Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:18:25.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Good offices: grasping the place of law in conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Aoife O'Donoghue
Aoife O'Donoghue*
Affiliation:
Durham Law School
*
Aoife O'Donoghue, Lecturer, Durham Law School, Palatine Centre, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK. Email: aoife.o'[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the pantheon of approaches open to participants in the pacific settlement of disputes, good offices holds a noteworthy place. The evolution of good offices over the past century is concurrent with a trend of considerable transformation within international law, including – amongst other changes – a move away from a state-led legal order, including in good offices following the emergence of the heads of international organisations as its prime users, and a process of legalisation and specialisation within the subject that has entirely altered its character. These changes have led to a redefinition of good offices that stresses the actor carrying out the role above the form that it takes. To accompany these changes in practice, there is a need for a transformation in the legal analysis and definition of good offices. One potential option in achieving this end is Bell's lex pacificatoria. If good offices is to continue to play a significant role in the settlement of violent conflicts, a fully developed legal analysis is necessary to grasp both its historical development and its potential future role.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 469 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank CRG Murray, Matt Saul and the reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this piece. All errors are my own.

References

1. See variously: Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (adopted 1899); Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (adopted 1907), Basic Documents, Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague; and The American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (adopted 30 April 1948) 30 UNTS 55.

2. Gordenker, L The UN Secretary General and the Maintenance of Peace (New York: Colombia University Press, 1967) p 144 Google Scholar; Franck, Tm ‘The Secretary General's role in conflict resolution: past, present and pure conjecture’ (1995) 6 Eur J Int'l L 360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brehio, A ‘Good offices of the Secretary General as preventative measures’ (1998) 30 NYU J Int'l L & Pol 589 Google Scholar; Ramcharan, Bg ‘The good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General in the field of human rights’ (1982) 76 Am J Int'l L 130 Google Scholar; Simmonds, Kr ‘Good offices and the Secretary General’ (1959) 29 Nordisk Tidsskrift Int'l Ret 330 Google Scholar; Fischer T ‘ Switzerland's good offices: a changing concept 1945–2002 ’ (No 37, Centre for International Studies, 2002); Report of the Secretary General ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’ (2005) UN Doc. A/59/2005; Dixon, Wj ‘Third-party techniques for preventing conflict escalation and promoting pacific settlement’ (1996) 50 Int'l Org 653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vicuna, Fo ‘New dispute settlement procedures’ (1999) 31 Stud Transnat'l Legal Pol'y 59 Google Scholar; Probst, R ‘Good Offices’ in the Light of Swiss International Practice and Experience (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989)Google Scholar; Ramcharan, Bg Humanitarian Good Offices in International Law (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1983)Google Scholar; Johnstone, I ‘Role of the Un Secretary-General: the power of persuasion based on law’ (2003) 9 Global Governance 441 Google Scholar.

3. Bell, C On the Law of Peace: Peace Agreements and the Lex Pacificatoria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. See eg Stahn, C and Kleffner, Jk Jus post bellum: Towards a Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace (The Hague: TMC Asser, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stahn, C ‘Jus ad bellum’, ‘jus in bello’… ‘jus post bellum’? – rethinking the conception of the law of armed force’ (2006)17 Eur J Int'l L 921 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orend, B ‘ Jus post bellum: the perspective of a just-war theorist’ (2007) 20 Leiden J Int'l L 571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Österdahl, I and Zadel, E ‘What will jus post bellum mean? of new wine and old bottles’ (2009) 14 J Conflict & Sec L 175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. See, for example, its operation within the WTO, Arts 5 and 22 Understanding on the Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2, Agreement Establishing the WTO (1994) 33 ILM 1125; and Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer (adopted 22 March 1985) 1513 UNTS 293, Art 11.

6. Recognising that it is often not the Secretary-General, but a representative of the office who is often the actual UN official involved in good offices, this paper will nonetheless focus on the actions taken by the Secretary-General. See Simmonds, above 3; Franck, above 3; Brehio, above 3.

7. Statement of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. SG/SM/3525, as reported in The United Nations Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States, UN Doc. OLA/COD/2394, p 35.

