The object of this study is, as suggested by its title: “The Role of the International Law Commission in the Decade of International Law”. In this exercise, the title role will be played by the International Law Commission in the context of the ‘Decade of International Law’ recently proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The contribution to be expected of the Commission will be viewed from the perspective of the prospect of enhancing the practice of states in the adoption of available means of their choice for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

“[I]n the last analysis it is the political wills and attitudes of governments that must be changed and -dare one say it?- educated. Political change is not a matter for the jurist, but the education that may lead to it perhaps is.”

In declaring the period 1990–1999 as the United Nations Decade of International Law, the General Assembly of the United Nations listed among the main purposes of that decade the need “to promote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, including resort to and full respect for the International Court of Justice”.

Russia (at that time still Tsarist Russia), its science and its government played a special role in the preparation of the two Hague Peace Conferences. One cannot but appreciate what Russian scientists, like Kachenovski, Nezabitovsky and others have done for the development of the idea to apply formalized, juridical methods in disputes between nations; one cannot but see that it was Kamarovsky who suggested that very scheme of building an international court of justice which is used up to now.Let us also give F.F. Martens, who took part in the preparation of the acts adopted by the Conferences, his due.

There are, of course, a variety of arenas available for the implementation and expansion of international law. The UN Decade on International Law provides a natural occasion for assessing their relative utility at this stage of international relations. Often the emphasis is placed on procedural steps that encourage states to use judicial arenas for third-party application of international law. In this regard great attention is given to the encouragement of steps towards the formal acceptance by governments of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and to the insertion in treaties of compromissory clauses and dispute settlement procedures that entail a legal duty to resolve conflict through the impartial application of international law, and the related obligation to respect the outcome of such an agreed process. For major disputes between states such an app roach to the application of international law remains highly desirable, and needs to be encouraged in every possible way. Extending the domain of compulsory jurisdiction to address both disputes of regionaland inter-regional scope also tends to extend the protection of international law to weaker and more vulnerable states, especially if a stronger tradition of compliance can be established.

In his article on the implementation of international law by the domestic courts in the United States, Richard Falk focuses on the possible role of domestic courts with respect to the acts of foreign policy which may be contrary to international law. In general that role is limited. This is the same in Europe. Falk mentions efforts of individuals, to change national foreign policy by means such as the Russell Tribunal, boycotts of products, blocking of tracks and the occupation of buildings. Such activities also happen in Europe but rather with the intention to attract public attention than with the purpose to litigate in court. In Europe it is generally accepted that courts should not take policy decisions of that kind.

Inter-state disputes on human rights issues have been a far from exceptional phenomenon. During the Cold War the human rights question deeply divided the countries belonging to the Western and the communist blocs. Relations between developed and developing countries quite often have been heavily strained by controversies on human rights. But even within a group of countries belonging to an alliance or a homogeneous regional organization, human rights issues from time to time have been the cause of serious difficulties; e.g., the human rights record of Greece and Portugal within NATO and that of Greece and Turkey within the Council of Europe. Hardly ever have such disputes been subjected to third party dispute settlement machinery, even if such machinery was available. Most human rights treaties have a so-called procedure for state complaints, although in most cases acceptance of such a procedure is optional for the state parties. Only under two treaties, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, it is mandatory for any state party against which a complaint by another state party is made, to submit itself to such a procedure. In most cases the procedures are of a fact-finding and mediatory character.Again, only under two (regional) treaties, the European and the American Convention on Human Rights, the initiating of such a procedure may lead to a binding decision.

“[…]for in the international community the rule of law generally ranks second after politics.”

“Basis van goede verstandhouding kan slechts het recht zijn. Recht alleen kan goede houdingen bestendigen, geschillen voorkomen of bevredigend oplossen. Onrecht, geweld en anarchie voeren tot ondergang, omdat er kiem van destructie zit in al wat niet rechtens is.”

A system for the settlement of disputes has developed within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), originally through the practice of this organization, later on embodied in several decisions of Contracting Parties. This system presents a unique set of rules and practices for the settlement of interstate economic conflicts. It is the only comprehensive system, established within multicultural context, that is comparable with the bilateral procedure incorporated in the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada.

International Space Law forms one of the most recently established branches of international law. Its progressive development requires effective means to settle disputes at an international level. A generally accepted system to settle disputes on space law matters peacefully would not only benefit the world community by reducing tension in international relations, but would also appear to be indispensible for an increase in the reliability and credibility of this new field of international law.Moreover, enhanced trust in the existing system of international regulation of space activities could facilitate the willingness of nations to extend and elaborate this specific field of international law. Establishment of an effective mechanism for dispute settlement in international space law could positively influence the general subject matter of peaceful settlement of international disputes by setting an example for international relations in the increasingly dependant world of modern times.