Jose Nino A.

Bacordo

January 12, 2013

EH-410
ADR article

Beyond Adjudication: Resolving International Resources Disputes in an Era of Climate

Change
Anna Spain

Climate change has been a hot topic among scientists and even among states. Such change in the
climate depletes or alters the natural resources. There is a nexus between climate change and scarcity of
water, food, and other natural resources essential for human survival. Every state has its own resources
which may be abundant or less on certain aspects. Others might have less or none at all. Such inequality
of resources could lead to disputes between states. International disputes are threats to global peace and
security. One concern of the author is that as these resources become scarcer, the frequency and severity
of international disputes will increase. International disputes would not only affect the conflicting states
but also other states on certain extent. Thus, developing more effective means for resolving international
resource disputes is of critical importance.
The author argues that the emphasis on adjudication as a mechanism for resolving international
disputes prompted by scarcity of resources is misplaced. One problem is the challenge of finding
appropriate and well-defined sources of international law upon which to base judicial decisions. For
instance, the Scarborough Shoal dispute between China and Philippines may be settled through the
ITLOS for both are state parties to the UNCLOS. Fishing rights are covered under that convention which
is also one of the issues involved. However, China is also claiming that the shoal is there territory another
thing and may be covered by another convention. The author emphasizes that adjudication is limited by
process deficiencies and its reliance on underdeveloped sources of international law. Thus on certain
cases, adjudication have been an ineffective means of settling international disputes involving resources.
In the scenario above, the reluctance of China to settle the conflict through adjudication limits the
effectiveness of adjudication. Another instance is the noncompliance of states on the judicial decisions by
the tribunals that would lead to the recurrence of the conflict.
The author suggests the need to go beyond the adjudication paradigm in order to resolve disputes
without the risk of recurring. She suggests that effective dispute can be enhanced trough the use of an
enhanced and integrated IDR method. Employing adjudication with mediation, facilitation or arbitration

would result into speedy settling of conflicts with assurance of non-recurrence. Integrating different IDR
methods in such way has proven effective on the case-studies she presented in the article.
The interconnectivity of international armed conflicts and resource disputes is evident in the cases
cited by the author. In Cameroon-Nigeria Incident, the conflict involves a border dispute over a peninsula
that also involved fishing rights and claims to offshore oil fields. In the said case, the combination by the
ICJ, the facilitation by the commission, and political support of the UN were all components of a
successful process that led to resolution of the resource dispute and armed conflict.
There is truth to the authors contention. Adjudication as means of solving international disputes
involving natural resources may be ineffective. Focusing solely on adjudication as means of settling
resource disputes would leave more possibility of dispute recurrence. Combination of adjudication and
other IDR methods would be more effective rather than relying mainly on adjudication. As the climate
worsens, disputes will surely arise.