8. For an excellent overview of international dispute settlement, see Merrills, Jg International Dispute Settlement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 5th edn, 2011), particularly with regard to good offices, pp 222–225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some pieces that specifically discuss good offices include: Gordenker, above 3, p 144; Franck, above 3, p 360; Brehio, above 3; Ramcharan, above 3; Simmonds, above 3; Fischer, above 3; ‘ In larger freedom ’, above 3; Dixon, above 3; Vicuna, above 3; Probst, above 3; Ramcharan, Humanitarian, above 3; Johnstone, above 3.

9. Adams, R and Kingsbury, B (eds) United Nations, Divided World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn revised, 1996) p 133 Google Scholar.

10. Dixon, above 3.

11. Ibid, pp 653–654.

12. Vicuna, above 3, p 60.

13. Bernhardt Encyclopaedia of Public International Law Ii (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, 1999) p 601, though as Probst has pointed out, you could separate good offices into two categories – as he describes it, the strict legal one and the more generic one. This misses one vital element, however: both kinds are involved in legal settlement, supervision or resolution, and therefore classifying them as legal good offices and non-legal good offices does not result in any true understanding of their nature; nor does it take non-state actors in dispute settlement into account. Probst, above 3, pp 1–2.

14. Merrills, Jg International Dispute Settlement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 4th edn, 2005) p 217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. For details of the Commonwealth's involvement in good offices, see http://www.thecommonwealth.org/subhomepage/190691// (accessed 13 March 2013).

16. The Commonwealth has become increasingly active in good offices: The Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme on the Harare Declaration, 1995, Issued by Heads of Government, New Zealand, 12 November 1995; The Harare Commonwealth Declaration, 1991, Issued by Heads of Government in Harare, Zimbabwe. Both are available from the Commonwealth website at http://www.thecommonwealth.org. The Director-General of the WTO is also active in good offices, The good offices role is contained in the Dispute Settlement Understanding under Art 5: ‘Good offices, conciliation and mediation are procedures that are undertaken voluntarily if the parties to the dispute so agree.’ Article 5.6 sets out the particular role of the Director-General: ‘The Director-General may, acting in an ex officio capacity, offer good offices, conciliation or mediation with the view to assisting Members to settle a dispute.’ The Director-General may also offer his good offices to Least Developed Countries under Art 24.2 to prevent a dispute going before a Panel. These efforts largely occur before the actual proceedings of the dispute settlement procedure are under way. Under Art 22.6, as the procedure – which may include both a Panel and an Appeal Review – is under way, the Director-General can appoint an arbitrator if the parties to the dispute cannot agree on various deadlines.

17. See, for example, the description in Ramcharan, Humanitarian, above 3, pp 35–51; Ramcharan, above 3.

18. This is besides the activities, for example, of the WTO Director-General.

19. Higgins, R Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) p 172 Google Scholar.

20. Bell, above 4, p 166.

21. 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes; 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

22. Article 2 is identical in both conventions.

23. Article 3, 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

24. Ibid, Art 6.

25. The American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (adopted 30 April 1948) 30 UNTS 55 (Pact of Bagota, A-42); for an examination of the revision of the system, see Robertson, Ah ‘Revision of the Charter of the Organisation of American States’ (1968) 17 Int'l & Comp L Q 346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. American Treaty (ibid), Art IX.

27. These early interventions by the UN Secretary-General include: UNSC Res 2, The Iranian Question (30 January 1946); UNSC Res 31, The Indonesian Question (25 August 1947). A more recent example in the non-conflict good offices is the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer: it provides in its dispute settlement procedure negotiation as the primary form of settlement; this is followed by good offices or mediation by a third party. This has since been supplemented by subsequent Conventions.

28. Swiss neutrality was recognised after the Thirty Years War in the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648.

29. As a more recent example in Europe, Ireland has recently opened a good offices centre in its Department of Foreign Affairs, though neutral only on a policy basis. See O'Donoghue, A ‘Neutrality and multilateralism after the First World War’ (2010) 15 J Conflict & Sec L 202 Google Scholar; it is an indicator that state-based good offices is still alive and well. See http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/home/index.aspx?id=86904 (accessed 13 March 2013).

30. The 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. (This has subsequently been replaced by the 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.)

31. Vagts, Df ‘Switzerland, international law and World War Ii’ (1997) 91 Am J Int'l L 466 at 470CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. For a full account of Switzerland Protecting Power mandates, see Fischer, above 3.

