INTRODUCTION

The intersection of international law and dispute resolution is a complex and dynamic field that reflects the evolving nature of global governance and legal frameworks. International law underpins the regulation of relations among states, international organizations, and non-state actors, offering a systematic framework for conflict resolution in the global context. This study seeks to analyze the jurisprudential framework of international law, emphasizing the impact of its sources, legal principles, and diverse schools of thought on procedures for dispute settlement.

International law has historically originated from multiple sources, including treaties, customary practices, general legal concepts, court rulings, and academic literature. Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delineates these sources, so establishing a fundamental framework for comprehending the creation and application of international law.[1] Treaties signify formal accords between states that can establish the parameters for collaboration or dispute settlement. Customary international law develops from consistent state practice coupled with a sense of legal duty (opinio juris), embodying the norms that regulate state conduct in the absence of formal agreements.

The legal ideas that form the foundation of international law are essential in directing dispute settlement procedures. Fundamental principles like sovereignty, non-intervention, pacta sunt servanda (the obligation to fulfill treaties), and good faith are crucial for upholding order and predictability in international relations. These principles not only guide dispute resolution but also influence state expectations of their rights and obligations under international law.[2] Additionally, distinct schools of thought in international law—namely natural law, positivism, legal realism, and critical legal studies—provide varied viewpoints on the interpretation and application of laws. Natural law prioritizes moral reasoning and justice in legal adjudication, whereas positivism centers on governmental consent and formal agreements as the foundation for legal responsibilities. Grasping these divergent perspectives is crucial for understanding their impact on dispute resolution techniques across various situations.

This research seeks to enhance comprehension of the jurisprudential framework that regulates international law and its ramifications for dispute settlement. This study aims to provide recommendations for improving the efficacy and equity of dispute resolution processes in a dynamic global context by examining the impact of sources, legal principles, and schools of thought on international legal practices.

[1]International Court of Justice (ICJ). (1945). Statute of the International Court of Justice.<<https://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute>> accessed on 3 January, 2024.

[2]Kelsen, H. (1967). Principles of International Law. New York: Holt.