Good Offices and Mediation as Mechanisms for International Dispute Settlement

Abstract

The international system prior and after Westphalia (1648) has been characterized by conflicting interests, that if not managed timeously could result in full blown crisis fought at the expense of human lives and infrastructure. Some of these crises when resolved at arbitration have not produced lasting peace because of the awarding nature of result that may not accommodate the parties in the process of arriving at final decisions. Thus, Good offices and mediation stand out as diplomatic methods of traditional dispute settlement endorsed in the Charter of the United Nations (1945). The study is saddled with the quest of unraveling the reasons for the irregular adoption and prioritization of good offices and mediation by conflict parties in international relations. The study combined the realist theory of Jurisprudence and the Constructivist theory of international relations to arrive at some findings which border on the similarities and differences between Good offices and mediation and its relevance as mechanisms for international dispute settlement. The study adopts the doctrinal legal research methodology and recommends that Good offices and mediation should be prioritized. It concludes that a good offices provider should know when negotiation is ripe for transition from good offices to mediation in other not to dampen the enthusiasm of the parties to reach final decision themselves.