33. Fischer, above 3, at 17.

34. Treaty of Portsmouth, The Conclusion of the Russo-Japanese War, signed at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 5 September 1905. See further Treat, Pj ‘The good offices of the United States during the Sino-Japanese War’ (1932) 47 Pol Sci Q 547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. Dennet, T ‘American good offices in Asia’ (1922) 16 Am J Int'l L 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. UNGA Res 43/51, Declaration on the Prevention and Removal of Disputes and Situations Which May Threaten International Peace and Security and on the Role of the United Nations in this Field (5 December 1988); UNGA Res 37/10, The Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States (15 November 1982).

37. Charter of the United Nations, UNCIO XV, 335. This has since been supplemented by the General Assembly Resolutions, inter alia: UNGA Res 37/10, The Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States (15 November 1982); UNGA Res 43/51, Declaration on the Prevention and Removal of Disputes and Situations Which May Threaten International Peace and Security and on the Role of the United Nations in this Field (5 December 1988); UNGA Res 50/50, United Nations Model Rules for the Conciliation of Disputes between States (11 December 1995); UNGA Res 57/26, Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes (3 February 2003). Johnstone argues that UNSC Res 1366 extends the power of Art 99 somewhat in that it enables the Secretary-General to bring to the attention of the Security Council cases of serious violations of international law. Johnstone, above 3, at 441–442.

38. The American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, Pact of Bagota.

39. The details of the Annan Plan can be seen at http://www.unficyp.org (accessed 13 March 2013).

40. Rainbow Warrior Dispute (1987) 26 ILM 1346.

41. Pugh, M ‘Legal aspects of the Rainbow Warrior affair’ (1987) 36 Int'l & Comp L Q 655 at 668CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. The Un Handbook, above 8, para 101.

43. Ibid, para 102.

44. Under Art 6 of the Covenant of The League of Nations, the Secretary-General held a role limited to that of a purely administrative officer: although some commentators saw the role as ‘considerable’, it was suggested that any future organisations should have a figurehead, ‘chosen rather from statesmen than civil servants’. Kunz, Jl ‘The legal position of the Secretary General of the United Nations’ (1946) 40 Am J Int'l L 786, 788CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45. The Commonwealth is itself a singular entity: see Dale, W ‘Is the Commonwealth an international organisation?’ (1982) 31 Int'l & Comp L Q 451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46. ‘ Ongoing good offices engagements’, available at the Commonwealth website, http://www.thecommonwealth.org (accessed 13 March 2013).

47. According to the Commonwealth website, with good offices the organisation aims to strengthen ‘a country's ability to govern democratically, respecting human rights and the rule of law’. See http://www.thecommonwealth.org (accessed 13 March 2013).

48. Commonwealth Secretary-General Rt. Hon Don McKinnon ‘The Commonwealth and the healing touch’, speech delivered at the India International Centre, New Delhi, 17 February 2003, available from the Commonwealth website at http://www.thecommonwealth.org (accessed 13 March 2013).

49. Singapore Declaration on Commonwealth Declaration 1971, available from the Commonwealth website, http://www.thecommonwealth.org/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=141097 (accessed 13 March 2013).

50. The Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme on the Harare Declaration, 1995, Issued by Heads of Government, New Zealand, 12 November 1995; The Harare Commonwealth Declaration, 1991, Issued by Heads of Government in Harare, Zimbabwe; both available from the Commonwealth website, http://www.thecommonwealth.org/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=141096 (accessed 13 March 2013).

51. The Coolum Declaration ‘The Commonwealth in the 21st century: continuity and renewal 2002’, available from the Commonwealth website, http://www.thecommonwealth.org (accessed 13 March 2013).

52. Commonwealth Secretariat ‘Good offices for peace’, available from the Commonwealth website, http://www.thecommonwealth.org/subhomepage/190691// (accessed 13 March 2013).

53. The Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme, 1995 and The Harare Commonwealth Declaration, 1991.

54. The Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme, 1995 and The Harare Commonwealth Declaration, 1991.

55. ‘ Main priorities and initiatives for good offices ’, available from the Commonwealth website, http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/190691/190832/main_priorities_and_initiatives/ (accessed 13 March 2013).

56. ‘ The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group ’, available from the Commonwealth website, http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/190691/190842/the_commonwealth_ministerial_action_group_s__cmag/ (accessed 13 March 2013).

