[ Link to PDF file (size : 146 KB)]
Methods for Settling Boundary Disputes
Escaping from the Fetters of Zero-Sum Outcomes
by Thomas W. Wälde
The final version of this paper will be published in OGEL : www.gasandoil.com/ogel
It should be interesting for an arbitration audience to not just look at an individual International Court of Justice (ICJ) casesuch as the QatarBahrain case presented herebut to develop a wider, deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the main methods of settling such boundary disputes and of their implications in terms of definitive solution and acceptance, cost, time and quality, and the range of benefits and costs that are likely to arise for the parties involved. I am therefore putting myself, not in the position of a litigator on behalf of a State, but rather in the position of a strategic adviser to a government party in a dispute. I will try, quite generally and in a preliminary way, to clarify to this government client what their options are, their alternatives. In what situations does it make sense to try out which part of the dispute settlement method? It is essentially in the identification of strategies, of their risk-benefit and cost-benefit implications, of probabilities and likely outcomes so that the government client can make up its mind in a rational and informed way which allows it to assess the always very specific circumstances with established concepts and criteria.
Here, I will look at the various dispute settlement methods. Litigation, the ICJ, is just one method. The other methods remaining are war (very traditional), bilateral negotiations, mediation and arbitration.
Thomas W. Wälde
Professor and Jean-Monnet Chair
CEPMLP
(added 02 April 2003)
