Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-29T22:31:56.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introductory Remarks by Pieter Bekker

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2019

Pieter Bekker*
Affiliation:
University of Dundee.

Extract

Welcome to this panel on “Intractable Conflicts: The Effectiveness of International Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.” There appears to be a negative connotation associated with the term “intractable conflicts.” By describing a conflict as “intractable,” are we not ascribing a defeatist meaning to it? The program description, the drafting of which neither the panelists nor the moderator were involved in, would seem to confirm this negative connotation, where it suggests that intractable conflicts might “compromise international law.” This panel will take a critical look at the issues surrounding “intractable conflicts” by examining, and perhaps questioning, the very notion of “intractable conflicts” and by highlighting how conflicts that might seem intractable at first blush actually have seen positive developments and even outcomes through the use of existing international law processes. Therefore, this panel is not all about doom and gloom or about how international law has failed in practice.

Type
Intractable Conflicts: The Effectiveness of International Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
Copyright
Copyright © by The American Society of International Law 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This panel was convened at 9:00 a.m., Friday, April 6, 2018, by its moderator Pieter Bekker of the University of Dundee, who introduced the panelists: Catherine Amirfar of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; Paul Reichler of Foley Hoag LLP; Katlyn Thomas of Katlyn Thomas PC Global Directives, LLC; and Rüdiger Wolfrum, formerly of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

References

2 Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).

3 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. Great Britain), Judgment, 1924 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 2, at 11 (Aug. 30).

4 See Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marsh. Is. v. India), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, 2016 ICJ Rep. 255 (Oct. 5); Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marsh. Is. v. Pak.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, 2016 ICJ Rep. 552 (Oct. 5); Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marsh. Is. v. U.K.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, 2016 ICJ Rep. 833 (Oct. 5).