International Disputes - A Mediator’s Perspective

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:22:17.92+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:08:22.352Z

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES: A MEDIATOR’S

PERSPECTIVE Aadithya Aravindh, Jindal Global Law School Introduction Disputes between two sovereign entities are not new to this world. There have been historic instances that such disputes have always existed since even the Vedic times. Similarly, the mechanisms for resolution of these disputes have also existed since these times. One of the most significant in this regard can be found between the Resolution Mechanism employed by Lord Ram in sending his envoy Angad to the Lankan Lord Ravana’s Palace to negotiate as his agent in the Epic Ramayana or by the Pandavas in sending Lord Krishna as their envoy to the Kauravas in the Epic Mahabharata1. This is where the processes of Mediation and Negotiation become major tools in the performance of peaceful settlements for, they heavily emphasize upon the sovereign individuality of these international entities.

Thus, for the purposes of this paper and to limit the scope of exploration from a wider ambit, the term ‘dispute’ shall refer to any international conflict with the potential to escalation to an ‘armed conflict’. The primary issue with regards to any form of dispute resolution involving two sovereign states is the maintenance of their sovereignty in the dispute resolution process. This becomes inherently difficult because these states represent distinct citizenry and an inalienable right of autonomy, the breach of which, could cause the next global conflict plunging the world into another war.

While it is a common occurrence in the 21st Century with regards to disputes evolving out of delimitation of land or sea boundaries, sharing of resources and the common nature of available structures and governance of parties, these disputes within themselves are characterized by larger and smaller trifles that ultimately lead to the build-up of the next major conflict. Hence, an issue involving a small piece of land between two countries may have the 1 Roy, D. , “If Lord Krishna had succeeded in mediation to prevent Kurukshetra war, many lives could have been saved: CJI NV Ramana”, Bar & Bench (Apr. 9, 2023) https://www. barandbench. com/news/if-lord-krishnasucceeded-mediation-prevent-kurukshetra-war-many-lives-could-have-been-saved-cji-nv-ramana. potential to build up to the next global war2.

Therefore, as international conflicts have been a rising concern, the world has been in a constant search to find peaceful alternatives to resolve evolving conflicts. In recent world history, we witnessed the end of World War I and the establishment of the Treaty of Versailles through the combined negotiation efforts between the Allied and Central Forces. While it was not a peace that lasted, it was the mark of a larger co-operative effort and collective which led to the creation of International Organizations such as the League of Nations which would in turn grow to become the modern International Organization of Cooperation known as the United Nations3.

A perfect example of the ‘almost’ failure of this co-operation was the era of the Cold War between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the Soviet Union) which, despite all nations pleading both parties to amicably ‘talk it out’, pushed the world, for the first time to the brink of Nuclear Warfare, ending only with the dissolution of the Soviet Union on 26th December 19914. Thus, the Primary Aim of this paper is three-fold – 1) Exploring the kinds of disputes that arise at International Levels; 2) Exploring the Characteristics of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms present to International Entities; & 3) Discerning the effectiveness of such Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in providing for solutions in terms of adjudication, authority, and jurisdiction.

Understanding International Conflicts To understand the effectiveness and need for mediation in the International Fora, it becomes crucial to understand the concept of International Conflicts and as to how they rise in the first place. The modern world is shaped vehemently due to the previous hegemonic rule of the Colonial United Kingdom with the effects of its end lasting till date due to the nature of the partitioning terms that were left behind. However, not all disputes can be traced back to the 2 “Democracy and the peaceful settlement of International Conflict”, (1994) 1 Am. Pol. Sc. Rev. 88: 14-32; Kleiboer, M. , “Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation”, (1996) 40 J. of Con. Res. 2: 360-389.

3 “Predecessor: League of Nations”, A History of the United Nations, UN.org (Apr. 2, 2023),

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/history-of-the-un/predecessor. 4 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica, “How did the Cold War end?”, Encyclopedia Brittanica (Apr. 10,

2023) https://www.britannica.com/question/How-did-the-Cold-War-end.

break-up of the British Empire, however, there is strong evidence to suggest that Break-Ups were the cause of such International Disputes. One can analyze the same through the break-up of two different regimes – 1) The British Empire & 2) The Soviet Union. It must be kept in mind that throughout these break-ups, one element remains common – the warring factions were often preceding members of a larger empire that has ceased to exist. The Break-up of the British Empire After the Second World War, the Empire of the British began to decline rapidly with the United States and the USSR emerging as the new world superpowers. In the wake of their break-up, there started to emerge several factions and divisions that were an unanticipated byproduct of the empire’s colonial influence over the lands5.

