Diplomatic Methods for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes The Case of Conciliation

Conciliation Fora constituted ad hoc Permanent fora For example, OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration 1992 Stockholm Convention, Art. 20: “Any State party to this Convention may lodge an application with the Registrar requesting the constitution of a Conciliation Commission for a dispute between it and one or more other States parties. Two or more States parties may also jointly lodge an application with the Registrar.” Why are states so reluctant? What are the conditions for successful conciliation?

Jan Mayen Case (Iceland/Norway) Purpose of today’s lecture: Explore the practical operation of a diplomatic method, in this case conciliation Speculate over the conditions for succesful conciliation, generally Speculate over the relative merits of judicial and diplomatic methods

Jan Mayen

1980 Agreement Recognizes the right of Norway to excercise resources jurisdiction Establishes a delimitation line for EEZ’s Establishes an arrangement for management of fish stocks Provides for the settlement by conciliation of the issue concerning continental shelf delimitation

1980 Agreement, Art. 9 [T]he Parties agree to appoint at the earliest opportunity a Conciliation Commission composed of three members, of which each Party appoints one national member. The Chairman of the Commission shall be appointed by the Parties jointly. The Commission shall have as its mandate the submission of recommendations with regard to the dividing line for the shelf area between Iceland and Jan Mayen. In preparing such recommendations the Commission shall take into account Iceland’s strong economic interests in these sea areas, the existing geographical and geological factors and other special circumstances. These recommendations of the Commission are not binding on the Parties; but during their further negotiations the Parties will pay reasonable regard to them.

UNCLOS, Art. 121 “1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide. 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory. 3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

Work of the Commisson First formal meeting in October 1980 Requested scientists to submit report Six meetings Submitted report in May 1981

What the Commission proposed

Organisation of the task Which were the success factors of the case? (1) What prompted the parties to try settling the dispute in the first place? (2) In choosing between several possible methods of settlement, why did the parties prefer conciliation? (3) What prompted the parties to accept the proposal of the Conciliation Commission?

(1) Why this interest in settling the dispute in the first place? “The Keflavik card” Linking the question of a just division of continental shelf areas with issues of fishing The good relations of Iceland and Norway generally

(2) Why conciliation? The still nascent international law of maritime delimitation Laying the first piece of the jig-saw puzzle The non-precedential nature of the outcome The good relations of Iceland and Norway generally The nature of continental shelf delimitation

(3) What prompted the parties to accept the proposal of the Commission? No significant political interests involved The groundwork laid by the earlier agreement The great authority of the recommendations Norwegian concern for the consistency of its position in maritime delimitation disputes generally

Does the case study allow any general conclusions? What are the conditions for successful conciliation, generally?

Relative merits of judicial and diplomatic methods When should the one or the other kind of method be resorted to?