Peaceful settlement of disputes

The UN Charter obliges member States to settle their international disputes peace­fully (Article 2.3) so as generally to prevent peace and security, as well as justice, being imperilled.

This obligation has gradually been extended to all States as a logical corollary of the formation of a customary ban on the use of force.

Consequently, the principle is breached whenever a State wilfully and mala fide refuses to resort to negotiations or other peaceful means or procedures proposed by the counter-party; or, after the failure of a particular means or procedure agreed upon by the contending parties (for example, mediation), refuses to continue to seek a settlement; or takes action that is likely to aggravate the dispute or jeopardize peace. More generally, the principle is breached when a party manifestly engages in delaying tactics or in any other way shows that in actual fact it is not prepared to settle the matter peacefully.

One should bear in mind that one of the purposes of peaceful counter-measures may be to impel the counter-party to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute.

As in the case of other general principles, respect for human rights derives its most solid guarantee from the UN system. Legally, any State whatsoever is entitled to insist that the offending party discontinue its violations (and make reparations, as the case may require). However, for a number of historical, political, and diplomatic reasons States eschew bilateral action and prefer to bring the issue of gross disregard for human rights before international organizations, chiefly the UN. This practice is to some extent, a healthy phenomenon, for in the UN a less partial examination of allegations can be made, and 'collective sanctions' (11.4.1-2) may be resorted to which tend to be more effective than individual (peaceful) counter-measures