This chapter examines China’s asymmetrical engagement with different areas of international adjudication at a time of rising Chinese assertiveness and influence in the shaping of international law. It first explores the relatively minor, yet still remarkable softening of China’s traditional strategic detachment from international adjudicative systems concerning general public international law, international criminal law and international human rights law. These areas exemplify China’s lowest point of engagement with the international adjudicative system. It then focusses on China’s deepening engagement with other international adjudicative systems – in the areas of international trade law and international commercial and investment law – and how the prevention and dispute settlement system of the Belt and Road Initiative is taking shape. It looks at China’s exploratory accommodation of international settlement mechanisms in the law of the sea and newer areas, before examining an array of concomitant cultural, historical, political and contemporary strategic factors weighing both for and against China moving beyond its current ‘comfort zone’ regarding international adjudication.

This Handbook aims to provide much-needed clarity in regard to China’s renewed proactive engagement with international law and international institutions and how China assimilates into, and how it may intend to put its stamp on, international law by offering an updated and fairly comprehensive perspective on the multifaceted contemporary engagement of China with different areas of the international legal order. In order to do this, it disaggregates China’s relationship with international law into different topical areas,each of which is covered by one of the eight thematic parts of the Handbook. These offer specialized treatments of China’s relationship with international human rights law, international trade law, the law of the sea, international criminal law, international investment law, climate change law and international dispute settlement, among many others.

In this chapter, Kimberley Trapp and Jacob Smith examine the role of domestic courts in international dispute settlement. This chapter maps the variety of engagements by international dispute settlement bodies with the decisions and processes of domestic courts and explores how the particular institutional nature and contexts of international dispute settlement bodies may colour the nature and degree of that engagement. The chapter situates this engagement on a spectrum of deference to greater intrusion. It also provides an illustration of the factors that determine this engagement, including the degree of penetration of the international legal framework in domestic legal systems, the expectations that States have when submitting to means of dispute settlement, and the socio-legal context.

In this chapter, Sir Michael Wood examines the future of the international dispute settlement system. The core claim of this chapter is that continuity is, and will continue to be, this system’s defining feature. It observes that the fundamentals of inter-State disputes have changed little since 1920. Most notably, consent to third-party dispute settlement remains at the heart of the system, as does a widespread reluctance by sovereign States to give that consent in advance of disputes arising. The Optional Clause, for example, remains unchanged after 100 years, as does States’ unwillingness to accept it or to do so without extensive reservations. That said, and reflecting on the chapters contained in this collection, this chapter accepts that there have been new and important developments in the international dispute settlement system in recent years and, providing their promise is realised, they will perform a critical function in maintaining international peace and security.

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, 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, 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.

Public international law is a worldwide legal system which regulates the conduct of states (countries) and other actors, both in their international relations and within states’ territories. It governs many areas, such as sovereignty over territory; rights and responsibilities at sea; environmental protection; human rights and the suppression of international crimes; trade and investment; the use of military force; responsibility for breaches of the law; and the settlement of disputes. This chapter introduces the main features of public international law, including its history, sources and purposes. It outlines what the law regulates, who has rights and bears obligations under it, and how it is implemented and enforced. The chapter then considers jurisprudential debates about the nature of public international law as ‘law’ and the reasons for compliance with it, and concludes with discussion of some key critical theories.

All states have an obligation to settle disputes peacefully in accordance with arts 2(3) and 33 of the Charter of the United Nations (‘UN Charter’), and the purpose of this chapter is to provide an introduction to the methods for the settlement of international disputes. It begins with an overview of international dispute settlement, including a discussion of the concept of a ‘dispute’, and the distinction between political and legal disputes. It then traces the evolution of the obligation to settle disputes peacefully through its broad phases: the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, and the creation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (‘PCIJ’); and the Kellogg–Briand Pact of 1928, and the UN Charter of 1945. The chapter then considers the various methods of international dispute settlement, beginning with the diplomatic methods (negotiation, fact-finding and inquiry, the use of ‘good offices’, mediation, and conciliation) before turning to the adjudicatory forms of dispute settlement.

This chapter delves into Germany’s stand on the peaceful settlement of disputes and the International Court of Justice. Germany facilitated talks with the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot communities, along with the UN secretary-general in Berlin. Although Germany spoke of providing ‘good services’, it meant ‘good offices’, while Germany’s role should not be overestimated.

It takes up the South China Sea arbitration case between China and Philippines concerning maritime entitlements in the South China Sea. The relevant arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, first on the jurisdiction and admissibility issues in October 2015, and then on the merits in July 2016. China has not only refused to accept the tribunal’s jurisdiction but also vigorously attacked the validity and legality of the final award. China’s handling of this case has several implications for its approach to international dispute settlement. The South China Sea Arbitration may have given China two takeaways: the appreciation of the importance of using international law and the understanding that foreign countries – led by the United States – again are using international law as a disguise to violate China’s sovereignty. A combination of these two factors will strengthen the prevailing attitude of treating international law as a tool to protect China’s national interest, rather than a serious belief in international rule of