In the last solo-authored edition of his seminal book, International Dispute Settlement, the late Professor John Merrills wrote that ‘the peaceful settlement of international disputes is the most critical issue of our time’.1 To the casual reader, this statement may seem an exaggeration. Surely the environment and climate change, collective security, global health, human rights, and international trade and finance, among others, may appear to be more pressing issues today. And yet, having devoted most of his professional life to the advancement of legal scholarship on international dispute settlement, Merrills was acutely aware that the study of this discipline offers the most effective litmus test to assess the strengths and limitations of international law at any given time. International disputes naturally arise whenever international law subjects disagree on matters of law or fact. Alongside disputes concerning territory and the use of force, today we witness an exponential growth of disputes on issues as diverse as human rights, environment, trade, and investment. Disputes are also becoming more complex, involving multiple parties, norms, and dispute settlement mechanisms (diplomatic or adjudicatory). At the same time, international disputes and the process of dispute settlement can act as a catalyst for the enforcement but also the development of international law. Dispute settlement and its institutions reaffirm existing norms and stabilise legal relations, but can also contribute to the crystallisation of new norms or new interpretations of existing norms because international disputes and their processes of settlement may evidence gaps or shortcomings of existing norms.

In this chapter, Rossana Deplano focuses on the peaceful settlement of outer space disputes. This chapter argues that, traditionally, States have resorted to diplomatic, as opposed to legal, means for the settlement of disputes related to space activities. However, with the growing privatisation and commercialisation of space activities, this chapter avers that the current treaty framework for the settlement of space disputes is inadequate to cope with the demands of the new space industry. This chapter examines the principles governing the treaty framework for the peaceful settlement of space disputes as well as the existent dispute settlement mechanisms. It evaluates whether the apparently unstructured character of the UN treaty framework for dispute settlement is sufficient to deal with traditional and emerging space disputes, such as those likely to stem from space-mining operations. The argument is made that, although there is no all-encompassing and binding dispute settlement process, a specialised dispute settlement system endowed with enforcement powers is not desirable.

In this chapter, Nicholas Tsagourias and Fiona Middleton examine the role of fact-finding in ascertaining the facts supporting cyber attribution claims. More specifically, it considers the modalities of fact-finding, discusses the challenges it is encountering in the context of cyber attribution, and assesses the proposed cyber attribution mechanisms. The chapter concludes by identifying certain key features a cyber attribution fact-finding mechanism should exhibit to perform its tasks effectively and contribute to the settlement of cyber attribution disputes.

In this chapter, Therese O’Donnell brings together research literature from international law, disaster studies, and the mediation field to investigate the possibilities that mediation offers in the context of disaster assistance. This chapter argues that mediation is an untapped resource in the disaster milieu given its capacity for widening participation, contextual sensitivity and discretion, and proven success rate even in the most fraught environments. This chapter claims that mediation has the potential to facilitate partnered dispute resolution and create the conditions for paying heed to international legal standards of protection while reflecting notions of solidarity. Most importantly, it contends that mediation offers a route to avoid unhelpful political confrontation while ensuring that the needs of disaster-stricken populations are met in sustainable ways.

In this chapter, Eric De Brabandere zeroes in on the settlement of disputes in the context of investment arbitration. This chapter accepts that the case law of the current investor-State dispute settlement system is inconsistent and unpredictable and requires reform. However, this chapter claims that the problems associated with the dispute settlement system for investment arbitration cannot be isolated from broader questions on the coherence of general international law, the determinacy of legal norms, and the role of arbitral tribunals in the interpretation of these norms. The chapter argues that coherence is a matter of degrees and that a ‘middle ground’ might be to consider that international investment law forms part of international law, which is a coherent legal system from the perspective of the sources or the secondary norms of international law. Consistency, on the other hand, is not completely achievable in the current investment landscape, given its lack of uniformity in terms of substantive law and ad hoc method of dispute settlement. Consistency must be sought through different options, such as redrafting investment treaties to ensure better balance and predictability of outcomes.

In this chapter, Antonio Segura Serrano examines the potential for new and emerging technologies to be used to help settle international disputes. This chapter considers how digital evidence can be gathered and evaluated by dispute settlement bodies. This chapter also analyses what role online dispute settlement bodies can play in the settlement of international disputes. In doing so, it assesses the practice of online dispute resolution systems already in place for online transactions among individuals (both private and public systems) in order to identify any features that can be transposed to inter-State dispute settlement. This chapter concludes by explaining that these systems, in particular their use of algorithms and artificial Intelligence, offer some important lessons for State-to-State dispute settlement.