57. For further details on the work of the current work of the Commonwealth, see Report of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, 2009, at 9–12, available from the Commonwealth website, http://www.thecommonwealth.org/files/215869/FileName/SGsReport2009single.pdf (accessed 13 March 2013).

58. While the dispute settlement procedure of the WTO does not deal with violent conflict, it will be very briefly discussed. Merrills states that the GATT system has always contained good offices, conciliation or mediation in some form: Merrills, above 9, p 217. The WTO dispute settlement system has shied away from making use of its good offices. The success of the Panel and Appellate Body procedures, together with the non-expansive manner of the Director-General's action, has meant that the good offices role has rarely ever been utilised. Indeed, in 2001 the Director-General issued a Communication calling members attention to the possibility of making use of his good offices and encouraging members to do so. ‘Article 5 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding’, Communication from the Director-General WT/DSB/25, 17 July 2001. Good offices was invoked between Columbia and the EC: DS 361 – EC – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas; between Panama and the EC: DS27 – Banana import regime and ACP–EC Partnership Agreement and Ecuador and the EC: DS 27 – EC – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas. The Handbook on WTO Dispute Settlement states that good offices normally consists of providing logistical support to help produce a ‘productive atmosphere’, whereas conciliation involves direct participation in negotiations discussion. Mediation consists of conciliation plus actual proposals for a solution. A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System: A WTO Secretariat Publication (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) p 94.

59. Report of the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations, Ch VII The Secretariat, para 16, available in Gordenker, above 3.

60. Chapter XV of the Charter sets out the functions of the Secretariat and the Secretary-General; this, accompanied by Chs VI, VII and XIV, set out the dispute settlement procedures available to the UN. While there is no specific mention of good offices anywhere in the Charter, subsequent practice, including resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly, has made it an integral part of the UN's dispute settlement measures.

61. Annan Kofi ‘ Dag Hammarskjöld and the 21st century’, speech delivered on 6 September 2001 in Uppsala, Sweden (2001) UN Chronicle No. 46.

62. Johnstone, above 3, at 443.

63. ‘In larger freedom’, above 3.

64. Subsequent ratification by the Security Council of an initiative of the Secretary-General would become even frequent.

65. UNSC Res 2, The Iranian Question (30 January 1946): this followed Soviet and British occupation of northern Iran during the Second World War. The USSR eventually withdrew, in May 1946. In the same year, a dispute regarding the northern Greek frontier with Yugoslavia caused the Security Council to create a Commission, which included the Secretary-General, to resolve the dispute, although again Trygve Lie had already become involved of his own volition. SC Res 15, The Greek Question (19 December 1946).

66. Gordenker, above 3, p 144.

67. Franck, above 3, pp 360, 384.

68. Reports of the Secretary-General to the Security Council dating from 1994 are available at the UN website, at http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/sgreports/2012.shtml (accessed 13 March 2013).

69. UNSC Res 118, Complaint by France and the United Kingdom against Egypt (13 October 1956); UNSC Res 119, Complaint by Egypt against France and the United Kingdom (31 October 1956).

70. Gordenker, above 3, p 157.

71. Ibid, p 157.

72. Luard, E A History of the United Nations, Volume 2, The Age of Decolonisation 1955–1965 (London: Macmillan Press, 1989) p 220 Google Scholar.

73. UNSC Res 143, The Congo Question (17 July 1960).

74. Jacobson, Hk Networks of Independence: International Organisations and the Global Political System (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984) p 137 Google Scholar.

75. Idem.

76. Podium: ‘Impartiality does not mean neutrality. From a speech by the Secretary General of the United Nations to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York’ The Independent, London 22 January 1999.

77. UNSC Res 186, The Cyprus Question (4 March 1964).

78. These Security Council requests have continued since: see eg SC Res 1517, The Situation in Cyprus (24 November 2003).

79. The Elders have also become involved in good offices in Cyprus; see http://www.theelders.org/cyprus (accessed 13 March 2013).

