International Disputes and Their Settlement

Purpose: the article examines the main problems associated with the extension of arbitration of domestic and international Islamic financial disputes in Malaysia. These include the specific features of the legal regulation of Malaysia, excluding the resolution of certain categories of cases by way of arbitration, and the lack of legal certainty in the submission of cross-border contracts in the field of Islamic banking to Sharia law. To achieve this goal in the article you must accomplish the following tasks: to determine whether there are institutions in Malaysia providing arbitration services for disputes in the field of Islamic banking; investigate the reasons for the unwillingness of the parties to a financial dispute to transfer it to arbitration; to identify the main problems of transferring a cross-border financial dispute to international arbitration; to study the practice of international arbitration on this issue. Methods: this article is based on an interdisciplinary concept of research, which allowed to distinguish the distinctive features of the legal regulation of the settlement of financial disputes in Malaysia. Results: currently the popularization of arbitration permits for domestic and international financial disputes in Malaysia faces difficulties due to both internal reasons and the traditional approach of Islamic banks to include in contracts the reservation of subordination of the provisions of the contract to the law of England or the United States in conjunction with the reservation clause financial disputes in the courts and arbitration of these states. Nevertheless, one can assume with great confidence that, following the development of Islamic banking, so-called Islamic arbitration will spread in Malaysia. Conclusions and Relevance: the materials outlined in the article show the special role of arbitration in resolving domestic and international disputes in the field of Islamic banking. Practical application of its results will improve the Russian legislation in the sphere of resolving financial disputes.

Legal issues of personal jurisdiction in e-commerce in the European union, the United States and Australia : proposed solutions

This review article analyzes and builds on arguments presented in two prominent books, The Making of the ASEAN Charter, by Koh, Manalo, and Woon, and ASEAN: Life after the Charter by Tiwari, on the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Charter. The books envision future international cooperation and even international disputes as legal issues. I claim that by doing so, these books participate in the articulation of a reality where international politics and dispute resolution in Southeast Asia are something that belongs to the legal rather than military realm. As such, both books document and represent an effort to desecuritize (move the issue area away from the realm of security) disputes within ASEAN – an undertaking that the Copenhagen School of Security Studies claims cannot be done by means of declarations and speech only.

Various international disputes that have occurred in this world have been recorded in an international law that applies to the entire international community. So to resolve various international disputes that have occurred, usually, the countries involved make a peace agreement as one way to resolve these international disputes and prevent a war between nations. This shows that to resolve international disputes that have occurred, an agreement among countries is needed as a solution. The problem written by the author in this journal is the settlement of international disputes that have taken place between the country of Nicaragua and USA. In this journal, the author uses a normative and juridical research method, which is legal writing which is carried out by analyzing secondary legal materials or library materials to find a solution to a legal problem that arises and uses a problem approach based on the law. Law or general legal rules regarding the resolution of international disputes that occur among Nicaragua and USA and approach for problems based on a conceptual basis. The results of research conducted indicate that in this case is an international legal dispute which is nether the authority from International Court of Justice in which Nicaragua have to implemented ways from resolving international disputes by international legal procedures, but USA rejected this decision issued to International Court of Justice.

This article introduces the concept of "international development disputes". It argues that despite the well-acknowledged vagueness of 'development' as an operative legal concept, there exists a set of international legal differences (primarily international economic disputes, but not exclusively so) that should be identified as international disputes about development. This family of international disputes is discussed and categorized. Recognizing such disputes has implications for the ways in which such disputes are dealt with. In particular, the effectiveness and legitimacy of using judicial methods to address development disputes should be reconsidered.

