the United
Kingdom against Albania.
HISTORY AND OVERVIEW

The history if the ICJ began with the Hague Conferences of 1897 and 1907 as well as

the Hague Convention of 1899.

These gatherings called for the establishment of a permanent arbitrary body open to

all states for the settlement of international disputes.

The decision was made to codify international law in treaties and to establish the first

permanent international court, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which is still

functional.
Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, founded after World War I,

allowed for the creation of a judicial body providing a peaceful method of dispute
settlement based on international law. This new judicial international organization was
followed through by the establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice
(PCIJ) in1920.
Between 1921 and 1939 the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued more than 30

decisions and 30 advisory opinions. In the spring of 1945 at the San Francisco
Conference, 50 nations drafted the Charter for a new World Organization. However,
there were 13 nations not party to the PCIJ Statute.
The decision was made to replace the PCIJ with a new court, the International Court of

Justice principle judiciary organ, and dissolve the League of Nations. Both the PCIJ
and the League of Nations were dissolved on April 18, 1946. In April 1946, the
International Court of Justice was installed at the Peace Palace.
The cases decided by the ICJ were to carry the same weight as those decided by the
PCIJ. The International Court of Justice consists of 15 judges each with 9 years terms
in office renewable. Five of these judges come from the Western part of the world,
three from Africa, three from Asia, two from Latin America, and two from Eastern

Europe. The judges are elected at the United Nations Headquarters via secret ballot by
the General Assembly and the Security Council. In order to be elected, each judge
must receive an absolute majority in both bodies, have a high moral character,
expertise in international law, and qualify for the highest judiciary in their country. The
judges are independent and do not reflect or represent their governments in any way.
No two judges may be elected from the same county. Ad hoc judges are added when
the disputing parties have no representation among the judges and these ad hoc
judges also retain full voting rights.