80. UNSG Report, Cyprus, SG S/12523 (30 April 1977).

81. Waldheim, K The Challenge of Peace (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980) p 73 Google Scholar.

82. UN Doc. S/24472 (21 August 1992).

83. UNSC Res 889, Cyprus (15 December 1993).

84. Annan Plan, above 40.

85. UNSG Report ‘Mission of good offices in Cyprus’, S/2004/437 (28 May 2004), 1.

86. Ibid, at 1–2.

87. Annan Plan, above 40.

88. Reported in The Washington Times 14 June 2004: ‘In a seven-page response to a highly critical report on the Greek-Cypriot attitude by Mr. Annan, Mr. Papadopoulos described proposals for better relations with the Turkish-Cypriot state as “outside the secretary-general's good offices mission” and in “direct contravention of the Security Council resolution and international law.” He termed Mr. Annan's conclusions “insulting,” “offensive” and “flawed” and said the United Nations was setting itself up as “judge and jury”.’ Although both sides agreed to let the Secretary-General put forward a settlement, this seems more like political posturing given international criticism. For a more critical discussion of the Secretary-General in Cyprus, see Palley, C An International Relations Debacle: The UN Secretary General's Mission of Good Offices in Cyprus 1999–2004 (Oxford: Hart, 2005)Google Scholar.

89. See UNSC Res 1898, Cyprus (14 December 2009); UNSG Report ‘The Secretary-General on his mission of good offices in Cyprus’, S/2009/610 (30 November 2009). See http://www.uncyprustalks.org/ (accessed 13 March 2013); ‘Secretary-General welcomes resumption of Cyprus talks’, SG/SM/12917 (20 May 2010).

90. For example, General Assembly Resolutions, inter alia: UNGA Res 37/10, The Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes between States (15 November 1982); UNGA Res 43/51, Declaration on the Prevention and Removal of Disputes and Situations Which May Threaten International Peace and Security and on the Role of the United Nations in this Field (5 December 1988); UNGA Res 50/50, United Nations Model Rules for the Conciliation of Disputes between States (11 December 1995); UNGA Res 57/26, Prevention and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes (3 February 2003). An early example of the General Assembly's commitment was the establishment in 1950 of a Permanent Commission for Good Offices. UNGA Res 379 (V), Establishment of a Permanent Commission of Good Offices (17 November 1950).

91. UNGA Res 906/(IX), Complaint of Detention and Imprisonment of United Nations Military Personnel in violation of the Korean Armistice Agreement (10 December 1954).

92. Gordenker, above 3, p 157. This was repeated in Cambodia, UNGA Res 34/22, The Situation in Kampuchea (14 November 1979); UNGA Res 44/22, The Situation in Kampuchea (16 November 1989); UNSG Report A/41/707 (14 October 1986).

93. UNGA Res 35/37, The Situation in Afghanistan and its Implications for International Peace and Security (20 November 1980).

94. UNGA Res ES-6/2 (14 January 1980).

95. UN Press Release SG/SM/4124 (20 April 1980).

96. Rivlin, B and Gordenker, L (eds) The Challenging Role of the UN Secretary General Making: The Most Impossible Job in the World Possible (London: Praeger, 1993) p 155 Google Scholar.

97. UN Press Release SG/SM/4727/REV (10 April 1992).

98. Consisting of Columbia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela.

99. Rivlin and Gordenker, above 97, pp 177–178.

100. Ibid, p 181.

101. Rainbow Warrior Dispute (1987) 26 ILM 1346 Google Scholar.

102. Adams and Kingsbury, above 10, p 148.

103. See further, on the role of Ch VII, Tzanakopoulos, A Disobeying the Security Council: Countermeasures against Wrongful Sanctions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104. Dixon, above 3, p 653; Franck, T Fairness in International Law and Institutions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) p 180 Google Scholar.

105. UNSC Res 669, Iraq–Kuwait (24 September 1990), ‘Welcoming the Secretary General's use of his Good Offices to advance a peaceful solution based on the relevant resolutions of the Council…’

106. UNSG ‘Report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict in Myanmar’, S/2009/278 (9 June 2009). The UN Department of Political Affairs advises that it is currently giving good offices support to UN envoys or special advisers for Cyprus, Western Sahara, Myanmar and the FYROM–Greece name dispute. See http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/about/field_operations (accessed 13 March 2013).

107. ‘Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization 2011’, A/66/1, at 4, available from the UN website at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/1 (accessed 13 March 2013); ‘Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization 2009’, A/64/1, para 44, available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/64/1%28SUPP%29 (accessed 13 March 2013).

108. Adams and Kingsbury, above 10, p 142.

109. A further example of this is Annan's role during the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000, UN Docs S/2000/460 (22 May 2000) and S/2000/590 (16 June 2000).

