Why International Conciliation Can Resolve Maritime Disputes: A Study Based on the Jan Mayen Case

Abstract

The settlement of maritime disputes is an important issue faced by many countries. Choosing an appropriate settlement method is the primary task of policy makers. International conciliation, which results from careful and systematic evaluation, could become the primary choice of dispute settlement. During conciliation, parties have dominant and final decision-making power over the settlement of disputes, and there is flexibility in the application of law and procedural rules. The Conciliation Commission provides independent third-party advice, and the political and time costs of dispute settlements are relatively low. These are core advantages of conciliation that attract the attention of decision makers. The willingness and diplomatic relations of disputing parties, existence of external pressure, economization of delimitation, and capacity of the Commission are key factors that affect the success of conciliation. The roles these factors play depend on their controllability and the strength of the disputing parties. The effects of dispute settlement with the assistance of the Conciliation Commission are systemic. The successful settlement of maritime disputes between Norway and Iceland in the context of the Cold War not only demonstrated that conciliation is of great value in resolving maritime disputes and promoting inter-state relations but also had considerable uniqueness. Many questions regarding international conciliation cannot be clearly answered by the Jan Mayen Case. Increased state practice and further in-depth research are needed.