 For many centuries, war was not the only but the ultimate way to settle international disputes. As Klosowicz famously wrote, I quote, war is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means, end of quote. And through its modus operandi, which is material destruction and death, the purpose of war is to compel the enemy to fulfill the will of the victorious power. And because states were for a long time free under international law to resort to the use of force, they were entitled to obtain through war the settlement of any dispute in the form of a valid peace treaty. A peace treaty containing the terms of the settlement of the dispute that was the reason for the war, together with the terms of the settlement of the new situation resulting from the war. And the treaty was of course imposed as a result of the war through coercion and violence. But it was nevertheless perfectly valid and binding on the defeated state because such coercion was not illegal. The defeated and coerced state could not claim that its consent to the peace treaty was defective, as the means for such duress, that is war, was not illegal. And as we have seen when discussing Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and that was during Week 4, and as we shall see next week, things have dramatically changed with and since the outlawing of war. Because as a matter of principle, and absent specific circumstances that we shall study, states may not anymore resort to the use of force, they must settle their disputes by peaceful means. The prohibition to use force and the obligation to settle disputes peacefully are the two sides of the same coin. The obligation not to settle disputes, but to settle them by resorting only to peaceful means, that obligation is well established under international law. It is one of the founding principles of the United Nations. Under Article 2, paragraph 3 of the UN Charter, I quote, all members shall, not should, but shall, all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that in international peace and security and justice are not endangered, end of quote. Under Article 33, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter, I quote again, the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice, end of quote. Those provisions have been repeated and expanded by the 1970 General Assembly's declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relations that you know already. And that declaration, the ICJ declared that it reflected customer international law. And I quote from the declaration, every state shall settle its international disputes with other states by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered. States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiations, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice, end of quote. In the Nicaragua versus the United States case, the International Court of Justice stated that, I quote, the principle that the parties to any dispute, particularly any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, should seek a solution by peaceful means, is a principle that has the status of customary law, end of quote. As you can see from Article 33 and from the 1970 declaration, states are free to resort to any means of settlement, to means of their own choice provided, however, that those means are peaceful. At most, states could, for instance, toss a coin, draw the short straw, or throw the dice to settle their disputes, and that would certainly not be illegal under international law because those are peaceful means, but it is of course very unlikely to happen for many reasons that are very easy to imagine. The various means to settle international disputes are traditionally classified in two categories. There are political means and judicial means of settlement. The distinction does not relate to the nature of the dispute, but to the nature of the process of settlement, and to the powers of the actors of such settlement. Besides, the idea that certain disputes could be of a purely political nature and therefore not suitable for settlement through judicial means, that idea must be rejected and has been rejected. It is true that an international dispute has very often a political dimension, but conversely, it rarely has no legal dimension, and as international law continues to develop, it will almost always be possible to phrase a political dispute in legal terms, or at least to identify within a larger political dispute some of its legal aspects. And this does not mean that judicial means of settlement are always advisable. No, certain disputes could not reasonably be thoroughly settled by a judge or by an arbitrator, and they best require a negotiated and mutually agreed compromise. But this does not mean neither that an international judge or an arbitrator should decline to exercise its jurisdiction because of the larger political dimension of the legal aspects of the dispute that is entitled to adjudicate about those legal aspects. There is a long string of cases in which international courts and tribunals have rejected the suggestion that they should declare the claim inadmissible because of its wider political nature or context. And notably, in the case relating to the American diplomatic and consular staff held hostage in Tehran, but also in the Nicaragua versus U.S. case, two cases that we have already come across, the ICJ very clearly made that point. The key differences between the political and the judicial means of settlement are two fold. First, the political means ultimately rest on the final consent of the state's concerns. Under the political means, a settlement is never imposed upon the disputing states. They must always ultimately consent to such outcome in order for it to be legally binding on them. In contrast, the judicial outcome is imposed on the parties by an independent third organ and it is binding on them. However, and this is fundamental, the very existence of any judicial means of settlement always depends on the consent of the disputing states to it. In other words, the decision of an international court or tribunal may be binding on the parties, but it is binding because the parties have expressly consented to submit the dispute to adjudication. Absent such consent, there is no power to adjudicate. And this will be made clear again when talking about arbitration and the ICJ. But to sum up quickly, consent of the disputing parties is key, both for political and judicial means of settlement. However, consent must exist at the very beginning in case of a judicial settlement while it must also exist at the end of the process in case of a political settlement. The second difference between political and judicial means is as follows. Judicial means are predicated on the application of pre-existing rules of international law. At least that is the fiction, rather than on the creation of new rules. In contrast, the political means may result in the conclusion of a treaty with new obligations or obligations which derogate from previous obligations. Judicial settlement is a process of adjudication by which after the parties have been given the chance to fully present their views, their arguments and the evidence, a third independent organ, takes a binding decision on the basis of existing rules of international law. In other words, the judge or the arbitrator is called to give reasons for its decision. Reasons that are based on rules binding on the parties at the time of the events that gave rise to the dispute. And those differences are essential and with them in mind, let us turn to the various political means of settlement. Those means are political, but they are nevertheless regulated to a certain extent by rules of international law and that's what we are going to see.