110. Bell, above 4, p 5. Bell has also written on this idea in Bell, C ‘Peace agreements: their nature and legal status’ (2006) 100 Am J Int'l L 373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bell, C ‘Transitional justice, interdisciplinarity and the state of the “field” or “non-field”’ (2009) 3 Int'l J Trans Justice 27 Google Scholar.

111. Lesaffer discusses Gentilli's development of jus ad pacem, although Bell's lex is not restricted to the post-conflict scenario. R Lesaffer ‘Book review, Bell, C, On the Law of Peace Agreements and Lex Pacificatoria’ (2011) 24 Leiden J Int'l L 519 at 519–520Google Scholar.

112. Bell Peace Agreements, above 111, at 373.

113. Bell Peace Agreements, above 111, at 373–374.

114. The scope of the lex is very broadened by the discussion of the place of the Westphalian account of international law's development and an in the analysis of indigenous peoples in settlements.

115. Bell, above 4, chs 2–4. As an example of the more traditional historical accounts, see Cassese, A International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 2005) ch 2Google Scholar; Malanczuk, P Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law (Oxford: Routledge, 7th edn, 1997) ch 2Google Scholar; or Koskenniemi, M ‘Future of statehood, the symposium: after the Cold War: international law in transition’ (1991) 32 Houston J Int'l Law 397 Google Scholar.

116. Bell, above 4, p 101.

117. See eg Raustiala, K ‘Rethinking the sovereignty debate’ (2003) 6 J Int'l Econ L 841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118. Neither low-level civil disturbances nor border incidences fall within this classification. Questions such as the identification of the protagonists are not settled, although these may also be related to other elements requiring opaqueness in some incidences of peace-building. Bell, above 4, p 53. Bell examines a number of definitions that have already emerged and underscores some of the issues with these.

119. Bell, above 4, p 22.

120. Ibid, p 161.

121. See eg Slaughter A and Burke-White W ‘ The future of international law is domestic ’ Fischer-Lescano A ‘Redefining sovereignty via international constitutional moments?’ Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract.873905 (accessed 31 July 2013); Caparoso, Ja ‘The European Union and forms of state: Westphalian, regulatory or post-modern’ (1996) 34 Common Market L Rev 29 Google Scholar; Cutler, Ac ‘Critical reflections on the Westphalian assumptions of international law and organization: a crisis of legitimacy’ (2001), 27 Rev Int'l Stud 133 Google Scholar; Raustiala, K ‘The architecture of international cooperation: transgovernmental networks and the future of international law’ (2002) 43 Va J Int'l L 1 Google Scholar.

122. Bell, above 4, p 43.

123. Ibid, p 175.

124. Bell, above 4, ch 10. See eg Loughlin, M and Walker, N (eds) The Paradox of Constitutionalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klabbers, J, Peters, A and Ulfstein, G The Constitutionalisation of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunoff, Jl and Trachtman, Jp (eds) Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law and Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125. Bell, above 4, ch 13.

126. See Anghie, A Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127. Wall I ‘On the threshold of law: a review of “On the Law of Peace” by Christine Bell ’ forthcoming, Irish Yearbook Int'l L, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1692822 (accessed 31 July 2013).

128. Bell, above 4, p 285.

129. Ibid, p 101.

130. See also Habermas, J The Divided West (C Cronin tr, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006) pp 115–116 Google Scholar.

131. Annan Plan, above 40.

132. For details of the Commonwealth's involvement in good offices, see http://www.thecommonwealth.org/subhomepage/190691/ (accessed 13 March 2013); and the UN Department of Political Affairs, see http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/about/field_operations (accessed 13 March 2013).

133. Bell, above 4, ch 10.

134. UNGA Res 35/37, The Situation in Afghanistan and its Implications for International Peace and Security (November 20 1980); Rivlin and Gordenker, above 97, p 155; Franck, above 3, p 360.

135. Adams and Kingsbury, above 10, p 133.

136. Abbott, Kw etal ‘The concept of legalization’ (2000) 54 Int'l Org 401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finnemore, Mj and Toope, S ‘Alternatives to “legalization”: richer views of law and politics’ (2001) 55 Int'l Org 743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

137. Bell, above 4, p 13.

138. Ibid.

139. Gordenker, above 3, p 157.

140. Wall, above 128.

141. UN Secretary-General Pérez de Cuéllar in Adams and Kingsbury, above 10, p 133.