International Dispute Resolution

In 1899 there was a compulsory obligation to submit all international disputes to the Permanent Court of Arbitration

• YES

• NO

In order to be bound to an ADR agreement, the parties have to express clear _______________

Country A passed a law that forbids the use of Kripton in the manufacturing of pens and the use of Kripton-made pens in their school system. Country B, an important producer of Kripton pens, is in disagreement with this law and wants to take this matter to the ICJ (both countries are part of it). Country A issues a declaration stating this is not an international dispute.

• I agree

• I disagree

The International Criminal Court can only adjudicate cases related to four specific crimes: Genocide, War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and breaches of the Geneva conventions in the context of armed conflict. A member state wants to bring up a case against a person of a member state who committed environmental crimes. There would be a jurisdictional issue in regards to:

• Jurisdiction ratione personae

• Jurisdiction ratione temporis

• Jurisdiction ratione materiae

• There are no issues. Convict the guy!

This is not true about Conciliation

• Parties choose a conciliator

• The conciliation proposal is not-biding

• The conciliator actively fosters the agreement of the parties and proposes solutions in each stage.

• The conciliator can be an attorney or a non-attorney

An individual's ability to pose as a prospective mediator depends on: (check all that apply)

• Relevant personal qualities

• Amount of money invested in the dispute and its outcome

• The power of the country it represents

• Reputation and knowledge of the matter

Timing is a limit on the efficacy of mediation

• False. Mediation can be effective at any point in a dispute, despite the status of the conflict, because the parties will always prefer the intervention of a third party neutral.

• True. It depends on the specific time when the parties have reflected on possible outcomes and outweigh their chances of success if the situation continues as it is.

Raluka and Tatsumania are both parties to treaty A that provides which has no ADR clause. Both parties are, however, parties to the statute of the International Court of Justice that require parties to engage in ADR before bringing the case to the ICJ. A dispute arises. Raluka takes the case to the ICJ immediately and without doing any extra ADR.

• The case will be inadmissible, because the Statute of the ICJ requires the parties to engage in some form of ADR first.

• The case will be admissible. The parties did not consent to any ADR in the pertinent treaty A, and as such cannot be bound to perform ADR.

• The case will be inadmissible because the parties forgot to agree to an ADR and the ICJ does not reward stupidity.

• The case will be admissible because the ICJ is not bound by any other international obligations of the parties.

Lidenstein and Barbieland are two states currently at war. Both countries have been taking military actions for the past 3 months over the sovereignty of a lake that is located in one part of their borders. Millions of dollars have been spent in weapons, thousands of casualties have occurred, and the economies of both countries have been decaying in the last week. This situation cannot continue for more than a month, otherwise, this war will have a terrible impact on the population of both countries. Both countries have understood that something has to be done, without losing face. The main issue is a legal matter on the sovereignty of the states regarding the lake. Parties are in high angry spirits. You are called to propose an ADR method. What would be the best advice at this point in the war?

• Inquiry. The most important issue here is to find out what is happening, address the facts, and issue a report on the main issue.

• Conciliation. It is important to make a legal finding, but preferably with a third party, even though the proposal may be unsuccessful.

• Negotiation. The parties are now in a position to sit down and make as many agreements as possible without a third person intervening.

• Mediation. A third party is necessary, and at this point any small agreement they make can be important even if the main matter is not fully solved.

Country A and country B are in the middle of a dispute in regards to mining exploration in the border. Both countries have agreed to proceed with consultation, then mediation, then arbitration before a dispute can reach the International Courts. Country B thinks that the ADR methods they agreed to are too time consuming to perform at this stage. Country A thinks it will be useless to proceed with ADR as the parties do not have any common grounds. What is true about this situation?

• The parties have to comply with their ADR agreement even if they both think ADR will not conduce them to any agreement, before going to an International Court.

• Because both parties agree that their agreement is useless at this point, they can skip their obligations and move forward to Court.