In Asia, there emerged the factions of India and Pakistan, built upon their division of the Hindu and Islamic religious sects6. Similarly, in Africa, several different factions started breeding civil conflicts7. In the Middle East, the Emergence of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, and the Egyptian Conflicts due to the British Retreat from the Suez Canal led to the creation of hostilities amongst these factions8. Thus, the break-up of the empire led to the creation of several international conflicts which sustain till date such as the Indo-Pak Rivalry, the Egyptian Crisis and the Israel-Palestine Conflicts with instability still sustaining in regions such as Africa. The Break-up of the Soviet Union During the Second World War, it had become a well-established order that there existed two new supreme hegemons within the world – The United States in the West and the Soviet Union in the East.

Both ideologies were vastly different, with the Soviet Union leaning towards a Communist approach while the United States preferred a Capitalist structure9. However, as the world economy began to develop, capitalism gained momentum as the dominating ideology while the Communist movement failed to gain such traction. This ultimately led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1987 and the formation of the Coalition of Independent

5 Abernathy, D., The Dynamics of Global Dominance, European Overseas Empires 1415 – 1980 (2011).

6 Routhermund, D., The Routledge Companion to Decolonization (2006).

7 Gray, L.C., The Dilemmas of African Independence (1964)

105.

8 Brown, D., “1956

Suez Crisis and the End of an Empire”, The Guardian (Mar. 14, 2001) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education1.

9 Howard, M., “The Springtime of Nations”, (1990) 69 J. of For. Aff. 1

17-32.

States (CIS)10. Many former colonies of the Soviet Bloc, such as Georgia and Kazakhstan would not claim their independence till much later. However, as the Russian Federation took over as the official successor to the Soviet Union in its international obligations, there was an inherent desire to reunite with the ‘original brethren’ such as the citizens of Bolivia, Georgia & Ukraine11. Due to this need for reconnection, the Russian Federation has often tried to contextualize connectivity between the former Soviet Colonies. This was in part influenced by the fact that the citizens of the Russian Federation lacked a feeling of nationalism and a longing to be reunited as one union again12. Thus, this led to major conflicts with the previously Soviet states such as Ukraine and Georgia with military actions being frequent across both borders.

While the United Nations and several other international organizations have tried to mediate between the Russian Federation and other former Soviet Nations, the hostilities have never decreased, and a tense situation exists till date with the most recent example being the incursion of Ukraine13. Mediation in the International Context Looking at the spectrum of international conflict resolution, it can be easily surmised that the negotiations that take place are no different than that of private entities with the notable difference that such negotiations affect the larger public interest of both countries. That said, there are noticeable and distinguishable features across the board with regards to the process of international mediation with three prominent elements to be identified – 1) The Nature of the Dispute; 2) The Relationship of the Parties; & 3) The Role of the Mediator14.

The Nature of the Dispute It is therefore a quintessential element of Dispute Resolution to understand the nature of the dispute, whether it references to the equal utilization and access to resources by two sovereign entities or involves the nationality & sovereignty of the citizens belonging to a specific region that is currently in dispute. This further warrants the exploration of the outcome of the dispute in relation to its nature. One of the fundamental roles of the Mediator and the 10 Darden, K. , & Gryzmala-Busse, A. , “The Great Divide: Literacy, Nationalism, and the Soviet Collapse”, (2006) 59 J. of Wor. Pol. 1: 83-115.

11 id.

12 id.

13 supra (n. 9).

14 supra (n. 2).

parties is to reach to an amicable settlement. Thus, a disproportional settlement would lead to further escalation and the mediation process would prove to be unfruitful and merely a stalling measure. Therefore, the dispute’s very nature would also provide for the formative data for its potential of escalation15. This can be illustrated by the International Mediation that occurred between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan with the Soviet Union acting as the Mediator. The dispute arose between the two nations as to the status of the Kashmir region’s territoriality, the nature of the dispute is such that the effects can still be felt today, wherein the Kashmir region has always been a subject of great prejudice and conflict between the two nations.

Many world leaders still speculate as to the boiling point for the dispute and till date submit that the present dispute is one of the potential conflicts that may build up to World War III. To provide for context, the United Nations Security Council, in order to stop the escalated hostilities between the two nations since 1965, ordered a ceasefire and the Soviet Premier took the lead to negotiate between the two countries16. However, it can be concluded that they did not understand the repercussions or the gravity of this dispute for while there was an agreement reached, which specified the terms of de-escalation and more importantly, settlement of further disputes through peaceful means, the enforcement of it has been lacking in the international context with repeated hostilities arising time and again till as recently as 202317.

