intertrendsМеждународные процессыInternational Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy1728-27561811-2773AEFIR10.46272/IT.2024.22.3-4.78-79.3intertrends-853Research ArticleРЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ТЕОРИЯREALITY AND THEORYВнешнеполитические детерминанты обращения государств в Международный суд для урегулирования межгосударственных споров.Foreign Policy Determinants of States’ Appeals to the International Court of Justice for the Settlement of Interstate Disputes.МухаметовР. С.MukhametovR. S.

Мухаметов Руслан Салихович – кандидат политических наук, доцент Кафедры политических наук

Dr Ruslan Mukhametov – Associate Professor, Department of Political Science

muhametov.ru@mail.ruУральский федеральный университет имени первого Президента РФ Б.Н. ЕльцинаРоссияUral Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. YeltsinRussian Federation202414092025223-45267Copyright © Мухаметов Р.С., 20252025Мухаметов Р.С.Mukhametov R.S.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.intertrends.ru/jour/article/view/853

Изучение международно-правовых способов урегулирования межгосударственных споров имеет существенное значение для обеспечения мира и безопасности на международном уровне. Некоторые страны для решения своих разногласий с другими государствами обращаются в Международный суд ООН. В этой связи возникает вопрос: какими характеристиками обладают страны, подающие иск в международно-судебную инстанцию? Автор обратился к данным Международного суда ООН, проектов «Корреляты войны» и Polity 4. В работе при помощи бинарной логистической регрессии проверяются две рабочие гипотезы, основанные на теории рационального выбора и подходе, который рассматривает альянс как механизм по сдерживанию союзников. В результате проведённого исследования удалось установить, что более слабые в военном отношении государства чаще обращаются к международно-правовым способам разрешения межгосударственных споров. Подтвердилась гипотеза и о том, что такие формы разрешения споров особенно характерны для стран, не входящих в военно-политические альянсы, поскольку государства–члены одного и того же блока стремятся решать возникающие разногласия в рамках соответствующей межправительственной организации. Обнаружено положительное влияние диад с преобладанием континентальной системы права на практику обращения в международные судебные инстанции. Автор выявил отсутствие статистической значимости влияния демократических режимов на обращение в Международный суд для урегулирования споров, что связано с практикой применения услуг третьих сторон или посредничества для мирного разрешения своих противоречий.

International legal resolution of interstate disputes is a critical domain within International Relations, as it underpins global peace and security. Empirical evidence indicates that some states turn to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with a view to settling interstate disputes. This study investigates the characteristics of states that submit claims to international courts. Drawing on data from the ICJ, the Correlates of War project and Polity 4, the paper tests two hypotheses derived from rational choice/ expected utility theory and an alliance-based deterrence approach. By employing binary logistic regression, the findings reveal that militarily weaker states are more likely to favor international legal methods of resolving interstate disputes. The hypothesis has been confirmed that States that are not members of military-political blocs are more likely to resort to international legal methods for resolving interstate disputes. The analysis further demonstrates a positive association between dyads dominated by the civil law system and the propensity to seek judicial resolution. In contrast, the democratic regime factor is not statistically significant when it comes to filing claims with the ICJ, possibly due to their greater reliance on a third party or mediation. The results obtained contribute to understanding the motives and strategies of States in choosing peaceful means of resolving international disputes and can be used to develop more effective mechanisms for maintaining international peace and security.