ARBITRATORS AS THE CENTER OF A HETERARCHICAL SYSTEM International arbitration is a particularly good example of confronting complexity in modern international law and dispute settlement. One-off arbitral tribunals, constituted under different arbitral rules and without a uniform supervisory mechanism, resolve individual cases based on different national and international standards and thus create a tremendous risk of inconsistent decisions. This leaves many observers with the perception that international arbitration resembles a chaos of unconnected episodes of dispute settlement rather than a structured system. This perception reflects the absence of hierarchical ordering structures usually associated with systems of dispute settlement in the domestic context where a supreme court ensures convergence and unity. International arbitration, by contrast, operates in predominantly heterarchical structures. In them, the system's unity cannot be forged through hierarchy but requires auto-convergence of independent actors. For once, elements of convergence exist in the wide adherence of states to important international conventions and due to the harmonizing effect of model laws. Yet every arbitral tribunal remains king in its own empire. Still, one can observe considerable convergence, and hence order, in the practice of arbitral decisionmaking. Convergence is reflected less in legal sources but crystallizes in the sociological structures and linguistic practices of international arbitration. Just as one requires highly elaborate methods of fractal geometry to uncover ordering structures in Jackson Pollock's seemingly chaotic drip paintings, (1) one can uncover order in international arbitration by analyzing the discourse in and about international arbitration rather than concentrating on formal sources. To understand arbitration as a system thus means understanding the importance and power of arbitrators. They are the center that can forge international arbitration into a system or dissolve it in infinite fragmentation. Similar to courts in the domestic context, arbitrators as a group are the key institution for the emergence, persistence, transformation, and hence existence, of international arbitration as a system. (2) After all, uniform substantive and procedural rules only translate into a system if arbitrators apply them accordingly; likewise, arbitrators can even forge divergent legal rules into a convergent and structured whole. Arbitrators therefore determine the gestalt of international arbitration. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AS GLOBAL GOVERNANCE The idea that arbitrators determine whether international arbitration constitutes a proper system is closely linked to understanding the function of arbitration not only as a mechanism to settle individual disputes, but as an instrument of global governance. (3) After all, the concept of a system implies that there is an overarching structure connecting individual instances of dispute settlement. This overarching structure develops chiefly on the basis of arbitral precedent. (4) Building on the increasingly widespread publication of arbitral awards, in investment treaty but also in commercial arbitrations, both the decisionmaking of international arbitrators and the argumentation of parties appearing before them are highly precedent-driven. Although it is non-binding, arbitral precedent becomes the primary sources for guiding the resolution of international disputes. It is the use of, and reference to, arbitral precedent that lets arbitrators transform international arbitration into an independent system. Not all arbitrators, however, accept that they operate in a system of governance. They stress that arbitration is a party-controlled and party-owned process in which arbitrators function as agents of the parties. (5) Such a position, however, is not particularly convincing, considering how crucial arbitral precedent has become in forging normative expectations of actual and future parties about how international disputes should be resolved and how parties to international transactions should conduct themselves in the shadow of rulings of arbitral tribunals on matters of substantive and procedural law. …

It has become common practice for the US administration to apply sanctions to countries that adopt policies to defend their political, economic, and military interests but affect or are against those of the US. The application of the US sanctions policy has been extended in recent years to include even friendly or allied countries. When is the US sanction policy applied? In principle, when other countries assume positions or adopt political, economic, and military policies that do not respect or reflect the US interests or do not support its commercial, economic, political, or military policies and positions. As a result of the US sanctions policy's expansion application, now the US government does not distinguish between allies, friends, adversaries, or enemies. Sanctions against Germany and other European countries and companies and Russian companies for constructing the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline are clear examples of what has been said above. But, what happens if all great powers apply the same US sanction policy? The reaction of China, Russia, and the EU, among others rejecting the US sanctions policy covering political, economic, and military issues, complicates the search for acceptable solutions to the main world problems increasing tensions at this level. Undoubtedly, this is not the way to find acceptable solutions to international or regional disputes. They can only be found through negotiations in good faith, the use of diplomacy, and increasing trust among countries involved in regional and international disputes. The use of unilateral force, the adoption of arbitrary sanctions, or the threat of military actions to force change another country's position or policy will not strengthen international peace and security but the contrary.

This paper offers an analysis of some of the problems arising in those international disputes concerning issues of public international law which do not present any proximate threat to international peace or security. It does so in the context of an examination of procedures for settling disputes over jurisdiction in public international law, disputes of the kind which arose in 1982 when the United States’ right to control—that is, its jurisdiction over—exports from Western Europe to the Soviet Union was challenged by the EEC and its member states. The analysis is also intended to have general relevance to all international legal disputes in which individuals are directly involved as disputants with or alongside states.

This chapter discusses the selection of counsel and arbitrators for international mining disputes. The selection of lawyers is crucial because they will be drafting pleadings, presenting evidence, cross-examining the other side’s fact and expert witnesses, and pulling together complex factual matrices in order to persuade the arbitrators to rule in the client’s favor. The arbitrator must also be chosen with extreme care and diligence. Although the arbitrator is not required to be a lawyer, in cases to be decided by a sole arbitrator, it is wise to select a lawyer because the sole arbitrator will be handling all aspects of the arbitration, including making procedural rulings, ruling on potential interim measures applications, and the like. With respect to a three-arbitrator tribunal, each side usually has the ability to nominate its own arbitrator and the two co-arbitrators select the Chairman, if possible. The final section of the chapter deals with forum selection in international disputes.

The EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (EVIPA) represented the culmination of three years of negotiations between the EU and Vietnam. Although it remainsto be ratified, it promises to have an impact on the international investment treaty landscape. The treaty contains innovations ranging from its definition of the substantive protections afforded to foreign investors to its definition of ‘investments’ and ‘investors’ that may qualify for those protections, as well as the procedural modalities for the treatment of possible disputes. Its most distinctive trait, however, is its establishment of a semi-permanent adjudicatory body akin to an investment court in replacement of the arbitration model envisaged by the vast majority of investment treaties over the past several decades. Rather than attempt to reform, the evipa drafters have done tabula rasa and opted for revolution instead. The EVIPA’S envisaged method to select, appoint, and remunerate the members of that body – both at the first instance level and at the appellate level – represents an abrupt and profound abandonment of the traditional arbitration model so frequently and presently used in international disputes around the world. The evipa may thus present an opportunity to test an alternative dispute resolution system and thus to aid in determining the most effective and appropriate method to resolve the international investor-State disputes of the future.