The Relationship between the parties The second most important aspect of International Mediation is the identification of the parties’ relationship with each other. The ongoing conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine is a perfect example for the same. Tracing the history of the conflict between the two countries, it boils down to a sense of ‘nationalism’ within the two countries. As a former member of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has always maintained a constant struggle with Russia to retain its independence and sovereignty18. The 2014, Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity and the subsequent annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation serve as the most recent examples, barring the ongoing hostilities between the two nations, as to the delicate imbalance

15 id.

16 Raikar, S.P., “Tashkent Declaration”, Encyclopaedia Brittanica (Apr. 1, 2023)

https://www.britannica.com/event/Tashkent-Agreement; Raghavan, S., War and Peace in Modern India (2010): 34-35, 105-106.

17 id.

18 “The February Revolution”, The Economist (Feb. 27, 2014)

https://www. economist. com/briefing/2014/02/27/the-february-revolution. of power amongst themselves19. With Ukraine being heavily dependent on the West and the NATO alliance for any form of cumulative comeback to Russian Aggression and with Russia being driven with a sense of purpose in their principle of reuniting all Russian Brothers across the continent combined with its vast majority of military resources and capabilities20, when sat at a negotiating table, there is often a sense of duress at play as one side is significantly and notably weaker than the other in terms of their bargaining power.

Thus, unlike traditional private negotiations and mediations wherein the primary aim is to (despite the parties’ relationship) drive the mediation towards amicable settlement of disputes, Mediation in the international context, has larger implications in the form of escalating hostilities, loss of sovereignty or provocation of Nuclear War, if the intricacies of inter-party relations are not given due weightage. Therefore, a mediator is required to keep in mind, always during an International Mediation, the relationship that the parties have amongst themselves to ensure reaching an amicable settlement of any way or form that has a lasting effect. The Mediator’s Role Every International Mediation has often had another sovereign third-party state that acts as either a forum or a neutral mediating member to resolve the disputes that rise between these two parties.

A Mediator is required to maintain their constitution of Impartiality and identify the key motives of either party to approach the negotiation table and as to keeping them at the negotiation table (i. e. , preventing a walkout by either party)21. Furthermore, a Mediator is also required to gauge the leverage that they have over either party to persuade them towards a settlement of any kind, however, their usage of this leverage is, in itself, problematic, for in the International Context, they are not dealing with individual entities but with Sovereign States wherein usage of leverage in an unthinking manner may lead to either party assuming bias (by the mediator) and leaving the negotiation table22.

The role played by Adam Curle, John Volkmar & Walter Martin (popularly known as ‘the three Quakers’) in the Nigerian Civil War serves as a perfect example of the Mediator’s Role and as to how they should govern

19 Thompson, N., “Ukraine

Everything you need to know about how we got here”, CNN (Feb. 3, 2017) https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/10/europe/ukraine-war-how-we-got-here/index.html.

20 “Europe’s New Battlefield”, The Economist (Feb. 20, 2014)

21 supra (n. 2).

22 id.

themselves in an international conflict23. In response to the request in April 1967 by Ambassador Iyalla, the First Nigerian Representative to the Quaker Conference of Diplomats, the Three Quakers decided to act as intermediaries between the two warring factions of General Gowon (Federal Forces) & Lt. Col. Ojukwu (Secessionist Forces) over the bitter civil war being fought for the control of Nigeria24. While they understood the needs and demands of either party, they were unable to bring both parties to a singular table because there existed heavy distrust on both sides as to the other party’s intention. Following the individual declarations of independence by either side, the Quakers realized the need to dispel the fears that either party had for each other. They began to do so by acting as ‘message bearers’ to either side and assuaging both sides from engaging in armed conflicts25.

Relying upon their experiences faced in the Indo-Pak wars, they started to understand the cultural dissimilarities between the two regions with Walter Martin even writing a paper which recognized the hostility between the two sides wherein there was a healthy fear of the federal forces as to damage to crucial infrastructure such as schools and hospitals in the name of ‘liberating’ a region by the secessionists while the secessionists feared that they shall be subjected to ‘reprisal killings’ if they presented themselves at any negotiation26. However, in late 1969, the Secessionist forces realized that they were no longer in a capacity to carry out their movement and thus surrendered, however, the Quakers succeeded in preventing any form of Reprisal Killings by the Federal Forces, thereby ending the civil war27.

