The Effectiveness of International Arbitration and Adjudication: Getting Into a Bind

Scholars and policymakers argue that the bias of a third party affects its ability to resolve conflicts. In an investigation of international territorial claims, however, we find that the conflict management technique is much more important for ending disputes than a third party’s level of bias. Binding third-party mechanisms (arbitration and adjudication) more effectively end territorial claims than other conflict management techniques because they provide legality, increased reputation costs, and domestic political cover. The characteristics of the third party, on the other hand, have no effect on the success of a settlement attempt. Bias plays only an indirect role in conflict resolution, as territorial rivals generally turn to unbiased intermediaries to broker binding negotiations. We conclude that impartial third-party conflict management does not directly lead to successful negotiations. Rather, disputants favor unbiased third parties to broker the types of talks most likely to end international disputes. Likemost countries in Latin America, Colombia,and Venezuela have historically disputed thedemarcation of their shared border.1 Colombia and Venezuela’s dispute emerged when Venezuela seceded from Gran Colombia in 1830. During the 1800s, the two countries attempted numerous times to settle their claim through bilateral negotiations.2 Two separate treaties were reached in the 1890s bu