IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/sfb597/153.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choosing a forum for peaceful dispute settlement

Author

Listed:
  • Mondré, Aletta

Abstract

States engage in forum shopping when choosing a method for peaceful dispute settlement. As rational actors they weigh their options selecting either bilateral negotiations, a political third party or judicial means. The overarching concern of a government in combination with a forum's characteristics accounts for the specific choice in a given dispute. This paper develops an analytical framework identifying three distinct rationales guiding forum choice (1) achieving a favorable decision, (2) domestic leeway, and (3) gaining international visibility. This framework is applied to the Caribbean Sea boundary dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras. The case study clearly support the most central assumption of forum shopping that disputants choose the forum which they expect to award them a favorable decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Mondré, Aletta, 2011. "Choosing a forum for peaceful dispute settlement," TranState Working Papers 153, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb597:153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/50541/1/668911042.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oliver Richmond, 1998. "Devious Objectives and the Disputants' View of International Mediation: A Theoretical Framework," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 35(6), pages 707-722, November.
    2. Sebenius, James K., 1983. "Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 281-316, April.
    3. Richard Jackson, 2000. "Successful Negotiation in International Violent Conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 37(3), pages 323-343, May.
    4. Jacob Bercovitch & Gerald Schneider, 2000. "Who Mediates? the Political Economy of International Conflict Management," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 37(2), pages 145-165, March.
    5. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 427-460, July.
    6. de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno & Siverson, Randolph M., 1995. "War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(4), pages 841-855, December.
    7. Smith, Alastair, 1998. "International Crises and Domestic Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(3), pages 623-638, September.
    8. James P. Klein & Gary Goertz & Paul F. Diehl, 2006. "The New Rivalry Dataset: Procedures and Patterns," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 43(3), pages 331-348, May.
    9. Helge Hveem, 1970. "'BLAME' AS INTERNATIONAL BEHAVIOR A contribution to inter-state interaction theory," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 7(1), pages 49-67, March.
    10. Marieke Kleiboer, 1996. "Understanding Success and Failure of International Mediation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(2), pages 360-389, June.
    11. Guzman, Andrew T, 2002. "The Cost of Credibility: Explaining Resistance to Interstate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 303-326, June.
    12. Allee, Todd L. & Huth, Paul K., 2006. "Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 219-234, May.
    13. K.J. Holsti, 1966. "Resolving international conflicts: a taxonomy of behavior and some figures on procedures," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 10(3), pages 272-296, September.
    14. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    15. Krista E. Wiegand & Emilia Justyna Powell, 2011. "Past Experience, Quest for the Best Forum, and Peaceful Attempts to Resolve Territorial Disputes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 55(1), pages 33-59, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alastair Smith, 2009. "Political Groups, Leader Change, and the Pattern of International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(6), pages 853-877, December.
    2. Fiona McGillivray & Alastair Smith, 2005. "The Impact of Leadership Turnover and Domestic Institutions on International Cooperation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 49(5), pages 639-660, October.
    3. Kristopher W. Ramsay, 2004. "Politics at the Water’s Edge," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(4), pages 459-486, August.
    4. Nakao, Keisuke, 2022. "Democratic Victory and War Duration: Why Are Democracies Less Likely to Win Long Wars?," MPRA Paper 112849, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Xinyuan Dai, 2006. "The Conditional Nature of Democratic Compliance," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(5), pages 690-713, October.
    6. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    7. Christopher K. Butler, 2004. "Modeling Compromise at the International Table," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 21(3), pages 159-177, July.
    8. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.
    9. H.E. Goemans, 2008. "Which Way Out?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(6), pages 771-794, December.
    10. Susanne Lohmann, 1997. "Linkage Politics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(1), pages 38-67, February.
    11. William D. Baker & John R. Oneal, 2001. "Patriotism or Opinion Leadership?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(5), pages 661-687, October.
    12. Giacomo Chiozza, 2017. "Presidents on the cycle: Elections, audience costs, and coercive diplomacy," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(1), pages 3-26, January.
    13. Shawn L. Ramirez, 2018. "Mediation in the shadow of an audience: How third parties use secrecy and agenda-setting to broker settlements," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 30(1), pages 119-146, January.
    14. Kenneth A. Schultz, 2001. "Looking for Audience Costs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(1), pages 32-60, February.
    15. Matthew A. Baum, 2004. "Going Private," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(5), pages 603-631, October.
    16. Hartmut Lenz & Han Dorussen & Hugh Ward, 2007. "Public commitment strategies in intergovernmental negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 131-152, June.
    17. Olga Chyzh, 2014. "Can you trust a dictator: A strategic model of authoritarian regimes’ signing and compliance with international treaties," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(1), pages 3-27, February.
    18. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    19. Magnus Lundgren, 2017. "Which type of international organizations can settle civil wars?," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 613-641, December.
    20. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:sfb597:153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zesbrde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.