While it is noticeable that the Quakers were never able to bring both parties to a joint forum, their role as messengers and their individual efforts as negotiating agents on behalf of both sides, prevented escalation of hostilities and in a larger sense, prevented incredible loss of life. This was only achievable as they were able to understand and mitigate the nature of the dispute and the relationship of both parties in an acute manner which allowed them to function in an autocratic manner when negotiating on either party’s behalf.

23 Yarrow, C.H.M., Quaker Experiences in International Conciliation (1978)

179-260.

24 id.

25 Faseke, O.B., “Quaker mission in the Nigerian civil war and Ephraim Isaac’s mediation in the Ethiopian civil war: lessons in religious peacebuilding”, (2019) 38 J. of Rel. & Spi. In Soc. Work 4: 350-367.

26 id.

27 id.

Conclusion

The intention of this paper was primarily two-fold – 1) to establish the cause of International Disputes and 2) to establish the dispute resolution processes and their effectiveness. Thus, the abovementioned arguments and factual scenarios all lead to a singular conclusion – International Mediation is a process of sovereign protection. Much like how individual parties’ self-determination must be protected in a Mediation session, the individual sovereignty of two nations needs to be given an even bigger importance when settling an international dispute. Thus, an International Mediator must watch for the elements such as the

1) nature of the dispute – whether it is a dispute concerning a land border or a larger dispute

concerning the community or a dispute that may potentially escalate into a global conflict causing many other countries to choose sides and eventually lead to World War; moreover, it must also be taken into consideration 2) the relationship of the parties in a mediation – have they maintained friendly relations in the past? Are they likely to settle if there is an amicable settlement presented? Would they allow for their judgement to be compromised if the relations with the other parties are not cordial?

; all these questions would allow for the mediator to focus on 3) their role in the mediation – Most nations do not like it if a third-party sovereign state or third-party international entity tries to settle a dispute between them, thus, it becomes fundamentally important, that a third-party state or third-party entity must be approached by the parties through their own free will to establish the fact that they choose for their sovereignty to be limited and a process is thus, not forced upon them for such a process would not yield a lasting effect but merely, extinguish a small flame in a raging fire. The Indus Waters Treaty is a great example of International Mediation. A dispute between two erstwhile colonies of the British that were partitioned achieving independence. The dispute arose over the utilization of water resources by either country in the Indus Water basin.

The World Bank offered to mediate between the two parties and while the two initially refused, they agreed to the same once it was assured by the World Bank that the scope of their work would be limited to facilitation28. The negotiation was to provide for control of six rivers, three eastern rivers (Beas, Ravi & Sutlej) and three western rivers (Indus, Chenab & Jhelum). However, as negotiations progressed, the World Bank, due to its underestimation of the individual relations of the parties, became frustrated as neither party was amenable to the other

28 Biswas, A.K., “Indus Water Treaty

The Negotiating Process”, (1992) 17 Wat. Int. 1: 201-209. party’s proposal29. This subsequently forced the World Bank to expand its role from a purely facilitative standpoint to an active role wherein it proposed solutions wherein the eastern rivers would be utilized by India while the western rivers would be utilized by Pakistan30. While the Pakistani Officials were not amenable to this proposal as it was more in line with the Indian proposal and did not account for the desertification of Western Punjab (a region heavily dependent on these rivers), it could not afford an escalation into a violent conflict, on the other hand, the Indian delegation could not afford to walk away from the table as large development projects (dams, hydro-power plants, etc. ) had been put on hold pending the present decision31.

Ultimately, India was given control of 20% of the Indus Waters Basin through the Eastern Rivers and Pakistan was given 80% control of the Indus Waters Basin through the Western Rivers32. While the International Community has debated at large and the Indian Government has presently sought a renegotiation of this treaty (as India has historically felt that Pakistan acquires and utilizes more water than is required), the enactment of the treaty’s terms have never been historically stopped, and the same has been followed till date in spite of any form of hostilities at the border or armed conflicts between the two nations in terms of the Kargil War, the Cross-Border Insurgency at Pathankot Air Force Base or the Surgical Strike conducted at Uri33.

It is therefore regarded as a guiding case study for international negotiations as it was clearly demarcated as the nature of the dispute and the individual needs and concerns of the parties and further it was also clearly identifiable as to the relationship that both parties shared with each other and lastly, the adaptability of the Mediator (i. e. , World Bank) within the Dispute Resolution Mechanism as it adapted and expanded its role precisely to the point necessary so as to provide for an amicable settlement while at the same time, retaining the sovereign autonomy of both parties within the dispute resolution process.