международные конфликтымежгосударственные спорыурегулирование конфликтовМеждународный судальянсытеория демократического мираinternational conflictsinterstate disputesconflict resolutionInternational Court of Justicealliancestheory of democratic peaceReferencesАбашидзе А.Х., Солнцев А.М. Мирное разрешение международных споров: современные проблемы. М.: Российский университет дружбы народов, 2012. 307 с.Abashidze A.H., Solncev A.M. (2012). Mirnoye razresheniye mezhdunarodnykh sporov: sovremennye problemy [Peaceful settlement of international disputes: modern problems]. Moscow: Rossiyskiy universitet druzhby narodov. 307 р.Аллисон Г. Обречены воевать. М.: АСТ, 2019. 414 с.Allee T.L., Huth Р. (2006а). Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover. American Political Science Review. Vol. 100. No. 2. Р. 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062125Дегтерёв Д.В. Количественные методы в международных исследованиях // Международные процессы. 2015. № 2. С. 35–54. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2015.13.2.41.3Allee T., Huth Р. (2006b). The Pursuit of Legal Settlements to Territorial Disputes. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Vol. 23. No. 4. Р. 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388940600972644Истомин И.А. Современная западная теория военно-политических альянсов: достижения и лакуны // Международные процессы. 2017. № 4. С. 93–114. DOI 10.17994/IT.2017.15.4.51.6Allison G. (2019). Obrecheny voevat' [Destined for War]. Moscow: AST. 414 р.Истомин И.А., Байков А.А. Альянсы на службе гегемонии: деконструкция инструментария военно-политического доминирования // Полис. Политические исследования. 2020. №6. С. 8–25. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.06.02Bearce D.H., Flanagan K.M., Floros K. M. (2006). Alliances, Internal Information, and Military Conflict among Member-States. International Organization. Vol. 60. No. 3. Р. 595–625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818306060188Казун А.Д. Эффект «rally around the flag». Как и почему растёт поддержка власти во время трагедий и международных конфликтов? // Полис. «Политические исследования». 2017. №1. С. 136–146. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.01.12Beckley M. (2018). The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters. International Security. Vol. 43. No. 2. Р. 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00328Козер Л. Функции социального конфликта. М.: Дом интеллектуальной книги: Идея-пресс, 2000. 295 с.Benson B. (2012). Constructing International Security: Alliances, Deterrence, and Moral Hazard. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 207 р.Кривокапич Б.Д. Мирное разрешение международных споров. Самара: Изд-во Самарского университета, 2020. 592 с.Bercovitch J., Fretter J. (2004). Regional Guide to International Conflict and Management from 1945 to 2003. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 400 р.Мельвиль А.Ю., Мальгин А.В., Миронюк М.Г., Стукал Д.К. Эмпирические вызовы и методологические подходы в сравнительной политологии (сквозь призму «Политического атласа современного мира 2.0») // Полис. Политические исследования. 2023. № 5. С. 153–171. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.05.10.Boehmer С., Gartzke E., Nordstrom T. (2004). Do Intergovernmental Organizations Promote Peace? World Politics. Vol. 57. No. 1. Р. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1353/WP.2005.0008Михайлова Е.В. Способы и формы разрешения межгосударственных споров // Государство и право. 2023. №3. С. 128–137. https://doi.org/10.31857/S102694520024819-1Bueno De Mesquita B. (1993). The Contribution of Expected Utility Theory to the Study of International Conflict. In: M. Midlarsky (ed.) The Handbook of War Studies. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan press. Р. 143–169.Мустафина В., Мальцев А. Военная сила государства-посредника и урегулирование вооружённых конфликтов // Международные процессы. 2023. Т. 21. № 4. С. 6–40. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2023.21.4.75.8Chatterjee S., Simonoff J. (2013). Handbook of Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 252 р.Мухаметов Р.С. Инструменты внешней политики России: сущность и формы реализации // Ars Administrandi. 2010. № 2. С. 133–139.Degterjov D.V. (2015). Kolichestvennye metody v mezhdunarodnyh issledovanijah [Quantitative methods in international research]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. No. 2. Р. 35–54. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2015.13.2.41.3Мухаметов Р.С. Международные детерминанты популярности президента России. Имеет ли значение эффект «сплочения вокруг флага»? // Международные процессы. 2022. Т. 20. №3. С. 80–94. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2022.20.3.70.6Dixon W. (1993). Democracy and the Management of International Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 37. No. 1. Р. 