ABSTRACT
Several observations seem appropriate here. First, disputes obviously vary in terms of intensity and thus importance to states. Not every issue entails a matter of vital interests, although the anarchic nature of the international system permits the governing authorities of each state to attach whatever level of importance they choose to any dispute no matter how trivial it may seem to third-party observers. Ethiopia and Eritrea fought a bloody war (more than 100,000 casualties) ostensibly over a border dispute that involved a few square miles of desert. 3 Second,
although the methods discussed in this chapter may be used to resolve legal disputes, not every dispute between states involves a breach of a legal obligation . Third, even when legal principles do have relevance, or when a breach of legal obligation has occurred, the resolution of the dispute may not involve strict adherence to legal principles and procedures. As we noted in Chapter 1 , although lawyers may be involved, dispute resolution at the international level often involves political officials whose goals, methods of operation, fact collection, reasoning, and standards of evaluation may be far different from those utilized by lawyers and judges. As we shall discuss later in this chapter, at the international level, a bias against formal judicial methods exists because legal methods do seek to insulate the decision process from the vagaries of political decision. Remember that lawyers and judges seek comparable and reliable answers to similar situations. Politicians-statesmen seek acceptable solutions. These two ends may often be incompatible. Moreover, this points out an important point: The role of law in dispute resolution and the role of adjudication in dispute resolution form two different sets of considerations. By definition, adjudication requires law, but legal principles may play a role absent a framework for adjudication. As we shall see later, the use of law without adjudication defines the normal circumstance in international politics. 4
Note that the process of resolving disputes at the domestic level may often involve procedures other than litigation in court (alternative dispute resolution or ADR). For certain types of domestic civil or administrative law cases-–divorce or other contractual problems, for example-–the parties may prefer mediation or arbitration to litigation. A district attorney may prefer a plea bargain (negotiation) to trial for many reasons. In comparison to most domestic legal systems, the international legal process involves a myriad of methods, with formal methods of adjudication ranking near the bottom in preference. We will discuss the role of courts in some detail in a separate chapter ( Chapter 17 ).