Therefore, it has become crucial in the international context to analyze and understand and dissect the nature of the dispute by diluting further, the potential conflicts that it may lead to, by understanding the parties, their history and the cause for their relationship to be as it exists at the negotiating table and to adapt to the situation as and when it changes rather than maintaining a rigid stance of facilitation. Hence, a mediator in an international dispute is

29 Gulhati, N.D., “The Indus Waters Treaty

An Exercise in International Mediation” (1973).

30 Warikoo, K., “Indus Waters Treaty

View from Kashmir”, (2005) 9 J. of. Him. & Cen. As. Stu. 3: 3-98.

31 supra (n. 29).

32 supra (n. 28).

33 Lyon, P., Conflict Between India & Pakistan

An Encyclopaedia (2008). required to care as much for the individual parties’ background considering the dispute that has arisen as they would care for their own position as a mediator. Thus, an International Mediator is compelled to look beyond the dispute in front of them, to the potential for conflict even if an amicable agreement is present. Hence, to an International Mediator, it is more important that a lasting amicable settlement is reached by ensuring that it does not in either way, reduce or increase either party’s sovereign autonomy as they depart from the negotiating table.

References

1. Abernathy, D., The Dynamics of Global Dominance, European Overseas Empires 1415

– 1980 (2011).

2 Biswas, A.K., “Indus Water Treaty

The Negotiating Process”, (1992) 17 Wat. Int. 1: 201-209.

3 Brown, D., “1956

Suez Crisis and the End of an Empire”, The Guardian (Mar. 14,

2001) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education1.

4 Darden, K., & Gryzmala-Busse, A., “The Great Divide

Literacy, Nationalism, and the Soviet Collapse”, (2006) 59 J. of Wor. Pol. 1: 83-115.

5. “Democracy and the peaceful settlement of International Conflict”, (1994) 1 Am. Pol.

Sc. Rev. 88: 14-32.

6. “Europe’s New Battlefield”, The Economist (Feb. 20, 2014).

7. Faseke, O.B., “Quaker mission in the Nigerian civil war and Ephraim Isaac’s

mediation in the Ethiopian civil war: lessons in religious peacebuilding”, (2019) 38 J. of Rel. & Spi. In Soc. Work 4: 350-367.

8 Gray, L.C., The Dilemmas of African Independence (1964)

105.

9 Gulhati, N.D., “The Indus Waters Treaty

An Exercise in International Mediation” (1973).

10 Howard, M., “The Springtime of Nations”, (1990) 69 J. of For. Aff. 1

17-32.

11. Kleiboer, M., “Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation”, (1996)

40 J. of Con. Res. 2

360-389.

12 Lyon, P., Conflict Between India & Pakistan

An Encyclopaedia (2008).

13. “Predecessor: League of Nations”, A History of the United Nations, UN.org (Apr. 2,

2023), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/history-of-the-un/predecessor.

14 Raghavan, S., War and Peace in Modern India (2010)

34-35, 105-106.

15. Raikar, S.P., “Tashkent Declaration”, Encyclopaedia Brittanica (Apr. 1, 2023)

https://www.britannica.com/event/Tashkent-Agreement

16. Routhermund, D., The Routledge Companion to Decolonization (2006).

17. Roy, D., “If Lord Krishna had succeeded in mediation to prevent Kurukshetra war,

many lives could have been saved: CJI NV Ramana”, Bar & Bench (Apr. 9, 2023) https://www.barandbench.com/news/if-lord-krishna-succeeded-mediation-preventkurukshetra-war-many-lives-could-have-been-saved-cji-nv-ramana.

18. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica, “How did the Cold War end?”, Encyclopedia

Brittanica (Apr. 10, 2023) https://www.britannica.com/question/How-did-the-Cold- War-end.

19. “The

February Revolution”, The Economist (Feb. 27, 2014) https://www.economist.com/briefing/2014/02/27/the-february-revolution.

20 Thompson, N., “Ukraine

Everything you need to know about how we got here”, CNN (Feb. 3, 2017) https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/10/europe/ukraine-war-how-we-gothere/index.html.

21 Warikoo, K., “Indus Waters Treaty

View from Kashmir”, (2005) 9 J. of. Him. & Cen.

As. Stu. 3: 3-98.

22 Yarrow, C.H.M., Quaker Experiences in International Conciliation (1978)

179-260.