In this chapter, Maria Gwynn focuses on the settlement of water-related disputes in international law. This chapter evaluates agreements governing transboundary water resources from different regions of the world and highlights the different mechanisms of dispute settlement they provide. It argues that, for water-related disputes, joint or international commissions play a key role in the settlement of disputes. This chapter explores how the complementarity of different treaties, on the one hand, and international law, on the other, coupled with States’ willingness to co-operate with one another, enables States to negotiate and resolve disputes amicably and according to the principles contained in the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention.

In this chapter, Aris Georgopoulos and Petros Mavroidis examine the contribution of the WTO dispute settlement body to the resolution of trade disputes. This chapter documents the problems and challenges faced by the WTO’s dispute settlement body and reveals their debilitating impact on its work. This chapter then puts forward concrete proposals for the establishment of a new WTO Court and explains why such a course of action has a realistic chance of breaking the current impasse and creating an effective dispute settlement body for trade disputes.

In this chapter, Tarcisio Gazzini and Alessandra Pietrobon focus on parallel proceedings in investment and human rights claims. This chapter examines how tribunals co-ordinate the exercise of their jurisdictions, how they should deal with the merits (including applicable law and issues of interpretation), and how they should avoid double recovery. The complex disputes related to Yukos are discussed with a view to formulating some tentative recommendations on how to manage parallel proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and investment arbitral tribunals.

In this chapter, Nigel White assesses the contribution of the UN’s collective security system to the settlement of international disputes. This chapter tests the assumption that impartial law-based dispute settlement by the Security Council is neither achievable because of its political nature nor required by the UN Charter. This chapter analyses the provisions of the Charter and practice of the Security Council in the field of peaceful settlement, looking for evidence of impartiality in both inter-State and intra-State disputes and assessing the influence of peacekeeping mandated by the Council upon impartiality. This analysis shows that the concept of impartiality in peaceful settlement has largely disappeared and asks, in the conclusion, whether it is possible and desirable to (re)turn to impartiality.

In this chapter, James Mehigan focuses on the contribution of international criminal law (ICL) to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. More specifically, this chapter looks at the aims of ICL and analyses how effective it has been at achieving its international law and criminal law objectives. It argues that ICL does not make the broader contribution to dispute settlement that many commentators hope for because it provides a form of retributive justice that does not necessarily engender a sense of justice for victims, nor contribute to reconciliation or fact-finding. After looking at the impact of ICL in the Former Yugoslavia, this chapter concludes that there is little evidence to show that ICL achieves any of its aims other than individualising guilt and punishing offenders – in other words, ICL’s contribution to the settlement of international disputes is minimal and should not be overstated.

In this chapter, Sir Malcolm Evans examines the role and legitimacy of international human rights mechanisms of dispute settlement. This chapter argues that the relationship between international dispute settlement and the work of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies is demonstrated by a series of cases brought by Qatar against the United Arab Emirates before both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). This chapter explores some of the tensions which have been revealed concerning the interplay between the work of the CERD Committee and that of the ICJ and how each responded to them. It notes that the multifaceted and sui generis nature of their work means that they do not operate in a single ‘conceptual space’ and that the nature of the treaty bodies, their role and function, and the environment in which they work need to be borne in mind if their work is to be properly appreciated, understood, and engaged with.

This chapter examines the exclusive distribution agreement, namely the contract by which the supplier undertakes towards the exclusive distributor to supply the supplier with certain goods at a certain price and to ensure the supplier exclusivity within a certain territory, in exchange for the exclusive distributor’s undertaking to pay the price and to promote the sale of the goods in the allocated territory. This chapter firstly explores the notion of the exclusive distribution agreement and its functions before examining its legal nature and delimitations with other contracts found under Swiss law. This chapter then moves on to the conclusion of the exclusive distribution agreement and examines in detail the obligations of the supplier and exclusive distributor. Finally, this chapter explores the non-performance of the exclusive distribution agreement and the end of the exclusive distribution agreement with particular emphasis on the compensation for goodwill.