UN Charter Art.33 points to means such as negotiation, mediation and arbitration to settle disputes and to avoid the risk of use of force. Judgments of the International Court of Justice are of great value also to further develop international law. However, courts are hardly ever employed to save peace by the judicial settlement of big disputes. Following the precedent of the Nuremberg tribunal, special tribunals have been set up to try war crimes. Even more important, an international criminal court has been established. Fact-finding (termed ‘enquiry’) has achieved a prominent role both to solve and to prevent conflicts. Thus, the safeguards system of the IAEA using inspectors, cameras and satellites and environmental sampling continuously verifies that no fissionable material is diverted away from peaceful uses. With much fake news around, impartial professional inspection, monitoring and reporting – for instance, about the use or possession of chemical weapons – has become more important. Diplomacy seeks to secure or create peaceful relations by agreement, precluding or removing the threat or use of force. Examples are given of successes of diplomacy to preserve peace as well as of failures and of talks going forever without result.

This final chapter begins with an account of the interconnections between technological transformation and institutional structures, drawing upon the theory of socio-technical transitions. It then discusses the main manifestations of the energy transformation, broadly understood as encompassing the technological transition and its wider socio-economic and geopolitical implications. Finally, it analyses the interactions between the process of energy transformation and the international law of energy, drawing upon the more detailed analysis of the rules, processes and institutions conducted in previous chapters.

Chapter 6 examines how tribunals determine the proper respondent in the trade and investment regimes. It focuses on WTO law and the ECT regime because their mixed form provides a relevant context in which to explore responsibility of the EU and its Member States for joint obligations. In light of an extensive case-law analysis, this study extrapolates patterns in the tribunals’ reasoning. It is argued that WTO dispute-settlement employs what this study refers to as a “the positive solution test” to identify the proper respondent. Arbitral tribunals operating under the ECT, on the other hand, allocate responsibility to the subject which is the proximate cause of harm.

Chapter 8 adds to Chapter 7 by examining the special WTO cases of multiple respondents. It argues that Member States act as co-respondents when their restorative actions are necessary for compliance purposes. That depends on the nature and scope of the claim which, in turn, defines the remedy.