The article analyzes the legal nature, essence and content of the international disputes between Ukraine and the Russian Federation over the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, ensuring free navigation in the Kerch Strait, and access of the Ukrainian naval vessels to the Azov Sea. It is significantly focused on the difficulty to classify this type of disputes, positive and negative sides of the phenomenon for the national interests of Ukraine and possible prospects of the conflict resolution. It is emphasized on the inadmissibility of delay from the Ukrainian side in taking protective and preventive measures in the process of the international conflict development in order to encourage the opposite side in peaceful resolution. At the same time, it is focused on the absence of active effect of the third parties’ involvement in the peaceful dispute resolution, absence of mediators and proper interest from the international organizations that tighten Ukraine’s political maneuver possibilities. Particular emphasis is put on the Russian Federation’s tactics and strategies of the international dispute resolution; its well-planned and intercorrelated policy of escalation, extension and alteration of intergovernmental allegations, abuse of rights, application of double standards, substitution of concepts, usage of international analogies to disguise its intentions and interests. It is confirmed the Russian Federation’s dominant position in the relationship with Ukraine and permanent gain of benefits, even minimal, from any situation, including the exchange of Ukrainian captured sailors. The article suggests the wider use of the information constituent of preventive measures to underestimate or devalue object and subject of the international dispute in order to distract the opposite side’s interest from the dispute. It is analyzed the feasibility of the building of the channel through the Crimean isthmus discussion. Key words: international situation; international dispute; protective measures in the international dispute; preventive measures in the international dispute.

In the existence of international relations, of course there are not only positive things but also negative things, one of which is that it can cause a conflict within or that can be called an international dispute. An international dispute is a dispute between subjects of international law that can be about facts, law or politics in which a claim or inclusion of one party is rejected, claimed back or denied by another party. International disputes themselves are also based on type and type. Based on the type there are political disputes and also legal disputes. International disputes can also occur due to many factors such as terrorism, the ruling regime in a country, culture, territorial territoriality, a country's intervention on the sovereignty of another country, natural resources, foreign policy that is too flexible or otherwise too rigid, moral elements , itas and politeness of the nation, the problem of claims of national or territorial power boundaries, economic problems and many more which are of course related to subjects in international law. Yemen is a country that is currently experiencing an international dispute. The Yemeni War is a war that is a continuing war. This war began in 2015 or four years ago. In the Yemen war it was also called a civil war involving two parties namely Abdrabuh Mansur Hadi who led the Yemeni government (officially recognized by the International) with an armed movement called the Houthis and their supporters. So these two camps both claim that they are the official government of Yemen. The war is ongoing. The Ansar Allah group, which is often referred to as Ansarullahh or Houthi, is a Zaidi group originating from the Governor of Sa'dah in the mountains on the northern border of Yemen with Saudi Arabia. This conflict continued to occur continuously during the 2000s which sometimes experienced an increase and shrinkage. Some steps have also been taken to resolve this conflict but during the negotiations failed.

This article explores the debiasing role of the mediator in the setting of international disputes. Starting from the rational choice theory, this article examines the choices that international disputants must weigh when deciding how to proceed with their conflict. International actors are assumed to be rational and negotiate settlements that are beneficial to them. Their alternatives to a negotiated settlement include both adjudication and continuation of the conflict. Puzzlingly, despite the advantages of negotiated settlements, many international disputes are not resolved in the form of a settlement. Instead, States seem to prolong conflicts or follow costlier routes of formal adjudication. Behavioral Law and Economics insights on the biases of disputants partly explain this phenomenon. The article contributes to the behavioral discussion by examining two separate categories of biases, i.e., biases when deciding to enter negotiation and biases during negotiation. Following that, it suggests that the specific characteristics of the process of mediation and of the mediator, in particular, can act as debiasing instruments. The article concludes with normative suggestions for wider incorporation of mediation within the international dispute settlement setting.

International dispute resolution has been evolving in resolving international aviation disputes. This paper aims at the role of arbitration in resolving international aviation disputes by three chapters. The first chapter will offer a historical review of the international dispute resolution forums for resolving international aviation disputes, which include the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council, ad hoc arbitration, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the World Trade Organization. The second chapter will focus on the trend of choosing arbitration as the primary dispute resolution in air service agreements. However, there are still restraints in ad hoc arbitration in resolving international aviation disputes. The third chapter will look into the future of using arbitration to resolve international aviation disputes by proposing a supranational mandatory regime as well as analyzing normative and institutional models.

The study provides an overview of a set of data describing the incidence and character of serious international disputes in the twentieth century. The principal findings reported include: Average annual incidence of serious international disputes has risen more than fourfold between 1900 and 1976. The underlying cause of this increase seems to be simply the increased size of the international system. The relative likelihood with which a serious dispute culminates in war is 1 in 9. However, there are definite differences in this relative frequency. Disputes involving major powers escalate to war approximately 1 in 5 times. Disputes involving only minor powers culminate in war with a likelihood of 1 in 20. Intervention in ongoing disputes increases the chance of war. The character of intervention has changed throughout the century with initiators less able to attract support and the targets of threat and force more able to do so.