European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

According to the Handbook on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States (1992, United Nations):

The 1957 European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes is based on the distinction between legal disputes, as defined in Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and other (non-legal) disputes. With regard to legal disputes, the parties to the Convention undertake to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice. This notwithstanding, the parties to a legal dispute may agree to resort to the procedure of conciliation before submitting the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

Non-legal Disputes

With regard to non-legal disputes (i.e., disputes other than those enumerated in Article 36, paragraph 2, of the ICJ Statute), the following means of settlement are provided by the European Convention:

  • conciliation, unless the parties to such a dispute agree to submit it to an arbitral
    tribunal without prior recourse to conciliation; and
  • arbitration, for all non-legal disputes which have not been settled by conciliation either because the parties have agreed not to have prior recourse to it or because conciliation
    has failed.

Legal Disputes

While it is not possible, under the terms of the Convention, for a party thereto not to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with regard to legal disputes, the Convention permits that on depositing its instrument of ratification a party may declare that it will not be bound by the provisions concerning arbitration or those concerning both arbitration and conciliation. Some States (in 1992) have chosen to submit such reservations.

Another procedure of peaceful settlement

Furthermore, if the parties to a dispute agree to submit a dispute to another procedure of peaceful settlement, the provisions of the Convention do not apply. The only restriction in this connection is that in respect of legal disputes the parties shall refrain from invoking, as between themselves, agreements which do not provide for a procedure entailing binding decisions.

Resort to the European Convention in the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

Two specific instances may be cited, as regards juridical settlement, in which the Convention’s provisions were invoked. First, they were invoked as a basis of the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in the
1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases. The Convention also was at the
basis of an agreement dated 17 July 1971 between Austria and Italy accepting
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in connection with any dispute concerning the status of the German-speaking minority in
the southern Tyrol.

Guide to the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

  • 1. Introduction to the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes
  • 2. Peaceful Resolution of Disputes Obligation, which comprises:
  • a. History of Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Obligation
  • b. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Obligation Nature
  • c. Obligation of Peaceful Settlement Scope
  • d. Obligation of Peaceful Settlement Content
  • 3. Means of Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between states, which comprises:
  • a. Variety of Means of Peaceful Settlement
  • b. Institutionalization of the Peaceful Means of Settlement
  • c. History of the Peaceful Means of Settlement
  • d. Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in International Organizations
  • 4. Variety Use of Means of Peaceful Settlement
  • 5. European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

References

See Also

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)

Further Reading

  • L Ferrari Bravo ‘Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in Europe in the Year 2000 and Beyond’ (1990) 45 Communità internazionale 522-37.
  • A Berlaien ‘La distinction entre les différends juridiques et les différends politiques dans la pratique desorganisations internationales’ (1975) 11 RBDI 405-44.
  • D Bardonnet (ed) The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes in Europe: Future Prospects / Le règlementpacifique des différends internationaux en Europe (Nijhoff Dordrecht 1991). Institute of International Public Law and International Relations (Thessaloniki) ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes (Diplomatic, Judicial, Political etc.)’ (1991) 16 Thesaurus acroasium.
  • I Brownlie ‘The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes in Practice’ (1995) 7 Pace International Law Review257-79.
  • C Amigo Román La solución de controversias internacionales y sus mecanismos (1994/95) 86 Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid 93-113.
  • JI Charney ‘Third Party Dispute Settlement and International Law’ in JI Charney, DK Anton and ME O’Connell Politics, Values and Functions: International Law in the 21st Century (Nijhoff The Hague 1997) 65-86.
  • HAFMO van Mierlo ‘The Future Development of Binding Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in International Law’ in WP Heere (ed) International Law and The Hague’s 750th Anniversary (TMC Asser Press The Hague 1999) 445-48.
  • P Vigni ‘The Overlapping of Dispute Settlement regimes: An Emerging Issue of International Law’ (2001) 11 ItYBIL139-62.
  • C Économidès ‘La portée et le contenu de l’obligation de règlement pacifique des différends internationaux’ (2004)57 RevHellenDrIntern 289-98.

Posted

in

,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *