Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T03:47:02.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Mountain Produced a Mouse: The CSCE Meeting of Experts on Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, Valletta 1991

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Extract

From the very beginning peaceful settlement of disputes has been on the agenda of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Principle V of the first chapter of the Final Act of Helsinki of 1975 (the so-called first basket) reaffirmed the obligation of the participating states to settle their disputes by peaceful means. The Final Act, however, does not provide a mechanism through which such disputes can be resolved. The Swiss delegation had submitted in 1973 a draft-convention (called the Bindschedler-proposal after its auctor intellectualis Rudolf Bindschedler, the Legal Advisor of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs), containing a detailed system of compulsory dispute settlement. A distinction was made between judiciable and non-judiciable disputes. Judiciable disputes would be submitted to a permanent Arbitral Tribunal, non-judiciable disputes to a permanent Commission of Inquiry, Mediation and Conciliation. This proposal was, however, unacceptable to the East European states (with the exception of Romania) which had always rejected the idea of compulsory third-party dispute settlement, whereas the greaterpart of the Western states, although in principle favourable to a system of compulsory dispute settlement, had serious objections against the substance of the Swiss proposal, inter alia with regard to the rather artificial distinction between judiciable and non-judiciable disputes. The Swiss delegation did not insist on its proposal and went along with a clause in the Final Act which provided for a follow-up meeting of experts with the task “to pursue the examination and elaboration of a generally acceptable method for the peaceful settlement of disputes aimed at complementing existing methods”. It was decided that this meeting of experts was to be convened by Switzerland afterthe first follow-up meeting which was planned for 1977 in Belgrade.

Type
Current Legal Developments
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. CSCE Doc/II/F/l of Sept. 18, 1973.

2. See for further informationon the Swiss proposal, V.-Y. Ghébali. La Diplomatic de la Détente: La CSCE 1973–1989, at 128–131 (1989).

3. U.N. Doc. A/43/629. Annex Sept. 22.1988, at 6: “The mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice must be recognized by everybody on mutually agreed terms”.

4. U.N. Doc. A/44/171. Annex March 9, 1989.

5. Concluding Document, Principles, Paras. 6 and 7.28 I.L.M. 532 (1990).

6. 30 I.L.M. 201(1991).

7. 30 I.L.M. 382–396 (1991).

8. See 30 I.L.M.210 1991.

9. After proceedings were initiated against these slates respectively by Australia and New Zealand (Nuclear Tests cases) and Nicaragua (Military and Paramilitary Activities case).