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002793037001002Тимофеев И.Н. Формализованные методы исследования в политологии и сравнительной политике: перспективы политологической школы МГИМО // Сравнительная политика. 2010. № 1. С. 121–129.Dixon W. (1994). Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict. American Political Science Review. Vol. 88. No. 1. Р. 14–32. doi:10.2307/2944879Фененко А.В. Статистика против истории. (Размышления о количественных методах в международных исследованиях // Международные процессы. 2018. № 3. С. 56–83. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2018.16.3.54.3Dixon W., Senese Р. (2002). Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 46. No. 4. Р. 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002702046004004Allee T.L., Huth Р. Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover // American Political Science Review. 2006а. Vol. 100. No. 2. Р. 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062125Ellis G., Mitchell S., Prins B. (2010). How Democracies Keep the Peace: Contextual Factors that Influence Conflict Management Strategies. Foreign Policy Analysis. Vol. 6. No. 4. Р. 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00118.xAllee T., Huth Р. The Pursuit of Legal Settlements to Territorial Disputes // Conflict Management and Peace Science. 2006b. Vol. 23. No. 4. Р. 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388940600972644Fang S., Johnson J., Leeds B. (2014). To Concede or to Resist? The Restraining Effect of Military Alliances. International Organization. Vol. 68. No. 4. Р. 775–809. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818314000137Bearce D.H., Flanagan K.M., Floros K.M. Alliances, Internal Information, and Military Conflict among Member-States // International Organization. 2006. Vol. 60. No. 3. Р. 595–625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818306060188Fearon J. D. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization. Vol. 49. No. 3. Р. 379–414. doi:10.1017/S0020818300033324Beckley M. The Power of Nations: Measuring What Matters // International Security. 2018. Vol. 43. No. 2. Р. 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00328Fenenko A.V. (2018). Statistika protiv istorii. (Razmyshlenija o kolichestvennyh metodah v mezhdunarodnyh issledovanijah [Statistics versus history. (Reflections on quantitative methods in international research]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. No. 3. Р. 56–83. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2018.16.3.54.3Benson B. Constructing International Security: Alliances, Deterrence, and Moral Hazard. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 207 р.Gibler D. (2008). International Military Alliances, 1648–2008. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 1001 р.Bercovitch J., Fretter J. Regional Guide to International Conflict and Management from 1945 to 2003. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. 400 р.Goertz G., Diehl P. (2002). Territorial Changes and international conflict. London; New York: Routledge. 192 р.Boehmer С., Gartzke E., Nordstrom T. Do Intergovernmental Organizations Promote Peace? // World Politics. 2004. Vol. 57. No. 1. Р. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1353/WP.2005.0008Goldstein J. (2004). The Real Price of War: How You Pay for the War on Terror. New York: New York University Press. 232 р.Bueno De Mesquita B. The Contribution of Expected Utility Theory to the Study of International Conflict// The Handbook of War Studies / ed. by M. Midlarsky. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan press, 1993. Р. 143–169.Hensel P. (2001). Contentious Issues and World Politics: The Management of Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816–1992. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 45. No. 1. Р. 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00183Chatterjee S., Simonoff J. Handbook of Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. 252р.Istomin I.A. (2017). Sovremennaya zapadnaya teoriya voenno-politicheskikh al'yansov: dostizheniya i lakuny [Modern Western theory of military-political alliances: achievements and gaps].Mezhdunarodnye processy. No. 4. Р. 93–114. DOI 10.17994/IT.2017.15.4.51.6Dixon W. Democracy and the Management of International Conflict // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1993. Vol. 37. No. 1. Р. 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002793037001002Istomin I.A., Baykov A.A. (2020). Al'yansy na sluzhbe gegemonii: dekonstruktsiya instrumentariya voenno-politicheskogo dominirovaniya [Alliances in the service of hegemony: deconstruction of the tools of military-political domination]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija. No. 6. Р. 8–25. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.06.02Dixon W. Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict // American Political Science Review. 1994. Vol. 88. No. 1. Р. 14–32. doi:10.2307/2944879Kazun A. D. (2017). Effekt «rally around the flag». Kak i pochemu rastyot podderzhka vlasti vo vremya tragediy i mezhdunarodnykh konfliktov? [The "rally around the flag" effect. How and why is support for the government growing during tragedies and international conflicts?]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija. No. 1. Р. 136–146. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.01.12Dixon W., Senese Р. Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2002. Vol. 46. No. 4. Р. 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002702046004004Kim H., Woo J., Lee J. (2020). What Is the Relationship Between Alliance and Militarized Conflict? Analysis of Reciprocal Causation. Armed Forces & Society. Vol. 46. No. 4. Р. 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X18819253Ellis G., Mitchell S., Prins B. How Democracies Keep the Peace: Contextual Factors that Influence Conflict Management Strategies // Foreign Policy Analysis. 2010. Vol. 6. No. 4. Р. 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2010.00118.xKozer L. (2000). Funktsii sotsial'nogo konflikta [Functions of social conflict]. Moscow: Dom intellektual'noy knigi: Ideya-press. 295 р.Fang S., Johnson J., Leeds B. To Concede or to Resist? The Restraining Effect of Military Alliances // International Organization. 2014. Vol. 68. No. 4. Р. 775–809. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818314000137Krivokapich B.D. (2020). Mirnoye razresheniye mezhdunarodnykh sporov [Peaceful settlement of international disputes]. Samara: Izd-vo Samarskogo universiteta. 592 р.Fearon J.D. Rationalist Explanations for War // International Organization. 1995. Vol. 49. No. 3. Р.379– 414. doi:10.1017/S0020818300033324Landman T. (2005) The Political Science of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 35. No. 3. Р. 549–572. doi:10.1017/S0007123405000293Gibler D. International Military Alliances, 1648–2008. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008. 1001 р.Leeds B. (2015). Why Do States Sign Alliances? In: R. A. Scott, S. M. Kosslyn, M. C. Buchmann (eds) Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisicplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. Stanford: Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0387Goertz G., Diehl P. Territorial Changes and international conflict. London; New York: Routledge, 2002. 192р.Levy J. (1988). Domestic politics and war. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. Vol. 18. No. 4. Р. 653–673.Goldstein J. The Real Price of War: How You Pay for the War on Terror. New York: New York University Press, 2004. 232 р.Long A., Nordstrom T., Baek K. (2007). Allying for Peace: Treaty Obligations and Conflict between Allies. The Journal of Politics. Vol. 69. No. 4. Р. 1103–1117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00611.xHensel P. Contentious Issues and World Politics: The Management of Territorial Claims in the Americas, 1816–1992 // International Studies Quarterly. 2001. Vol. 45. No. 1. Р. 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00183Mel'vil' A.Ju., Mal'gin A.V., Mironjuk M.G., Stukal D.K. (2023). Jempiricheskie vyzovy i metodologicheskie podhody v sravnitel'noj politologii (skvoz' prizmu “Politicheskogo atlasa sovremennogo mira 2.0”) [Empirical challenges and methodological approaches in comparative political science (through the prism of the “Political Atlas of the Modern World 2.0")]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovanija. No. 5. Р. 153–171. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2023.05.10Kim H., Woo J., Lee J. What Is the Relationship Between Alliance and Militarized Conflict? Analysis of Reciprocal Causation // Armed Forces & Society. 2020. Vol. 46. No. 4. Р. 539–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X18819253Mikhaylova E. V. (2023). Sposoby i formy razresheniya mezhgosudarstvennykh sporov [Methods and forms of resolving interstate disputes]. Gosudarstvo i pravo. No. 3. Р. 128–137. https://doi.org/10.31857/S102694520024819-1Landman T. The Political Science of Human Rights // British Journal of Political Science. 2005. Vol. 35. No. 3. Р. 549–572. doi:10.1017/S0007123405000293Mitchell S., Hensel P. R. (2007). International institutions and compliance with agreements. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 51. No. 4. Р. 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00277.xLeeds B. Why Do States Sign Alliances? // Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisicplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource / ed. by R.A. Scott, S.M. Kosslyn, M.C. Buchmann. Stanford: Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0387Mitchell S., Powell Е. (2009). Legal Systems and Variance in the Design of Commitments to the International Court of Justice. Conflict Management and Peace Science. Vol. 26. No. 2. Р. 164–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894208101128Levy J. Domestic Politics and War // The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. 