Peaceful Settlement of Disputes by the United Nations and Other Intergovernmental Bodies
| Author | Kjell Skjelsbæk |
| DOI | 10.1177/001083678602100301 |
| Published date | 01 September 1986 |
| Date | 01 September 1986 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Peaceful
Settlement
of
Disputes
by
the
United
Nations
and
Other
Intergovernmental
Bodies
1
KJELL
SKJELSBÆK
Norwegian
Institute
of
International
Affairs
Skjelsbæk,
K.
Peaceful
Settlement
of
Disputes
by
the
United
Nations
and
other
Intergovernmental
Bodies.
Cooperation
and
Conflict,
XXI
,
1986,
139-154.
The
resolution
of
dangerous
conflicts
is
among
the
most
important
tasks
entrusted
to
the
UN
and
other
intergovernmental
organizations
(IGOs).
Arguably,
their
per-
formance
in
this
field
is
declining.
Nevertheless,
these
organizations
have
at
their
disposal
a
range
of
instruments
for
peaceful
settlement
of
disputes:
Public
appeals,
channels
of
communication,
mediators,
fact-finding
commissions,
peacekeeping
forces,
humanitarian
aid
programs,
and
international
courts.
The
effect
of
each
of
these
instruments,
or
combinations
of
them,
is
often,
but
not
always,
disappointing.
There
are
cases
where
public
appeals
are
heeded
to;
fact-finding
commissions
often
succeed
in
dispelling
fear
based
on
rumors,
and
peacekeeping
forces
by
and
large
accomplish
their
mission.
The
success
of
the
UN
and
other
IGOs
hinges
on
a
number
of
factors,
including
the
size
of
their
membership,
the
political
divisions
among
their
members,
and
the
economic
resources
available.
Conflicts
between
major
members
tend
to
paralyze
all
IGOs,
while
it
is
easier
to
cope
with
conflicts
between
smaller
states.
Neither
the
UN
nor
regional
IGOs
are
supposed
to
intervene
in
domestic
conflict.
This
rule
limits
their
effectiveness
in
those
interstate
conflicts
where
domestic
strife
is
an
important
element.
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
overwhelming
majority
of
wars
since
1945
have
been
fought
between
Third
World
countries.
In
a
large
number
of
cases
the
great
powers
have
been
involved
on
opposite
sides
of
these
conflicts.
In
many
of
them
no
vital
great
power
interests
have
been
at
stake.
Yet,
because
of
the
absence
of
any
kind
of
collective
security
machinery.
the
UN
has
been
unable
to act
to
deter
or
resolve
these
conflicts.2
2
The
need
for
more
effective
means
of
management
of
conflicts
is
obvious.
Sev-
eral
wars
are
being
waged
right
at
this
moment.
In
many
other
places
domestic
and/or
interstate
conflicts
have
not
reached
the
level
of
open
hostilities,
but
have
the
potential
of
developing
into
so-
called
militarized
disputes.
In
yet
other
cases
an
uneasy
truce
has
replaced
mili-
tary
battles
without
solving
underlying
political
problems.
Re-escalation
is
no
less
likely
than
de-escalation.
Finally,
there
are
situations
which
are
not
commonly
recognized
as
conflictual,
but
contain
seeds
of
tension
and
violent
upheaval.
The
conditions
of
a
suppressed
ethnic
group,
for
instance,
may
not
catch
the
attention
of
the
international
mass
media,
unless
there
is
an
uprising
against
per-
ceived
political
and
economic
injustices.
Recent
history
shows
that
too
many
conflicts
get
out
of
hand.
Too
often
the
cost
of
waging
a
conflict
is
exorbitant.
Even
the
victorious
party
may
end
up
with
a
net
loss.
Too
often
the
termination
of
certain
forms
of
conflict
behavior,
e.g.
by
a
cease
fire
agreement,
are
not
accompanied
by
any
significant
reduction
of
hostile
attitudes
or
diminished
incom-
140
Fig.
1.
Referrals
and
success
by
era,
United
Nations
(N
=
123),
left,
and
regional
organizations
(N
=
80),
right.
Source:
E.
B.
Haas,
’Regime
decay:
conflict
management
and
international
organizations,
1945-
1981’.
International
Organization
37
(1983),
2,
p.
204.
patibility
of
the
political
objectives
of
the
adversaries.
Cease-fires
may
facilitate
negotiations
about
a
settlement,
but
they
may
also
provide
the
opportunity
to
pre-
pare
for
renewed
warfare.
This
gloomy
picture
may
pass
as
a
gen-
eral
description
of
international
affairs,
but
fortunately
it
is
not
quite
accurate.
In
spite
of
all
weaknesses,
the
United
Nations
and
other
intergovernmental
organizations
have
not
been
totally
unable
to
deter
and
resolve
dangerous
conflicts.
In
some
cases
their
contributions
have
been
important
and
positive.
A
study
of
the
period
between
1945
and
1981
rec-
orded
282
disputes
in
the
international
system.’
Of
the
282,
79
were
not
referred
to
any
international
organization,
123
made
the
agenda
of
the
United
Nations,
28
went
to
the
Organization
of
American
States
(OAS),
25
to
the
Organization
of
African
Unity
(OAU),
22
to
the
League
of
Arab
States,
and
5
to
the
Council
of
Europe.
The
number
of
referrals
has
varied
considerably
over
time
without
any
general
trend.
But
the
relative
amount
of
successful
conflict
management
has
declined,
and
more
so
in
the
case
of
the
United
Nations
than
in
the
case
of
regional
organizations
(cf.
Fig.
1).’
If
the
measurements
used
here
are
valid,
there
may
be
reason
for
disquiet.
However,
one
should
not
forget
that
inter-
governmental
organizations
are
not
the
only
type
of
actor
in
the
international
system
which
may
play
the
role
of
conflict
manager.
Similar
functions
are
sometimes
performed
by
prominent
personalities.
The
Pope
recently
succeeded
in
nego-
tiating
a
settlement
in
the
conflict
between
Argentina
and
Chile
about
the
border
between
the
two
countries
in
the
area
of
the
Strait
of
Magellan.
But
governments
perform
this
function
more
actively.
For
To continue reading
Request your trial