Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational

Aprajita Verma

Abstract

We distinguish between interstate and transnational third-party conflict resolution as the two best forms. States tightly regulate the choice of, access to, and adherence to international courts and tribunals in interstate conflict resolution. In contrast, people and non-governmental organizations have a lot of control on the selection, access, and implementation of transnational dispute resolution. With the use of this difference, it is possible to better understand the politics of international legalization, including how cases are brought forward, how often national governments are contested in court, how strictly decisions are followed, and how norms over time develop within legalized international regimes. Transnational conflict resolution is more likely to produce a high number of cases than interstate dispute resolution because it lowers the transaction costs of starting the process and creates new constituencies. The sorts of claims presented under transnational dispute resolution more easily result in international courts contesting state acts. Particularly when independent domestic institutions, like the court, arbitrate between people and the international institutions, transnational dispute resolution has a tendency to be linked with increased compliance with international legal judgements. In general, international legalization has better chances of long-term strengthening and expansion thanks to transnational dispute resolution.