International Arbitration by Diplomatic Means to Resolve Disputes Between the Parties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct diplomatic negotiations are the most important and most common means to settle international disputes. Studies indicated that, historically states had felt a legal obligation to negotiate before resorting the use of force, even if that commitment does not exceed the formal framework. This concept played its role in the efforts made by jurists during the middle-age to determine the nature of war and the necessity to negotiate before everyone agreed to use the legal forces. The negotiation of subsequent countries was considered to be one of the necessary preconditions for the recognition of fair use of power. Even if it is clear that the negotiations are nothing more than a demonstration, it still remains necessary, without it the use of power is condemned. The present study aims to provide an analytical discussion on the peaceful means of settling international disputes. Specific focus is provided to the diplomatic means of dispute settlement, especially in the gulf countries. The effectiveness of diplomatic means of dispute settlement is further studied by analyzing the case of border issues held between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The overall discussion indicated that the role of negotiations has increased, especially after the World War II. The group witnessed a new era characterized by the propagation of alliances in various fields and the complexity of international relations, intertwining and developing in the economic, political, military, cultural, social and other areas. This helped the negotiations to flourish as the central tool of diplomacy was described as a negotiation stage. With this in mind, all the principles that regulate relations between countries are reflected in the application of method of international dialogue. The analysis revealed that though diplomatic means take long to settle disputes, they are still the most effective methods to resolve the rising conflicts between different nations. However, in cases where conflicts remain unresolved through dialogue law enforcement organizations are approached to seek solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".