1988. Vol. 18. No. 4. Р. 653–673.Mitchell S., Prins B. (1999). Beyond Territorial Contiguity: Issues at Stake in Democratic Militarized Interstate Disputes. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 43. No. 1. Р. 69–183.Long A., Nordstrom T., Baek K. Allying for Peace: Treaty Obligations and Conflict between Allies // The Journal of Politics. 2007. Vol. 69. No. 4. Р. 1103–1117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00611.xMukhametov R. S. (2010). Instrumenty vneshney politiki Rossii: suschnost' i formy realizatsii [Instruments of Russia's foreign policy: the essence and forms of implementation]. Ars Administrandi. No. 2. Р. 133–139.Mitchell S., Hensel P.R. International institutions and compliance with agreements // American Journal of Political Science. 2007. Vol. 51. No. 4. Р. 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00277.xMukhametov R. S. (2022). Mezhdunarodnye determinanty populyarnosti prezidenta Rossii. Imeet li znacheniye effekt «splocheniya vokrug flaga»? [International determinants of the popularity of the President of Russia. Does the effect of "rallying around the flag" matter?].Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 20. No. 3. Р. 80–94. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2022.20.3.70.6Mitchell S., Powell Е. Legal Systems and Variance in the Design of Commitments to the International Court of Justice // Conflict Management and Peace Science. 2009. Vol. 26. No. 2. Р. 164–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894208101128Mustafina V., Mal'tsev A. (2023). Voennaya sila gosudarstva-posrednika i uregulirovaniye vooruzhjonnykh konfliktov [The military power of the intermediary State and the settlement of armed conflicts]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 21. No. 4. Р. 6–40. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2023.21.4.75.8Mitchell S., Prins B. Beyond Territorial Contiguity: Issues at Stake in Democratic Militarized Interstate Disputes // International Studies Quarterly. 1999. Vol. 43. No. 1. Р. 69–183.Powell E.J., Mitchell S. (2007). The International Court of Justice and the world’s three legal systems. Journal of Politics. Vol. 69. No. 2. Р. 397–415. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00539.xPowell E.J., Mitchell S. The International Court of Justice and the world’s three legal systems // Journal of Politics. 2007. Vol. 69. No. 2. Р. 397–415. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00539.xRaymond G. (1994). Democracies, disputes, and third party intermediaries. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 38. No. 1. Р. 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002794038001002Raymond G. Democracies, Disputes, and Third Party Intermediaries // Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1994. Vol. 38. No. 1. Р. 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002794038001002Renshon J. (2017). Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 328 р.Renshon J. Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017. 328 р.Simmons B. (1999). See you in “court”? The appeal to quasi-judicial legal processes in the settlement of territorial disputes. In: P. F. Diehl (ed.) A Roadmap to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Р. 205–237.Simmons B. See you in “court”? The appeal to quasi-judicial legal processes in the settlement of territorial disputes // A Roadmap to War: Territorial Dimensions of International Conflict / ed. by P.F. Diehl. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1999. Р. 205–237.Timofeev I.N. (2010). Formalizovannye metody issledovanija v politologii i sravnitel'noj politike: perspektivy politologicheskoj shkoly MGIMO [Formalized research methods in political Science and comparative Politics: perspectives of the MGIMO School of Political Science]. Sravnitel'naja politika. No. 1. Р. 121–129.Vasquez J., Valeriano В. Territory as a Source of Conflict and a Road to Peace // Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Sage Publications, 2009. Р. 193–209. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024701.n10Vasquez J., Valeriano В. (2009). Territory as a Source of Conflict and a Road to Peace. Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Sage Publications. Р. 193–209. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024701.n10Weitsman Р. Waging War: Alliances, Coalitions, and Institutions of Interstate Violence. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013. 304 р.Weitsman Р. (2013). Waging War: Alliances, Coalitions, and Institutions of Interstate Violence. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 304 р.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.