Abstract:
Since World War II, intra-state conflict has been on the rise. The international community has struggled to prevent and resolve intra-state conflicts. Disputants often sign peace agreements, but peace then fails at the implementation phase. This is, in part, due to a lack of effective mechanisms for resolving disputes between states and sub-state entities. To fill this gap, the United Nations has begun to promote the use of mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism in conflict situations. However, mediation is not the only option. International arbitration is available. Arbitration has been used to resolve intra-state territorial disputes, following conflicts, in two cases: in the Brčko arbitration, in Bosnia-Herzegovnia and the Abyei arbitration, in the Sudans. In light of these arbitrations, this paper suggests that arbitration might be an equally useful, if not better, dispute resolution tool for resolving disputes following intra-state conflicts. International arbitration may lead to more lasting peace. In making this argument, this paper attempts to fill a lacunae in the legal literature. Much legal scholarship discusses the general advantages and disadvantages of different dispute resolution mechanisms. However, there is little, if any, scholarship devoted to determining the most appropriate dispute resolution mechanism for use following intra-state conflicts or critically engaging with the UN’s preference for mediation.
