Rights-based processes used by Qatar in response to the siege

Abstract

In Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict, Ury, Brett and Goldberg proposed three categories - power-based, rights-based, and interestbased - for analyzing interventions and processes used by parties in conflict. Chapter 2 provided context for using this dispute resolution theory to analyze the siege against Qatar. Chapter 3 analyzed the power-based interventions used by the blockading countries. While states resolve most inter-state disputes through negotiation and diplomacy, the blockading countries have consistently refused to negotiate with Qatar, either directly or through third-party intermediaries. Accordingly, Qatar has pursued a number of rightsbased processes to balance power; resolve some of the consequences of the siege; assert its rights under international law, treaties, and agreements; gain legitimacy in the international community; protect its citizens; bolster its Qatar-based businesses; and perhaps establish guidelines before international adjudicative forums that may influence later decisions of these forums in similar cases. Qatar has pursued legal claims based on airspace, marine, human, and trade rights. Rights-based processes require time to prepare pleadings or complaints, assemble and present relevant information, schedule and give arguments to the adjudicative neutral, and otherwise provide materials supporting a decision on the matter. Thus, many of the pending complaints filed by Qatar are still in various stages of the right-based processes, but they eventually could set important guidelines that adjudicative bodies may consider in resolving future disputes involving similar facts.