In recent years various new international courts and tribunals have been set up and several systems of compulsory jurisdiction established. As a result, litigation, which used to be quite rare in international affairs, is now increasingly common, prompting questions about both the relation between adjudication and more traditional methods of handling disputes, and the interrelation of different courts and tribunals. Using the evidence provided by recent cases, this article examines legal disputes and the current role of adjudication. Three specific matters are considered: the relation between adjudication and negotiation; situations of overlapping and competing jurisdiction and their consequences; and how adjudication relates to the work of political organisations.

The author's conclusion is that to ask whether the present assortment of dispute settlement procedures should be thought of as complementary or contradictory is to oversimplify the question. Diplomatic and legal processes sometimes work in harmony and sometimes in opposition and the same is true of different judicial institutions. If international law continues to develop and eventually becomes an integrated legal system, many of these uncertainties will disappear. Until then, however, the mosaic of dispute settlement procedures will keep their contrarious character.