COURT OF JUSTICE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INTERSTATE DISPUTES
https://doi.org/10.46272/IT.2024.22.3.78
Abstract
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.
About the Author
RUSLAN MUKHAMETOV
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. 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.
2. 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/S0003055406062125
3. Allee 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/10.1080/07388940600972644 Allison G. (2019). Obrecheny voevat' [Destined for War]. Moscow: AST. 414 р.
4. Bearce 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/S0020818306060188
5. Beckley 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_00328
6. Benson B. (2012). Constructing International Security: Alliances, Deterrence, and Moral Hazard. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 207 р.
7. Bercovitch J., Fretter J. (2004). Regional Guide to International Conflict and Management from 1945 to 2003. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 400 р.
8. 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.2005.0008
9. Bueno 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.
10. Bueno De Mesquita B. (1981). The War Trap. New Haven: Yale University Press. 223 р.
11. Bueno de Mesquita B., Lalman D. (1992). War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven: Yale University Press. 322 р.
12. Chatterjee S., Simonoff J. (2013). Handbook of Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 252 р.
13. 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.2015.13.2.41.3
14. Dixon W. (1993). Democracy and the Management of International Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 37. No. 1. Р. 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002793037001002
15. Dixon W. (1994). Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict. American Political Science Review. Vol. 88. No. 1. Р. 14–32. doi:10.2307/2944879
16. Dixon W., Senese Р. (2002). Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 46. No. 4. Р. 547–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002702046004004
17. Ellis 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.x
18. Fang 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/ S0020818314000137
19. Fearon J. D. (1995). Rationalist Explanations for War. International Organization. Vol. 49. No. 3. Р. 379–414. doi:10.1017/S0020818300033324
20. Fenenko 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.2018.16.3.54.3 Gibler D. (2008). International Military Alliances, 1648–2008. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. 1001 р.
21. Goertz G., Diehl P. (2002). Territorial Changes and international conflict. London; New York: Routledge. 192 р.
22. Goldstein J. (2004). The Real Price of War: How You Pay for the War on Terror. New York: New York University Press. 232 р.
23. Hathaway O.A. (2002). Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? The Yale Law Journal. Vol. 111. No. 8. Р. 1935–2042.
24. 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/10.1111/0020-8833.00183
25. 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.2017.15.4.51.6
26. Istomin I.A., Baykov A.A. (2020). Al'yansy na sluzhbe gegemonii: dekonstruktsiya instrumentariya voennopoliticheskogo 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/2020.06.02
27. Kazun 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/2017.01.12
28. Kim 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/10.1177/0095327X18819253
29. Kozer L. (2000). Funktsii sotsial'nogo konflikta [Functions of social conflict]. Moscow: Dom intellektual'noy knigi: Ideya-press. 295 р.
30. Krivokapich B.D. (2020). Mirnoye razresheniye mezhdunarodnykh sporov [Peaceful settlement of international disputes]. Samara: Izd-vo Samarskogo universiteta. 592 р.
31. Landman T. (2005) The Political Science of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science. Vol. 35. No. 3. Р. 549–572. doi:10.1017/S0007123405000293
32. 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
33. Resource. Stanford: Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0387
34. Levy J. (1988). Domestic politics and war. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History. Vol. 18. No. 4. Р. 653–673.
35. 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.x
36. Mel'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/2023.05.10
37. Mikhaylova 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/S102694520024819-1
38. Mitchell 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.x
39. Mitchell 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/10.1177/0738894208101128
40. 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.
41. Mukhametov 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.
42. Mukhametov 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.2022.20.3.70.6
43. Mustafina 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.2023.21.4.75.8
44. 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.x
45. Raymond G. (1994). Democracies, disputes, and third party intermediaries. Journal of Conflict
46. Resolution. Vol. 38. No. 1. Р. 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002794038001002
47. Renshon J. (2017). Fighting for Status: Hierarchy and Conflict in World Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 328 р.
48. 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.
49. 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
50. Politics: perspectives of the MGIMO School of Political Science]. Sravnitel'naja politika. No. 1. Р. 121–129.
51. Vasquez 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.n10
52. Weitsman Р. (2013). Waging War: Alliances, Coalitions, and Institutions of Interstate Violence. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 304 р.
Review
For citations:
MUKHAMETOV R. COURT OF JUSTICE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF INTERSTATE DISPUTES. International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. :1-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/IT.2024.22.3.78
Views:
9
Email this article 